User talk:Dcp718

August 2017
Hello, I'm Transcendence. I noticed that you recently removed content from Death of Joseph Smith without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Please use the talk page before removing well sourced material. When removing well sourced material, it is best to reach a consensus. Your rationale, that this does not belong in the article, is insufficient.'' Transcendence (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
Transcendence (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Changes to Joseph Smith
Hey John. I noticed that you reverted an edit I made to Joseph Smith on the 16th of this month, citing that the version before mine "sourced scholarly sources". It is true that the edit I made removed one reference -- and perhaps that reference should have stayed. But I also added three very viable new references AND added clarity and NOPV to the sentence. I worked very hard on that edit and I do believe it improves the article. My references are primary sources -- actual historical documents written by Joseph Smith himself. I think they qualify as "scholarly sources". I admit that I am new to contributing to wikipedia, but perhaps I can have your thoughts on this? Was there something wrong with my edit other than removing that one reference? Because I am happy to reinsert it along with my changes. Dcp718 (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Dcp718. Your mistake is a common one among new Wikipedia contributors because Wikipedia rules seem counterintuitive. Unlike what scholars do when writing their own histories—emphasize primary sources—Wikipedia privileges scholarly secondary sources. In other words, what Joseph Smith and his followers said about Joseph Smith (e.g., The History of the Church) is disallowed in favor of what peer-reviewed scholars like Bushman and Brodie have said about him. This sound encyclopedic rule sometimes leads to strange results but almost always works toward less controversy and more NPOV articles. Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and find your own niche here. All the best.--John Foxe (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (Normally I'd just answer on my own talk page, but sometimes new users don't know that's the more common practice.)