User talk:ARTEST4ECHO/Archive/2015

January 2015 - April 2015

January 2015

The wishes of Scott Fischer's family

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

ARTEST4ECHO, if you read the Jeremy Page article carefully, you will see that it states that "The widow (Jan Arnold) ..., has asked that his body be left alone" because she "believes that her late husband ... is 'where he'd like to have stayed', and does not want people risking their lives to retrieve his body".

Please note that the article does not say the same about Scott Fischer's widow, Jeannie Price. I have spoken personally with Ms. Price, & I can tell you that she finds mis-attributions very hurtful. I removed an earlier one from the article that relied on a foreign language source. It was the same situation, quoting Jan Arnold in the source, but somebody attributed it to Jeannie Price in the Wikipedia article.

The irony was that Scott Fischer had spoken to his wife about organizing his next expedition to Everest to remove bodies. He was apparently very mindful that Everest is a sacred mountain to the Nepalese sherpas, & that they consider all the dead bodies on it to be a desecration.

I do know that there are plans to organize an expedition to retrieve Scott Fischer's body in the next year or so. I do not have a source that I can cite for this, but I do know that it is the family's fervent hope that this will come to fruition.

Peaceray (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit summaries

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

You recently said that I did not provide any edit summary. You yourself said I had made more than 19 edits. The mobile tag appears because I am editing from a mobile. Also it took me hours to properly edit the article and add more text to it. All of it was reliably sourced so I don't know why you say you did not like or dislike it. I cannot keep adding edit summaries every time. There is no such policy that a user has to add edit summaries every time. It already takes too much time on the edits anyway so I can't keep adding edit summaries especially when I don't have much time. Let's not fret over a thing as to why I didn't add edit summaries. Sometimes I have very less spare time. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Also I should mention it is extremely difficult to edit on a mobile. It takes way too much time as compared to a desktop. Therefore I sometimes have to avoid adding edit summaries because of lack of time. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say you had to, I just said that it catches people's eye when you don't, which make people scrutinize your edits more. All it dose is make it harder on yourself. However, it is considered "Good practice".--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 14:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Failed Verification question

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thanks for inserting the more correct tag at Deseret Books#Excel Entertainment Group, I was not aware of it. I do however have a couple questions on the usage of this tag. Would you help me understand the following?

• It looks like you inserted a {{FV}} tag inside the REF and also another one outside it. Why two tags?
• I had placed the {{CN}} tag after the word "dropped" to point out the problem text. Placing it after the whole paragraph suggests that the citation failure is larger than just the single fact. Wouldn't it be better to put the FV tag in the same place I had the CN tag?

I am not challenging your edit, in fact (like I said) I appreciate you using this tag, but the instructions on the template page seems to suggest that what you did is not the way it is supposed to be used so I want to learn your logic to see how to use the FV tag right. Based on what I read on the template instruction page I would have done the detailed FV tag that you added first, but in the text by the word "dropped".

Thanks. 104.32.193.6 (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chalcedonianism vs Nestorianism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It's complex. To vastly simplify it, in Nestorianism you have 2 persons (a Divine person and a human person) but in Chalcedonianism you have only 1 person (a single God-man). Both Nestorianism and Chalcedonism hold that Christ has 2 natures (the Divine and the human). Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I can see it is complex. I guess ultimately I don't need to understand it. Since Category:Protestants is in Category:Chalcedonian Christians that is where I will put the them as they hold the "Traditionally Protestant view of the Trinity". If it's wrong, I hope someone who understand it better then me fixes it.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 14:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think you deserve this...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

		The Mediator Barnstar
		For your recent efforts to mediate an ongoing mini edit-war at Missouri Executive Order 44. It takes guts and character to wade into something like that when it wasn't your fight initially, and I want you to know that on my end at least, your efforts are deeply appreciated. And on a more personal note: thanks for helping me 'cool down' about it... I deeply appreciate that, too! - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Just thought you should have this... - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 12:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

February 2015

A question...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi, Artist! I have a question about an aspect of WP I know nothing about (edit warring and reporting to an admin), and wanted to seek the advice of someone hopefully more "in-the-know" on the subject that I. I and another editor have recently gotten into something of an edit war (though not frequent enough to meet the precise WP definition of this crime, LOL) with a third editor over the article Missouri Executive Order 44. Myself and the first editor have explained our concerns on the talk page with regard to the second editor's edits, but editor #2 insists on telling us that our refusal to unconditionally accept his edits is because his edits are an "inconvenient truth" for us. I know there are times I can get hot under my own collar about such things, but his refusal to even come to the talk page to address our concerns (he says there's no need for him to do so) has gotten me to the point that I feel the need to involve an admin in it. Since it doesn't come under the "three revert per day" rule for "edit warring" (this one, so far, is more like three reverts or so per week), I don't know if that's the right thing to do; or if I were to do it, even how to go about it. Any thoughts? I'm not asking you to wade into this one by any means, I just wanted to solicit advice from someone maybe more experienced than me who might be able to offer a better perspective. We've interacted before on various LDS projects, and I've always found you to be a fair-minded, level-headed person who wasn't afraid to disagree with me or anyone else--but you've always done it like a gentleman, with grace and style. Any advice you might care to give would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, and God bless! - Ecjmartin (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. Sorry--I just realized after sending you this, that I have a lot better things to do with my time anymore, than get involved in a long, protracted battle over something I don't really care that much about, anymore. I looked at the wp:editwarring article, and the whole process looks like more trouble than it's worth! I think I'm just going to wash my hands of the whole thing. I believe that the article will suffer as a result, but I just don't care that much about it, anymore... My sincerest apologies to you, my friend, for my wasting your time here. Take care, and may 2015 bring you and yours only the best. - Ecjmartin (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

LOL....LOL....

I know you said "Never mind", but I just thought I would let you know, I just asked the very same question to an administrator I've worked with before (User:Good Olfactory). I have been having the same problem with an IP editor on a different page, but his behavior was exactly the same. I have also had issues with who I would suspect is the editor you are on different pages (but since he is an IP editor I want know for sure). It can be extremely frustrating. Basically his suggestion was:

{{Quotation|If you've approached them on their user page and they continue to be defiant (or just don't respond) and the edits continue, then I think it is worth bringing it to an uninvolved administrator's attention. If you can't find anyone specific to help, then I suppose the best place to report it would be at WP:ANI, which usually takes care of general problems that can't be categorized anywhere else.}}

I haven't needed to yet, as it hasn't come up yet, but that is my plan. I hope it helps.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 14:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, thanks so much for responding! And thanks too, for the barnstar--that's very much appreciated, as are your words here. I was actually thinking along the same lines, that maybe I just need to grow a thicker skin and stop letting these things get to me so easily (easier said than done in my case, my friend!). It's extremely frustrating when they refuse even to come to the talk page to discuss your concerns, and insist (rather snidely and rudely) that their way is the only way and that if I wasn't so stupid, I would see this. I understand the desires of partisans on any subject to make WP an apologetic for their particular "truth," but the general purpose (and greatest redeeming factor) of this encyclopedia is to avoid that very thing, and maintain true neutrality as far as humanly possible on each and every subject it contains. Some folks just can't see that--or don't care. I appreciate the pat on the back, and the practical advice as well. I think I will revert this guy's edits yet again, and just let the "war" continue until I decide to take the road you suggest, or until some WP "higher power" intervenes. Thanks again, my friend--you've definitely made my day. God bless! Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I already revered his edit. I noticed that you put it back his way, but only because you decided it wasn't worth the hassle. However, I felt that you were correct, and figured that a 2nd editor making the same change might help stop things.

I have had problems with this guy myself on other pages, so don't feel like you are alone. However, the one big problem I see is that he is an IP editor, I think from the University of Wyoming, but he is using some kind of method that give him a new address with every edit. Since he isn't using the same IP address, as far as I know I don't think there is a way to block him, assuming it is found that he is violating some rule at WP:ANI.

As for "grow a thicker skin and stop letting these things get to me so easily", I to have the same problem. A number of times I've steamed about something so much that it kept me awake at night. I try not to let it happen, but every once in a while it does. All I can say is that in the end it's not like the world is going to end because of Wikipedia. Your a good editor and I would hate to see you go because of someone misbehaving.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 18:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, my friend. You have truly made my day. I added some more detailed stuff on the talk page; hopefully he'll come over and present his side--but if he doesn't, we can show that we've gone the full distance to do our part according to WP etiquette. I'm equally glad to know that I'm not the only one having problems with him. Thanks again--two heads are definitely better than one, in this situation! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

After much thinking, I think that, if the IP editor continues to refuse to talk about the issue,the best option would be to request Semi-protection from an admin. Unfortunately, as I have said above, I don't think there is a way to block just that IP editor.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 16:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Funny, I was thinking that very thing. I guess we wait to see what he does, then go from there... Sounds good to me! - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems our friend "Keepitreal2" (whom I would assume is our IP editor, since he's/she's used the same language and style of speech in both his/her signed and unsigned edit summaries) is back. I have forwarded a request for semi-protection to an admin; if that doesn't work, I'll see what full protection will do. - Ecjmartin (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wow...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm just now getting home from work, though I've been following the discussion on my mobile phone throughout the day. However I couldn't join in, due to being a delivery driver and having more to say than time would allow me to input through a phone, LOL... I see that Keepitreal did finally come to the talk page--only to tell us that our opinions don't matter, and that we're just blowing "hot air." I told her to come back sometime, when she could act in a civil manner. I also put a response on the admin/talkpage that you linked me to on my talk page, as well. I think you hit on the best solution: defer her to the higher powers, and let them judge for themselves. That's pretty much what I said there, as well.

I feel badly for involving you in this--I can promise you that had I remotely anticipated that it would become what it's become here, I would never have mentioned any of this to you, my friend. I never ask anyone to fight my battles--and I know you haven't said that I did--but I feel like I've gotten you involved in something here that's gotten way out of hand. I was a Latter-day Saint (of more than one persuasion) for ten years, long ago, and I understand intimately the very deep emotions that often get involved when Mormon history is discussed. Once I was a part of all of that, but I left it behind eons ago--and with it, all need to "prove" or "disprove" anything to do with it. All I've ever wanted is the same thing you want, and Asterik wants, and Stormrider, and the other editors who heavily edit LDS-themed articles: to make them the best encyclopedic articles they can be.

I think it's sad here, because Keepitreal and myself really aren't all that much apart in our edits--I simply insist upon the fact that nobody (at least not that any of us knows of) ever cited the order as a specific reason for killing Mormons--to my knowledge, only General Clark ever mentioned it in connection with any action against them--and even he offered to delay its enforcement until the following Spring. I have no desire to defend Lilburn Boggs or anything he did--personally, I find the man despicable, as did Generals Doniphan and Atchison, and many other non-Mormon players in this tragedy. I do not believe in Joseph Smith, but I would be the first man to step between him and anyone who would wish to do him harm--if God has a beef with him, or with me, or with anyone else, He is more than capable of taking care of that Himself; as for me, I want to follow Jesus' admonition to love everyone and do good to all. I don't often succeed at that, but He's inspiring me to try harder, and I'd like to think I'm succeeding from time to time, just a little. As I said in my entry, I don't claim to be 100% in the right here, and if a consensus of disinterested parties says I'm any way in the wrong, I will offer a full apology and amend my future conduct, as best as God gives me grace so to do.

I know you haven't complained about wading into this, or about me involving you in it to begin with, but I feel I owe you an apology, anyway. As I said: if I had ever known how this would 'blow up,' I think I'd have just let the whole thing go, or found some other way to deal with it. That said, I appreciate your support, and your willingness to try to mediate an end to this fruitless conflict. I wish you a pleasant week, with God's greatest blessings for you and yours. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I just posted a proposed re-write (currently in my sandbox) to the article's talk page. Check it out sometime at your convenience, and let me know what you think. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, it borders so far on the ridiculous side, I can help but laugh at the whole situation. She is warned that SHE is edit waring, but in response she say "These folks have a history of such behavior.", refusing to even acknowledge that the warning was directed to her not us. LOLOL...She is warned, not us, yet We have the history....LOL.

It's also funny that I'm a "Mormon Apologist" here, but she says I'm "Anti-Mormon" according to her AT THE SAME TIME. That's like a Vegan who eats meat....LOL

It's also the first time I've been called "misogynistic". She has no information on her gender anywhere, yet I'm misogynistic for using "he". Standard English is to use "He" when the gender is unknown, but I'm misogynistic for doing it. I switched as soon as she said so. She keep saying I am referring to her a "Him", yet I only ONCE used the word "HIM" on the entire page and that was when I was referring to IP editors in general, and not specifically her.

I also find it funny that, because I have edit alot, I have a "God complex" and act like I have "absolute authority", making my edit "Unreliable". I guess I'm in trouble then. So are any edits of anyone Master Editor II or above as they are "Unreliable".

What she doesn't get is, every time she makes comments like those, it becomes clearer that she is the problem. Her edits are classic cases of Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. She acts like the fact that she treated to report me means that I'm not allowed to report her or something. There is no "immunity" for reporters makes it clear that she can be reported, no matter the timing.

Anyway, don't worry about it. Sometime we just have to deal with editors who have a strong POV pushing. I'm not going to let her get to me.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 17:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole thing really has gotten out of hand on her end. It's hard when you're raised to read and/or write only a 'faith-promoting' version of these events, designed to present your beloved prophet and his friends in the best possible light; I think any of us has the potential to fall into the same thing about any subject we feel passionately about--or any person we genuinely love and/or admire. In the absence of any logical, coherent, reasonably-consistent argument to back up your position, lashing out wildly (as she's doing here) at your antagonists often seems your only final recourse. When deeply-felt emotions become engaged in the process, as has happened here, this result should probably be expected. Thankfully, the Mormon Church has started to move away from 'faith-promoting' fare (though I think they still have a ways to go), and take a more honest (in my opinion, at least) view of their past. I think the saddest thing here is that she believes we are out to attack her church or herself, when I believe any truly disinterested person could see that neither you nor I have done that in any way. As you say, each of her entries only dig her deeper and deeper into her own hole--a fact I'm sure some neutral third party will point out to her sooner or later (and one already has, from what I read yesterday).

On a brighter note, I decided to go ahead and make the changes to the article, for the reasons I gave on the talk page. I think it will be a better article for them, though I welcome your input, deletions, insertions, etc. as always. Got to get back to work in a few; take care, and God bless! Thanks again for everything. - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I tried to help, but Keepitreal2 seems determined to continue to shoot themselves in the foot regardless of any attempts at assistance. In addition to wp:ICANTHEARYOU, wp:Truth/wp:The Truth, wp:IMRIGHT, and wp:THROW, they have also manage to hit wp:TINC, wp:TIGERS, wp:MASTODONS, and wp:ROPE territory. Hopefully my saying this doesn't now turn this into a wp:BEANS situation. Keepitreal2 really needs a few days to cool off, and come back wp:CALM. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 23:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep (this is Ecjmartin speaking) -- I got a wee bit emotional with her this afternoon, myself--right after talking about my wanting to take the high road of forgiveness, and all of that (which I do believe in, and want very much to follow). Maybe I need a day or two of cool-off time myself, LOL - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Goodbye, for now...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Artist, I wanted to stop by and tell you "goodbye," at least for now. Wikipedia handed down its judgment this morning, and while I certainly don't like it, I have chosen to respect it. It's time for me to step back and get some distance from it all--as I said on my userpage just now, I have a major book project underway, and it's time for me to focus on it. Life's not always fair, and sometimes I have to accept that and move on. The only regret I have here is that I ever brought any of this up to you, to begin with. Thank you for your efforts here, and I sincerely wish you and yours all the very best. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Scratch that. I AM going to step back from this particular article, and also from WP in general, or at least take a bit of a mini-break for awhile, but I don't feel that I should let this get to me like it did. Maybe someday, LOL, I'll learn to do that from the beginning and stop looking like a fool... I have a wife who's been in the hospital or nursing home for over four months now (and still isn't out of the woods yet!), and so I guess between that and my book project, I don't take stress so easily these days. Take care, and I'm sure I'll see you around somewhere! Thanks again for everything, my friend. - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Gordon B. Hinckley. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

I note that you added additional parties to the listing, which is perfectly fine and acceptable. I've notified them, but please note that if you're going to participate there you also need to make an opening statement in the Summary section with your name. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC) (Not watching)

I was working on it. It just took time.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 15:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Latter-day Saint biographical encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Can you confirm that you intend to use Template:Latter-day Saint biographical encyclopedia (a template you created)? ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 01:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC) It is quick a way to put the standard Latter-day Saint biographical encyclopedia reference onto a page.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 19:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Style

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It doesn't matter much, but for future reference I believe this reversion [1] is inconsistent with WP:PBUH, which states 'Allah should be replaced with its translation of "God", unless used as part of an English-language quote.' Rolf H Nelson (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Normally I would agree, but in this case the Page is about the "Abrahamic faiths" and the "second coming of Christ". When the IP editor changed it from 'Allah' to 'God', there is confusion as to which faith's 'God' they are referring to, i.e. 'God' per Christianity or 'God' per Muslims. It needed to remaing the same to clarify who it is they are referring to.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 14:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 2015

hi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Several citations at the bottom of the bio of the martyred Benjamin LeBaron say his Chihuahua hometown has a chapel and a presumably major portion of citizens there practice a form of Mormonism. Also I recall that the published-about-2010 "Patriarchs" tome (a citation below a couple of the church of the 1stborns articles), whose PhD author resided at the colonia while researching the sect, mentions its continued existence, with some of its adherents also then currently practicing plural marriage.--Hodgdon's secret garden

I agree that is is possible that there is a Latter Day saint type sect in the area, but none of the cited sources names the particular sect or even a sect at all. Are they Church of the Firstborn of the Fulness of Times, Church of the Lamb of God, or some other sect. Additionally none of the cited sources say that Benjamin LeBaron is anything but a "community" leader, not a "religious" leader. I have read all the sources and none support the claim that a functioning sect is in the area. It seems to me that they are made up of a bunch of independent fundamentalist Mormons, with no particular affiliation.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 20:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The Joel sect obviously exists. Janet Bennion styles herself in her publishing blurb as the scholarly expert on fundy mormonism. in her book she wrote that there were 2 factions in the area, Joel's tcotfbfullnessoftimes, which she studied, and a more reactionary one also nearby which didn't sanction contact with scholars such as her. Bennion estimated that both these factions together have adherents numbering in the thousands in Baja, chihuahua, and stateside. An estimate of maybe a few hundred in col. Lebanon and a like number elsewhere would thus be extremely conservative. Bennion's book is the only source that cites hard figures but there are many many news sources who have mentioned the chapel in col. lebaron and the mores of that community.--hodg

I'm sorry I don't see it. I read all of the sources and none of them specified which sect, or that any specific sect still exists. That is why Church of the Firstborn of the Fulness of Times is listed a "Status" unknown. I'm not even sure who your refering to as none of them mention Molly Bennion. If she can be cited then by all mean cite her.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 21:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm a big confused, what are you trying to cite, that Benjamin LeBaron was a leader in a fundamentalist Mormon sect or that Church of the Firstborn of the Fulness of Times is still active, or what?--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 21:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

on a smartphone right now (frowns). - the pointer to benji lebaron was simply to show news report speaking of the community's chapel and mores. nothinh about benji himself. the group is comparatively liberal though. for example community members utilize everyday contemporafy dress. in any case i just google book'ed Janet's desert patriarchy and cotfbofthefullnessoftimes is mentioned using its complete name 6 times. ( Eventually i may check and see if any other sect is named but I doubt it, since she only had access to the Joel group there.)--hodg

I'm back. -- Is there some citatation that indicates a lack of continuity between the churcn of the firstborn of the fullness of times pre- and post- the ervil lebaron holy war? or is the supposition its community became defunct merely a speculation by those who have never actually in fact studied this community?I've a special interest in this group owing to the coincience that I had visited (well, or that is my parents, bro-in-law, some of my sibs and I had) some what I'll term a "Joelite" family, then living in the LDS community of colonia dublan, a sister-wife and convert from out of mainstream Mormonism whom my mother know, when i was in jr high. Bennion's estimate of there being thousands of Joelites in mexico and the u.s seems well founded. Lol: They seemed huge on procreation...so I well imagine that within not only dublan but anyother number of other mexican census entities surrounding the now-over-a-thousand-and-a-half-strong village of colonia lebaron, which itself had been founded by Joel in the 1920s, there remain likely over a thousand baptised and confirmed members of Joelite lineage, (It might be hard to know for sure, though, since Ervilites may not like to widely advertise their status, eh? Still, from what I understand, the Ervilite heresy never was dominant, despite and/or because of various murders of ervil's rival Joelites even before the infamous assassination of patriarch/homeopath Allred in salt lake city. All obviously an extremely sad state of affairs...but, Bennion, in her book concentrated on the Joelite community as more recently existing.--hodgdon

Yes from 2010

The Primer, Helping Victims of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in Polygamous Communities: Fundamentalist Mormon Communities (PDF), Utah Attorney General’s Office and Arizona Attorney General's Office, June 2006, retrieved June 29, 2010{{citation}}: CS1 maint: others (link)

It reads "The group splintered after members committed a string of assassinations in the 1980's. Some families still live in Mexico and others are spread throughout the United States." So if the "group splintered" several sects may be in existence, but the Utah and Arizona Attorney Generals don't know what the status, or even name of, those sects is as of 2010. Additionally notice they refer to them as "families" still living in Mexico and the US. Never dose it say anything about a continuing sect past the 1980's.

However, the sequence of events that lead to the current state was

1. The statement that the Church of the Firstborn of the Fulness of Times is still active was tagged as citation needed here. It never was. Then part of the statement was removed.
2. You cited the existence using two sources here.
3. However after reading those citation I felt didn't said what you said it was saying. For example your source even said "Many younger members have since discontinued the practice of polygamy.". So I tagged it again as citation needed here. Over a month later I changed the statement to "Status Unknown" because no citation was forthcoming.

The page has been that way since here.

I have no objection to citing the existence of this sect. I welcome it! I openly admit I have no knowleage one way or the other. However, the Utah and Arizona Attorney Generals clearly put the continued exstiance as a "Sect" in doubt. Nothing that has been supplied so far back up the existence of the sect past the 1980's, only the existence of a town. So, the "safe" way is to list is as "Status Unknown". I have no objection to changing that if a citation can be supplied. Yes Colonia LeBaron and even a group of link minded family members exists, but that is the Town and individuals, not a sect. It would be like saying the Pure Church of Christ sill exists because Kirtland, Ohio exists.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 13:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry for such a belated reply, Artest!

ARTEST4ECHO said, "I have no objection to citing the existence of this sect." - etc.

You indeed appear to have sterling source for lack of continuity within the parent, "...Fullness of Times" in the face of the trials (possibly the "spiritual opportunities," for us to be NPOV) brought on by E. LeB.'s claim of the end times' mantle (put in appropriate, lebaronite terminology here!)

I've not a whole lot of interest in the lebaronites. My sister reminds me of the name of the man and wife who joined them, who we'd visited in Colonia Dublan, before the Allred, etc., murders. I did, however, catch Janet's interview by John Delin, here, and immediately ordered her book (link to Google Books), which I read upon its arrival.

(Interestingly, Janet never mentions Ervil even once in the book! I speculate, now, that she has an understanding with the lebaronites not to dredge up the sensational material from that chapter in their past within her 2004 tome.) In any case, Janet does mention there being a number of thousands of Church of the Firstborn/Joel LeBaron-sect adherents in Mexico and the States.

If both Shurleff's office (UT Atty General who compiled the info when prosecuting the FLDS in Utah) is right and membership in the sect is tenuous, then perhaps another article about Colonia LeBaron would be appropriate, as based on the many newspaper sources with concern this community as well as janet's book.

If I get a chance, I'll see what I can google up. (I looked in a box in a garage for my copy of Desert Patriarchy but didn't find it so I'd have to see how much is excerpted at Google books, for example.) Any way, it may be some time before I have time to even look into this. (And, in any case, this small sect only holds a tiny bit of my interest, despite my having met the members I mentioned, way back when. (Wowww! I just now googled the name of the guy who we visited (see link) and it turns out he was in the Joelite First Presidency! ... lol ... Whatever! <winks!>

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Taking prof. Bennion's research at face value, it would appear that the lebaronite experience may not be so fully in sync after all with the diffusion of authority and more independent-style of Mormon fundamentalism as is typical of the Centennial Park community. Eg, I just now skimmed the Janet's initial Col. LeBaron chapter to the quote, "The socialpolitical structure of Lebaron is based on the rules and structures extablished in the Church of the Firstborn of the Fulness of Times...," which would appear to belie Utah's then chief law enforcement official's, Mark Shurtleff's, office's belief that the "...Fullness of Times" denomination was no longer active. Is it possible the UT atty general's office website's info is some kind of "mirror" of the LDS sects page on Wikipedia? In fact, I think that famed Community of Christ academic journal editor John Hamer HIMSELF (see link to Hamer's WP page) may be the one who originally edited the Joelite WP page to indicate that this sect was inactive. Coincidentally, Hamer is the current interviewee of John Dehlin, so I may well copy and paste this present communication to HIM and find out the source of his contention. (Perhaps he merely meant to edit the "and the Lamb" WP page and inadvertently edited in like fashion the "Fullness of Times" page. But I speculate....)

Nope. Hamer has never edited the page.

Be right back....--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to get people interested in this question. Perhaps when I get around to it I'll find someone to ping or email.

Did you find time to peruse Janet's text, by the way? From it you'll see that her substantial estimate of this sect's membership, supported by her intimate famiarity with this town and sect, reflects (1) almost all of the self-described "Mormon" population Colonia LeBaron, a substantial majority of the population, since Janet says that unlike mainstream Mormon colonias, most of the Hispanic population in LeBaron are there only seasonally, plus, (2) a goodly portion its membership living in environs nearby LeBaron as well as in Baja and the U.S.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've proffered this edit (diff) as a placeholder.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Anonymous UT/AZ attys generals' offices compilers sloppy in fingering both Fulness of Times and Ervilite members for murders. See my recent article edit. :~)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LDS Nomenclature

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thanks for the info on proper nomenclature of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - I appreciate the correction on the Bryan Johnson (entrepreneur) page! -- BlueHorseshoe^(Talk) 17:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 2015

Removal of McConkie Comments on Catholicism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Why was the section about Bruce McConkie's Anti-Catholicism removed? The statements were true. Editing wikipedia to remove the truth will not make the truth go away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.245.66 (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

65.40.245.66 - First read Wikipedia:NOT TRUTH and WP:NOPV. In order to include the stuff you added you need to first find Verifiable Secondary sources and the statements have to have a Neutral point of view. What you added had no sources listed and had a personal slant that you wanted to add.

This is the same thing Rinkle gorge told you when you added stuff to Evan Gattis back on 23 July 2013. I have no problems adding statements, but you have to follow Wikipedia policy to do it.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 21:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

September 2015 - December 2015

September 2015

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{Infobox Latter Day Saint biography}}

Your changes to the infobox caused Category:Latter Day Saint biography Infobox with deprecated parameters to go from 0 articles to 328 articles. Wish I knew what exactly caused it. Bgwhite (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually what I did was undid some changes made to the template that caused the "portals" default to not work. Basically those 328 were missing the portals at the bottom of the template. Any page in the Category:Latter Day Saint biography Infobox with deprecated parameters as missing the "portals =" statement. Right now most of these are correct (i.e. they go to the LDS Church portal) but some aren't. They need to be changes to the Community of Christ or Latter Day Saint movement portals. I have been working on them slowly.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 18:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I just got the category down to zero. My OCD will not allow me to not have zero articles :) Bgwhite (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 2015

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

November 2015

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

December 2015

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.