Proudneutralmormon

Trying to get oriented @ wikipedia

If anyone cares to know I have tried experimenting with a few other usernames: WMGCF and Joseph Smith, Jr. (b.1805), I also tried editing with just my IP address. I think I like proudneutralmormon so this will be my username from now on. I will not be using any others.

Welcome aboard!

We're always glad to see new people helping out here at Wikipedia. Remember to be both bold and civil, and you'll do just fine! ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 04:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks BFizz, I really enjoyed working with you and learning from you while working on the J.S. article this week. I will try to find a way to express my frustrations with other individuals using the most civil forms of writing available. Proudneutralmormon (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling out Conflict of Interest is NOT a personal attack!

I decided to join Wikipedia due to the dismal condition of the Joseph Smith Article. Here is my vision for that article: 1) 3 to 5 paragraphs. 2) Focus on facts 3) It doesn't need to cover every alleged good or bad thing that he did in his life. 4) It doesn't need to explain LDS doctrine. A true neutral, encyclopedia style article for the Joseph Smith page would say who he was, why people care about him today, a little bit about the major accomplishments and controversies of his life, and where to learn more.

As I began editing I have been criticized under this and my former user name for personal attacks against user John Foxe. I have now been through enough editing-debate cycles and read the wikipedia guidelines in this area to respond.

Per the Wikipedia guidelines, "Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack," [1]

The reason I behaved the way I did is that I was angry at John Foxe. I have offered a partial apology to user John Foxe on his talk page. However, I have figured out why I was angry, I was angry because I believe John Foxe is playing out his own conflict of interest, and I feel that his editing style on the Joseph Smith page is on the opposite side of neutral from mine.

So, I don't suppose everyone will agree with me - but because John Foxe is closely affiliated with Bob Jones University, which is in competition with the LDS Church/Brigham Young University - a conflict of interest can result. I believe the contributions history of John Foxe provides evidence of this conflict of interest. For example, when User John Foxe started on Wikipedia, the contrib history shows work on only the Bob Jones University pages. Reviewing John Foxe's more recent contribution history [2] has taken a nearly monolithic interest in LDS topics. Anybody who cares to investigate further is able to look at the comments and edits done by John Foxe and make their own opinion. I feel the evidence of John Foxe's editing history sufficiently illustrates a conflict of interest.

In fairness, I may have a conflict of interest as well for working on LDS articles. I am a BYU graduate, an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints, consider myself a follower of Joseph Smith, and am even descended from the Smith family. So here is my personal plan to temper my conflict of interest: 1) I am not going to edit the Bob Jones family and University wikipedia pages. 2) I will do my best to follow all wikipedia guidelines. 3) When explaining a conflict of interest that I see in others, I will be careful not to expand it into a personal attack. I pledge to keep it civil from now on. Proudneutralmormon (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Civility is always appreciated whether at Wikipedia or in real life. But you're making two unwarranted assumptions: that my edits of the Bob Jones University article were not neutral and that my edits of the Joseph Smith, Jr. article were not neutral. I've heavily edited at a number of biographies, including Garrett Mattingly, Henry Francis Lyte, Michael Bellesiles, Peter Ruckman, Sarah Orne Jewett, Carl McIntire, and Frank Sandford. Through all of these articles—some of very controversial people—runs a thread of rampaging neutrality.--John Foxe (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response, however I agree identifying a clear conflict of interest in an editor is certainly not a personal attack. It is worth noting that the FAIR organisation identified the following aspects in relation to "John Foxe":

• He is working on behalf of a certain christian tainted university which has a natural and deliberate opposition to the LDS church. FAIR identified that previously in one argument, he got another editor from the same university to intentionally back up his point (giving evidence he knows this person in real life.
• He is manipulating sources and wikipedia articles to his accquired point of view. Now FAIR does not doubt the sources he uses, however it has identified several deliberate faults in a) his interpretation of the source material and b) his presentation of the source material.
• He locks himself to any article which he works on, monitors every change carefully and then aggressively defends the articles like they are his own property from any kind of change and attempts to take the high ground on his opposition
• He has deliberately violated several wikipedia policies on neutrality and sourcing on his work.

It's going to be an uphill struggle to make a difference in regards to this, but letting him manipulate wikipedia isn't the answer. We do have the external resources (FAIR) and policies to puy a stop to this if we present ourselves in a comprehensive and civil (but nonetheless stern) manner. Routerone (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Routerone, well said. Proudneutralmormon (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

FAIR and Routerone can call me bad names, but that's about all they can do. It should be clear if you look at edits to the Joseph Smith, Jr. article since you arrived that I'm not in charge over there. That being true, then FAIR and Routerone are mistaken about my influence. As H. L. Mencken said there's "solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong."

I'd have no problem with your editing Bob Jones University articles if you have something to contribute. For one thing, I think you'd discover with what care and neutrality they have been written.

Finally, you'll find that "conflict of interest" at Wikipedia refers to folks who plug their own books, add or delete material from their own articles, that sort of thing.--John Foxe (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Foxe, I give you 100 points for responding directly to my charges. I am not going to debate the conflict of interest guidelines because I have read them in detail and I encourage anyone who happens to read this discussion to look them up for themselves. And, thanks for the invite but I have no personal interest in editing Bob Jones related pages and it would be tough for me to do so in a neutral way because Bob Jones University seems to have a somewhat antagonistic stance toward my religion. Proudneutralmormon (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Smith Jr. Article

Here is my opinion of what that article should be: 1) Max length of 3 to 5 paragraphs. 2) Focus on indisputable facts 3) It doesn't need to cover every alleged good or bad thing that he ever did in his life. 4) It doesn't need to explain LDS or any other doctrine. In my opinion, a truly neutral, encyclopedia style article for the Joseph Smith page would say who he was, why people care about him today, a little bit about the major accomplishments and controversies of his life, and provide quality sources for those who want to know more.

Examples

• Encyclopedia Britannica divided their Joseph Smith article into sections, in a style that tried to portray the point of view of at least one person who was there at the time. Overall, it still felt much shorter than the current Joseph Smith Wikipedia page.
• Encyclopedia.com managed to write a very balanced entry for Joseph Smith, but it could have been more readable if it were structured into a few paragraphs.
• LDS.org Official Bio: Obviously, this is a biased biographical sketch. However, the church has done a great job of summing up Joseph's life and accomplishments as believed by members of the LDS church in about 6 sentences.
• Infoplease.com/Columbia encyclopedia Seems to be a clone of encyclopedia.com

Response

With all due respect, I disagree with numbers 1 and 4. The goal for all articles is eventual featured article status. The featured article criteria and guidelines on article length allow for plenty more than 5 paragraphs. In order to provide a comprehensive view of Joseph Smith, Jr., we definitely need a lot more than 5 paragraphs, in my opinion. I do agree, however, that there is a lot of detail that could be summarized and left for Joseph Smith, Jr. sub-articles. As for including a section on his teachings/doctrine, I think it should be included for the same reason that the Gandhi article has a Gandhi's principles section, or Abraham Lincoln has a religious and philosophical beliefs section: his teachings are an important part of his life and legacy.

Lastly, don't forget that various people have put a lot of work into the article to get it to its present form—I'll bet more man-hours than went into all of those examples combined. The way I often approach editing is by looking at a particular section (or sections) and try to work out how to get the same idea across with fewer words, and what details to cut out without losing the main idea. Incremental changes are less scary and more likely to be accepted by the community. Good luck, and happy editing! ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 09:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)