Talk:No Man Knows My History/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA on Hold

I'm placing this GA on hold for 5 days, because of the following issues. If they can be resolved in 5 days, then I will pass the candidate.

  1. The lead needs some expansion, so that it further summarises the article.
  2. A few more references would be nice, but thats a minor problem as they are mostly sound.
  3. It is a little short. Expansion to the whole article is required. Try to hit 8KB approx. That should prove to be long enough.
  4. An infobox would improve the prose greatly.

Best of luck in regards to improving the article to GA level in the designated five days. Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Passed

It's been over 5 days, and the original reviewer's concerns appear to be largely addressed. The lead still needs some expansion, though. Carson 05:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This article and Fawn M. Brodie both Good articles

When I nominated this article for Good Article classification a week and a half ago, I was unaware that the article on the book's author,Fawn M. Brodie, was already a Good article. Indeed, it was only placed under WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement sponsorship today. This means that both of these closely related articles now count among the WikiProject's Good Articles. __meco 06:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am reassessing this articles GA status as part of the WP:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


Quick fail criteria assessment

  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

o problems when checking against quick fail criteria, proceeding to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far..  Done Jezhotwells (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    b (MoS):
    • The first section, Overview should be split. Biographical details of Fawn McKay Brodie should be separated from the overview of the work. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)  Done Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    • Overview: Is all of the first paragraph correctly cited by the citation at the end? Brodie finally completed her biography of Joseph Smith in 1944, and it was published the following year by Knopf when Brodie was only thirty. needs a citation. Is all of the 3rd paragraph cited by the reference at the end?
    • Influence: Is all of the second paragraph correctly cited by the citation at the end?  Done Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    Yes.--John Foxe (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    • I have to assume good faith for all of the references. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):
    • appears to be reasonably broad Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    • tagged and fair use rationale appended Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • Caption could be improved. recent edition is a little vague. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)  Done Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    • On hold for issues above to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)  Done. OK keep as GA, thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Brodie favorably cited needs references.

"Brodie has been frequently (and often favorably) cited by such Mormon apologists as Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens, D. Michael Quinn, and Todd Compton,..." This statement should have references or sources. Which authors were favorable and to what extent? In fact what was the context of her being cited by these authors? If there is no source to back this one up I propose removing "(and often favorably)." 173.180.112.66 (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I agree and have removed the whole phrase.--John Foxe (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Good work here, and thanks, John.

173.180.112.66 (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Coverage of Nibley's research

An anonymous user made some edits[1] to the article where some details of the scope of research done by professor Hugh Nibley to investigate Brodie's own research before writing the book was presented. Admittedly he could be seen as partisan and his research thus an outright attempt at debunking, however, with the considerable amount of effort he and his team appears to have put into their endeavor, I'm not immediately happy with the prompt deletion of these edits. The edit summary accompanying the revert was "no explanation for changes; if you'd like to discuss, please take it to discussion page." I agree that the IP user should have explained the rationale for their edits per general (albeit often not adhered to) Wikipedia standards. On the other hand, their edits were pretty easy to understand even without the explanation. Agreed, some of it was changing the bias of the narrative by subtly changing adjectives and terms. Although that may be equally valid to the pre-existing angle of presentation, such a skewing should not occur without a lucent argument of why the previous desciptions were inadequate. As for the addition of detail about Nibley's research, however, I don't immediately see any fault to introducing this and thus I'm inclined to see its removal as inappropriate. __meco (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The changes were not only not explained, they also offered no authoritative support; the current version does cite authoritative secondary sources.--John Foxe (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about existing sources. Would you call this a reliable source? __meco (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
No. In general, see the material on reliable sources at Verifiability, the salient portion of which is the following: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria."--John Foxe (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
If we set aside the lecture on reliable sources (I'm not sure why I was offered this), the source which I listed seems clearly not to satisfy our requirements. Do you agree we should remove it and portions of the text supported by it? __meco (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the critique-of-critique link. It turns out, it wasn't used to support any of the article's text that I could find. We still have one link to lds-mormon.com that hosts an article from Dialogue, and a link to lightplanet.com that hosts Nibley's "No Ma'am" piece. Both of these should ideally be replaced with equivalent links more closely associated with the actual source. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the citation to Nibley and switched references for the Hill review. I see no reason to link to Nibley if we can't also link the critique. They're mirror images of POV, and neither is peer-reviewed.
I apologize to meco for the lecture—but not very much because he didn't recognize that the citation was simply lagniappe and supported nothing in the article.--John Foxe (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Brodie and Joseph Smith DNA

There have been several attempts to add the following statement to the article:

Renewed criticism of the work came during the 2000s when DNA profiling was performed on the descendants of children—who were identified by Brodie as being fathered by Smith through polygamist relationships—finding that all the subjects tested were not progeny of Smith.Michael De Groote (July 9, 2011). "DNA solves a Joseph Smith mystery". Deseret News. Retrieved July 15, 2011.Ugo A. Perego (August 7, 2008). Joseph Smith DNA Revealed: New Clues from the Prophet's Genes (Speech). FAIR Conference. Sandy, Utah. Retrieved July 19, 2011.

But Brodie is, in fact, very cautious and says only that that some of these people might be possible children. (A give-away is that you don't cite Brodie.) In any case, giving a whole paragraph to this sort of apologetics is WP:UNDUE and based on non-peer-reviewed sources.--John Foxe (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, changed it a bit so it doesn't read like she 100% claimed they were Smith's kids (though she strongly speculated some were). As for non-peer-reviewed sources, according to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources "Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact," and nowhere does it say a source must be peer-reviewed or it's not good enough for Wikipedia. Also pointing out that some of Brodie's assumptions were wrong is not apologetic; just as this isn't a paragraph but a sentence. It's not undo, Brodie spends a lot of time in her book talking about Smith's polygamists marriages and children, and the desire to test those theories is an important part of its current "Academic reception and influence."97.117.1.53 (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Deseret News is not mainstream. It's owned by the LDS Church. FAIR has "apologetic" in its name. You need neutral sources. "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources....Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable....Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view."
  • You write that there was "renewed criticism of the work," but that's just your opinion. You don't cite any reliable source in support.
  • Polygamy has nothing to do with children. Polygamy has to do with wives.
  • Brodie's assumptions about a couple possible descendants are incorrect, but those assumptions are never mentioned in the Wikipedia article, nor do they make much difference. She says Oliver Buell looked like Joseph Smith, and he does. You never say how many children that Brodie suggested might be Joseph's that DNA has proved are not—and what percentage they are of the total.
At best this is footnote stuff, and Brodie should be cited even then. After all, she's a reliable source and Deseret News and FAIR are not.--John Foxe (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me - so the woman who's claim about paternity which is pure speculation on her part is proven false by genetic testing and she remains a "reliable source" while reports on the genetic testing are not reliable sources. That is patently ridiculous. --Trödel 13:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Brodie's incorrect speculation is Wikipedia "truth," whereas genetic testing reported in non-reliable (i.e. Mormon apologetic) sources is not. That's the way Wikipedia works.--John Foxe (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The Journal of Mormon History and the Deseret News are both reliable sources. --Trödel 15:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The Journal of Mormon History is, Deseret News is not. In any case, I've added some material in a footnote that perhaps can serve as a compromise. Mention of these putative children as an attempt to attack on Brodie is WP:UNDUE. Brodie herself says "evidence of children both to Joseph Smith by women other than Emma is extremely scant except in the case of Prescindia Huntington Buell." (460)--John Foxe (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Trödel, I'm perfectly willing to get some outside opinion on this matter. I'd be glad to let you pick the forum.--John Foxe (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
This is clearly a relevant section that you are trying to control by owning the article, not review the added information (which included the Journal of Mormon History from the start, and which you have reverted 4 times in less than 16 hours. Including in a footnote is not sufficient. --Trödel 16:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
   I agree with Trödel on two issues I see.
   First, Deseret News is a reliable sources. Deseret News may be owned by the LDS Church, but every Newspaper has owners that have there own agenda, but that doesn't stop them from being used as reference, even on articles of interest to the newspaper owner. WP:NEWSORG clearly says "Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors". Deseret News meets all the criteria of being a "Mainstream news reporting" (ie. Articles biased on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). Additionally Deseret News doesn't meet any of the the WP:NOTRELIABLE criteria. To assume the Deseret News is not reliable just because it is owned by the LDS church goes against all WP:NEWSORG standard. There are thousands of Wikipedia pages that use Deseret News as sources.
   Second I agree that the wording chosen draft by 97.117.1.53 and restored by Trodel is the best. The Foxe version includes several unsupported assumptions, such as "Mormons attempted to discredit.." and "putative" (defined as "commonly regarded as such"). For example, the idea that Mormons are actively trying to "discredit" her by doing DNA tests is not verifiable. Just because someone tests the DNA of these kids doesn't mean that they are automatically attacking her. It would be a historically significant event to find more kids of Joseph Smith, and that could be the motivation. The assumption in the Foxe version are not WP:Verifiable and are very much not Neutral.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify so there is no confusion. The language I restored was drafted by 97.117.1.53 (talk) not by me. I felt that it was NPOV compliant language that was properly sourced so I restored the text. --Trödel 20:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
My apologies. I have stricken and clarified my statement.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 20:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Brodie and Joseph Smith DNA 2

My objections have not been answered, so I thought I'd start a new section.

  • I don't deny that Deseret News might be an acceptable source on other occasions and in other articles. It's just not appropriate here because we have a Mormon researcher's project being reported by a Mormon columnist and published in a Mormon paper, while (to my knowledge) the information was completely ignored elsewhere. Then two or three Mormons insist this material be added to this article. Do I note a pattern here?
  • The current sentence says that "renewed criticism of the work came during the 2000s when DNA profiling was performed on the descendants of children." That's unsupported personal opinion that would need citation to a reliable source.
  • Brodie's words are never quoted in the sentence or citation. How many children did Brodie suggest might be Joseph's that DNA has proved are not—and what percentage they are of the total? This article concerns No Man Knows My History. Why isn't it cited? As an example of how biased the supposed scientific study is, the project excludes one Orrison Smith as a son of Joseph Smith. Fawn Brodie doesn't mention such a person; neither does Bushman.
  • In any case, the whole matter is WP:UNDUE.

As a compromise, I'd agree to material in a footnote if Brodie's actual words are included. Otherwise, we need to move to one of the dispute resolution fora where there are non-Mormons about.--John Foxe (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree with Foxe: Brodie never seems to make strong assertions about Smith's descendants, so calling DNA evidence "renewed criticism" is undue and inaccurate. I don't even see where you would put this information in a footnote because it simply isn't very pertinent to the article. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've proposed updated language. In addressing the concerns above. We don't discount American Newspapers reporting American research by American Columnists on American issues. Your assumption that "Mormon" means homogeneous viewpoints with a bias is unfounded. Brodie made several statements proposing specific children as children of Joseph Smith "...possibly had the prophet for a father;" "...weigh the balance overwhelmingly on the side of Joseph’s paternity;" etc.

The fact that Perego includes other alleged children of Joseph Smith shows "how biased the supposed scientific study is" is a bizarre comment. In fact, that he researched more than just Brodie's claims and reported his findings despite it supporting the RLDS (not the LDS) narrative of Joseph Smith's polygamist practices support the contention that his study is without bias.

The polygamous wives of Joseph Smith are one of the most widely quoted parts of Brodie's book, so including criticism of her conclusions is proper material for the article. --Trödel 21:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If "The polygamous wives of Joseph Smith are one of the most widely quoted parts of Brodie's book" (which I have a hard time believing) then shouldn't we mention something about this part of the book, before we present criticism of it? ...comments? ~BFizz 21:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I should say "widely quoted" among anti-mormons. I don't know or have any opinion about scholars. --Trödel 22:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
You're forcing an improper conclusion without reliable source citation: that is, you're inferring that the number of children traceable to Joseph Smith has a some bearing on his polygamy.
Your assumption that "anti-Mormon" means a homogeneous viewpoint with a bias is unfounded.
Nevertheless, I'm willing to accept your revision if it appears as a footnote and includes cited quotations to No Man Knows My History.
(If I claimed to be a descendant of Joseph Smith, and Perego used my DNA to prove that I wasn't, would that allow him to brag that he had proved one less person was a descendant? Ditto in regard to "Orrison Smith," who ever he may have been.)--John Foxe (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how you can conclude I feel that anti-Mormon literature is homogeneous; quite the contrary. You're comment in the last paragraph is not analogous to this situation at all. There's no reason to relegate this to a footnote. --Trödel 23:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Well according to you, anything highly critical of Joseph Smith is reliable and must be used but anything defensive of him, apologetic or pro-lds is not allowed. Your persistent black and white interpretation of sources is part of the problem. Routerone (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the current revision looks OK. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I've made it clear that Brodie only suggested two of Perego's suspects, added page numbers from NMKMH, and then moved the whole sentence to the notes. It's WP:UNDUE in the text. If you think differently, let's move on to dispute resolution where we can get some outside (i.e. non-Mormon) opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The footnote should be pertinent to the text it is attached to; Foxe's revision puts the information in a footnote where it doesn't pertain. ...comments? ~BFizz 06:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
After thinking through the problem for awhile, I realized everyone might be satisfied if the material were given its own paragraph and an emphasis placed on its apologetic importance. What do you think?--John Foxe (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the one-sentence solution was fine. A short paragraph should also be fine. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't have time to edit right now - but thought you might find this letter to the editor published in Missouri interesting. We need to be careful just to report what she [clarification: she meaning Brodie not the writer of the letter] said and the results of the study - not opine on the meaning of it. --Trödel 21:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but of course not a reliable source for our purposes. Now, if it came from say, a spokesman for the Community of Christ, that would be a whole new ballgame.--John Foxe (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
@John - not sure why you would think I was proposing it as a reliable source. --Trödel 13:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Noticing today’s changes I again see the User talk:John Foxe is trying to insinuate that somehow "Mormon" are conspiring to reach false conclusion. Why is it necessary to include Ugo A. Perego religious background? I don't see "Catholic researcher" appearing when a catholic geneticists reaches a result. Ether the data supports the kids being JS or not. Even Mormon researchers have to follow scientific method and have to be backed up by the data. Are you saying that No "Mormon" can do objective research? --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not questioning Perego's research. I'm not a geneticist, but his work appears totally accurate to me. My point is that his work makes no difference except as Mormon apologetics. Perego would not have done his research, nor would FAIR have publicized it, unless it had apologetic value. No mainstream news organization covered it. No anti-Mormon group mentioned it. The only folks interested are LDS, who having had more than a few bad days recently with DNA testing, want to take what small comfort can be gained from complaining that Brodie didn't live in the 21st century. It's essential that Mormon connection be emphasized.--John Foxe (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I will grant that if this were along the lines of a “Historical” conclusion based on analysis’s of documents, then maybe Perego’s religion may come into play, since it could color his conclusions. However this is not the case here. Weather Perego is Mormon, Catholic, or even Buddhists, DNA is DNA. Unless you can somehow supply a WP:V source that shows that he somehow change DNA analyses biased on this religion, then the work is valid or it's not. Therefore if the research is "apologetics" or not, or he is Mormon or not is irrelevant. By adding Perego’s religion, you give undo weight to the idea that this research is somehow "skewed" biased on his religious belief. This is a common ploy both on Wikipedia and off, to use the fact that a person is a Mormon to assume they are somehow bias.
For example, previously you posted “Otherwise, we need to move to one of the dispute resolution fora where there are non-Mormons about.” That statement is a perfect example. I am perfectly capable of separating my Mormon Family History from my objective scientific work both on Wikipedia and I do in real life. If anything my views are skewed slightly against the Mormon Church. However, to assume that only Non-Mormons or a mixture of Non-Mormons and Mormons can make reach an accurate consensus is a common issue when it comes to “Mormon” topic on Wikipedia. If fifty Mormons follow Wikipedia guidelines to come to a consensus, then religious status is irrelevant.
You keep saying that this research only matters to "Mormons" (referring to Utah Mormons) and is only published in "Mormon" magazines, so that it why it's important to included these types of statement. This is only partially true. If Perego's research had concluded that JS had fathered all those kids, you bet that anti-Mormon groups would have cared. The only reason they haven't "mentioned it" is because it came out the way it did. Additionally a large number of sects within the Latter-day Saint movement probably care, for example, the letter published (and pointed out by Trodel) by GateHouse Media, Inc. was in Independence, MO, a location with lots of Sects (most notably the Community of Christ), since this is something interesting to more then Perego brand of Mormonism.
So again I say statements like "Mormons attempted to discredit..", "putative" and pointing out Perego’s religion is nothing more then giving undo weight to the belief that “if it came from a Mormon”, like the Dessert News, it must be suspect or "apologetics".--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 17:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
It's time to take this controversy to a forum where we can get some non-Mormon opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
So only non-Mormons can have objective opinions? That is my point exactly. Statements like "Mormons attempted to discredit.." and including a reference to the religion of every person who disagrees with Brodie, or you, shows an assuming that "Mormons" somehow all have the same views and there research is flawed.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 20:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I've seen no different views exhibited here. Mormons have worked in lockstep to defeat every compromise I've tried. We need to move to a different forum where we can get non-Mormon opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I've stuck the controversy up on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.--John Foxe (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well you have a flaw in that argument. I normally don’t allow my LDS Church childhood, nor my current brand of Mormonism to enter an argument, since I don’t view it as having anything to do with my Wikipdeia edits, only my personal interest in which article I feel like reading and editing. However this time it seems appropriate since you are assuming bad faith here, that all viewpoints here are bias against your viewpoint since we are all members of the LDS Church. I’m sorry, but you are wrong. Even assuming that everyone else who holds an opinion different then you on this matter is a Mormon, I doubt I am the same brand of "Mormon" that they or Perego is. I am not a member of the LDS Church anymore (and haven't been for a long time) nor do I have a membership record in the LDS Church anymore. Yes I am a "Mormon", but what kind is my own business (no its not a Mormon Fundamentalist). Therefore, if anything, I would be bias in your viewpoint, since I personally feel that the LDS Church, at a minimum, likes to keep embarrassing viewpoints on the down low. I have not seen any edits by any of the other persons here that in anyway suggest that there Mormon status (even if they are which none of them have claimed to be) had anything to do with the edit they have made.

Perhaps instead of assuming that every person here is a card toting LDS Church member, that perhaps the fact that you see "no different views exhibited" is because the consensus is that statements like "Mormons attempted to discredit.." and including a reference to the religion is in fact introducing an element of “Bias” into the article. Notice the first "NON-Mormon" that came from your Neutral point of view/Noticeboard post agrees that view. He said "....to include it would suggest that it may be biased", the very issue that most of the "Bias" Mormons here have been stating over and over again.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:No_Man_Knows_My_History/Archive_1&oldid=1038074000"