| Revision as of 21:04, 4 December 2007 editSnocrates (talk | contribs)15,631 edits jordan smith← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:21, 10 December 2007 edit undoJsmith 51389 (talk | contribs)102 edits →Jordan Smith as vandalNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| "This is a sacred site for all Latter Day Saints." - A rewrite is in order, I think. I've been an active member of the (mainstream) LDS church for 25 years and I've never heard of it, let alone consider it sacred. I'd be willing to bet that most of my church associates don't consider it esepcially sacred, either. {{unsigned|151.207.242.4}} | "This is a sacred site for all Latter Day Saints." - A rewrite is in order, I think. I've been an active member of the (mainstream) LDS church for 25 years and I've never heard of it, let alone consider it sacred. I'd be willing to bet that most of my church associates don't consider it esepcially sacred, either. {{unsigned|151.207.242.4}} | ||
| ==Jordan Smith as |
==Jordan Smith as Civil Rights Activist== | ||
| The identity of the vandal of the 1990 burning of the church on the Temple Lot has been given as "Jordan Smith" by a number of sources, which I have added. There's been a history of attempts to quash inclusion of this name here and at ] in the past, which have led to edit blocks, and any further attempts to do so by reversions will be duly investigated. ] 21:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | The identity of the vandal of the 1990 burning of the church on the Temple Lot has been given as "Jordan Smith" by a number of sources, which I have added. There's been a history of attempts to quash inclusion of this name here and at ] in the past, which have led to edit blocks, and any further attempts to do so by reversions will be duly investigated. ] 21:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :I only just now saw the above entry here, and so pardon my not replying until now. It is an outrageous violation of several strict Misplaced Pages policies (I also changed the headline from the ] and derogatory term 'vandal' to the more accurate '] ].' As the person being assailed by Snocrates, I every right to object to his antagonism.) If you check the page history,* you will see that Snocrates has been informed that the incident of January 1990 was a political ], and a public ] well within the context of ] and the ]. In fact, Joseph Smith, Jr. was also incarcerated in Missouri prison on charges including ] and ], and only escaped being "convicted" of such by escaping the jail in April, 1839. Snocrates has excised the accurate information about the January 1990 protest, and insisted an branding the protester a mere "vandal" and "arsonist," which is analogous to branding any ] or ] activist (Such as ] or ] or ] or ] as mere "vandals" or--more typically--as mere "troublemakers." | |||
| :The following are a couple of hurried attempts to insert into the article more accurate and verifiable information about the church protest in 1990...this type of information deserved to be discussed and edited, not quickly deleted outright...and yet, in both cases, it was quickly deleted by the offending editors...apparently preferign to publish malicious "shoddy reporting" (]) rather than facts. | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Temple_Lot&diff=175659176&oldid=175584017 | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Church_of_Christ_%28Temple_Lot%29&diff=147712826&oldid=147701854 | |||
| :Snocrates also deleted a passage which was in careful compliance with ], and replaced it with several clearly ] and defamatory statements and ]. (see excerpt below). I changed his slanderous choice of headline for this section, and watch...he'll probably change it back, adding a snide comment to his edit summary...thinking that at the most he'll spark (and win) is an ], but instead, will more likely incur charges against himself for criminal defamation of a private individual. Cyberstalkers like Snocrates and TheJadeKnight need to mind their own business...they are not appointed my judge, jury, nor 'executioner,' and yet they seem to believe that is exactly what they are....they want to grossly mischaracterize something which happened 18 years ago, and which they know nothing about except for what they read in particularly inaccurate and libelous "day after" reports published. To this day, no media organization has interviewed the protester, nor researched to any meaningful extent what happened and why on January 1, 1990, and until that happens, ALL the media reports available are categorically "poorly sourced" or "poorly researched" and should be used with great caution, or not at all. How would you like it if you were involved in an incident which came to the public's attention via press reports, but then ALL the so-called "reporters" involved, only interviewed people who particularly despised or misunderstood you and the incident? And then how would you like it if those people made a series of false allegations about you, and then uncorroborated and unverified, those false allegations were published at the top of front pages? And then how would you like it if a steady stream of ill-informed Misplaced Pages editors kept inserted the false information in Misplaced Pages articles, while persistently blocking and deleting the FACTS? | |||
| http://wapedia.mobi/en/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons?t=4.3.#4.6. | |||
| "Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are | |||
| discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a | |||
| private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been | |||
| intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is | |||
| often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not | |||
| result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the | |||
| inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary | |||
| sources other than news media, such as | |||
| scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be | |||
| afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news | |||
| stories." | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons | |||
| "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to the law in Florida, United States and to our content policies: | |||
| We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." | |||
| ] (]) 22:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:21, 10 December 2007
 | Missouri Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | National Register of Historic Places Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Garden of Eden
- Joseph Smith, Jr., the leader and prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement had declared that the area of Independence, Missouri was near the site of the Garden of Eden.
"Garden of Eden" ? I never heard that before. Is there a source for this? --NERD42 EMAIL TALK H2G2 UNCYC NEWS 15:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- From the scriptures referencing "Adam-ondi-Ahman", no such conclusion can be drawn. What I have heard is that Adam-ondi-Ahman is where Adam dwelt after he was ejected from the Garden of Eden. We don't know how long Adam and Eve wandered before they decided to dwell (settle down) somewhere. Val42 05:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Second coming
"...including one temple that Jesus would visit during the events leading up to the Second Coming of Christ."
Is this statement an accurate depiction of LDS belief? It seems to me that, in order for Jesus to visit the temple, the Second Coming would have had to already have happened. How could He visit the temple without first coming again? Ecto 02:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Sacred site
"This is a sacred site for all Latter Day Saints." - A rewrite is in order, I think. I've been an active member of the (mainstream) LDS church for 25 years and I've never heard of it, let alone consider it sacred. I'd be willing to bet that most of my church associates don't consider it esepcially sacred, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.242.4 (talk • contribs)
Jordan Smith as Civil Rights Activist
The identity of the vandal of the 1990 burning of the church on the Temple Lot has been given as "Jordan Smith" by a number of sources, which I have added. There's been a history of attempts to quash inclusion of this name here and at Church of Christ (Temple Lot) in the past, which have led to edit blocks, and any further attempts to do so by reversions will be duly investigated. Snocrates 21:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I only just now saw the above entry here, and so pardon my not replying until now. It is an outrageous violation of several strict Misplaced Pages policies (I also changed the headline from the defamatory and derogatory term 'vandal' to the more accurate 'Civil Rights Activist.' As the person being assailed by Snocrates, I every right to object to his antagonism.) If you check the page history,* you will see that Snocrates has been informed that the incident of January 1990 was a political protest, and a public prophecy well within the context of Christianity and the Latter Day Saint movement. In fact, Joseph Smith, Jr. was also incarcerated in Missouri prison on charges including arson and burglary, and only escaped being "convicted" of such by escaping the jail in April, 1839. Snocrates has excised the accurate information about the January 1990 protest, and insisted an branding the protester a mere "vandal" and "arsonist," which is analogous to branding any Civil Rights or Human Rights activist (Such as Harriet Tubman or Martin Luther King, Jr. or Nelson Mandela or Joseph Smith, Jr. as mere "vandals" or--more typically--as mere "troublemakers."
- The following are a couple of hurried attempts to insert into the article more accurate and verifiable information about the church protest in 1990...this type of information deserved to be discussed and edited, not quickly deleted outright...and yet, in both cases, it was quickly deleted by the offending editors...apparently preferign to publish malicious "shoddy reporting" (libel) rather than facts.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Temple_Lot&diff=175659176&oldid=175584017
- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Church_of_Christ_%28Temple_Lot%29&diff=147712826&oldid=147701854
- Snocrates also deleted a passage which was in careful compliance with WP:BLP, and replaced it with several clearly libelous and defamatory statements and citations. (see excerpt below). I changed his slanderous choice of headline for this section, and watch...he'll probably change it back, adding a snide comment to his edit summary...thinking that at the most he'll spark (and win) is an edit war, but instead, will more likely incur charges against himself for criminal defamation of a private individual. Cyberstalkers like Snocrates and TheJadeKnight need to mind their own business...they are not appointed my judge, jury, nor 'executioner,' and yet they seem to believe that is exactly what they are....they want to grossly mischaracterize something which happened 18 years ago, and which they know nothing about except for what they read in particularly inaccurate and libelous "day after" reports published. To this day, no media organization has interviewed the protester, nor researched to any meaningful extent what happened and why on January 1, 1990, and until that happens, ALL the media reports available are categorically "poorly sourced" or "poorly researched" and should be used with great caution, or not at all. How would you like it if you were involved in an incident which came to the public's attention via press reports, but then ALL the so-called "reporters" involved, only interviewed people who particularly despised or misunderstood you and the incident? And then how would you like it if those people made a series of false allegations about you, and then uncorroborated and unverified, those false allegations were published at the top of front pages? And then how would you like it if a steady stream of ill-informed Misplaced Pages editors kept inserted the false information in Misplaced Pages articles, while persistently blocking and deleting the FACTS?
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons?t=4.3.#4.6. "Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories."
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to the law in Florida, United States and to our content policies: We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy."
Jsmith 51389 (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Categories: