Talk:Anthon Transcript

What's the Point?

Sorry, but this article is nothing more than an extensive POV quote concerning a scrap of paper. It shouldn't have been at Reformed Egyptian for the same reason. The entire encyclopedic value is already stated in the lead--it's a scrap of paper that apologists say supports the Smith account and that critics say doesn't--an NPOV end of story. The rest of the article is just POV pushing. Such an extended quote has no place in Wikipedia. All of these articles on the Mormon scriptures keep turning into the same things--a laundry list of detailed arguments and counter-arguments that really are not encyclopedic at all. (Taivo (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC))

I believe use of quotations here is in accordance with WP:QUOTE (an essay), but just to be sure, I went ahead and summarized some of the non-essential information conveyed by the quotation (diff). All that remains now, I feel, is critical background regarding the Transcript. —Eustress ^talk 19:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Read that lead paragraph. That says absolutely everything that needs to be said about this scrap of paper in an encyclopedic context--1) Smith wrote some characters on a piece of paper, 2) Harris took the paper to an classical scholar named Anthon, 3) according to Harris' account, Anthon wrote an authentication of the script which he later denied, 4) according to Anthon's account, he denied the paper's authenticity all along. That long quote is nothing more than an excessive POV push to cast the best possible light on the Church, especially since there is no other quote to balance it. What does it say more than the lead paragraph? Nothing. It just showcases the official Church position in religious language. (Taivo (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC))

And about WP:QUOTE, please note the section When not to use quotations. This quote was too lengthy and was substituting for prose. (Taivo (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC))

I like your modifications to the lead, but in the body, I prefer having Joseph Smith's record of the event in-house. WP:QUOTE is after all an essay, but if it helps you sleep better at night, then so be it. —Eustress ^talk 05:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I trimmed Shii's addition on three accounts: 1) Anthon's quote was trimmed to the essentials necessary to convey his opinion, 2) the interpretation of motives in both subsections was removed, and 3) the Tucker quote is not about Anthon's remembrance of the event, but Harris' remembrance of the event(s) since he was a compatriot of Harris. (Taivo (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC))

The two sections (Anthon's & Harris') are now about equal in length and include an approximately equal amount of quoted material. The statements, of course, are mutually exclusive, but I think between them it's fairly NPOV right now. And it doesn't include any of the "he said, but" counterarguments that I think detracts from these articles in general. (Taivo (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC))

We're getting perilously close to the "he said, but" type of comments. (Taivo (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC))