Talk:Kirtland Safety Society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article includes a list of works cited or a list of external links, but its
sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations.
You can improve this article by introducing more precise citations.

Contents

[edit] Bias issues

Despite my removing the term "rabid Mormon hater" as a descriptor of Grandison Newell and his compatriots,

While it may be stretch to characterize Newell's compatriots as "rabid Mormon hater", Newell himself was a rabid Mormon hater and boasted of his vexatious lawsuits. He was glad to be recognized as an antagonizer of the Mormons.

I feel that this article is strongly, almost hopelessly biased.

Make a useful contribution then, not ranting bigotry.

The original author has skewed every paragraph in such a way as to keep readers from placing any sort of blame for the scandal on LDS President Joseph Smith, or any other prominent leaders.

By scandal, I presume AnonymousCoward means illegal or injurious. This is false. The article clearly states, for example, "Greedy and speculative members (including church leaders) . . . apologized . . . for their own mistakes . . ." It is not clear at all from the records and evidence available (and which are still being sorted through) that Joseph did anything illegal or injurious, but assuming that a Church leader (or leaders) did so, does Joseph automatically become the proxy for every wrong a Mormon does? Further, Joseph is hardly the leading officer of the company

I think I've toned it down enough to make this article appropriate for The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, but the Wikipedia should have higher standards.

more bigotry

Cowdery showed up with the new printing plates on the same day that Orson Hyde came back with the news that there was no charter. Thus, the "Kirtland Safety Society Bank" was illegal, but Smith merely renamed the organization "The Kirtland Safety Society Anti-Banking Company."

The "Kirtland Safety Society Bank" wasn't legal or illegal...it never existed. "The Kirtland Safety Society Anti-Banking Company" was not the same organization as Kirtland Safety Society Bank merely renamed. The former was a joint stock company and the later was intended to be a bank. The article distinguishes the two. Maybe you didn't read it closely enough.

In all other ways, the organization was operated as a bank. The lower denominations were hand stamped with the "anti" and "ing Co.", but eventually they were printing money faster than it could be stamped. So many denominations were left bearing the original name.

No one disputes that the organization exercised banking powers as a joint stock company. The issue is whether this was illegal or not, and in 1838 Ohio this is not clear at all. There were a number of similarly organized institutions with the same practices as KSSABC who were not legally harrased. The article plainly states that. Nor is it clear that misprinted denominations are illegal (They would likely also have to be circulated to be illegal . . .)

The "frivolous lawsuits" mentioned in the original article were actually brought by merchants who were stuck with the worthless bank notes. Trying to paint them as "rabid Mormon haters," whose only desire was to drive the Mormons from Ohio, is simple-minded and biased. It should also be pointed out that the only reason the bank became successful enough to fail so spectacularly was because the people using the notes wrongly believed that they were backed by perfectly liquid silver, not by the rapidly devaluating land holdings of the Church.

More of AnonymousCoward's misread of the article: The frivolous lawsuits first mentioned in the article referred merely to those instigated by Church antagonists (if not also rabid Mormon haters), not ALL lawsuits...the only simple-minded and biased panting is AnonymousCoward's lazy reading of the article as interpreted by his simple-minded, biased, bigoted perceptions. The article plainly states that Parrish and Williams assumed management of KSSABC to wind down the business...that would include handling and settling lawsuits...Also, it is not clear whose fault it is that various people wrongly believed the denominations were backed by silver. This point should be covered more, but instead of bitching about it, why don't you, Anon, add more detail rather than waste time bitching.

But I'm not going to try and rewrite the article for two reasons: First, as should be apparent, I have my own biases which preclude me from giving this subject matter proper treatment. Second, I have no interest in getting into the sort of editing wars that are plaguing other controversial topics. Unfortunately, for every person who might be persuaded to write something informative and balanced, there are a dozen trolls ready to rewrite it to suit their own agenda. Until some sort of moderation system evolves, I'm very hesitant to invest much effort in anything controversial.

OK, well then, lets pass a wikipedia resolution right now: First:no mormons should participate in wikipedia because they are all simple-minded, biased, deluded, uninformed, uneducated, indoctrinated, have an ulterior motive, and/or etc.; Second:only people who are non-sympathetic to Mormon-related articles should particpate. Third: bitch-n-run rather than engage and contribute are perfectly acceptable ways to participate.

There is very little in the way of unbiased information in Mormon history, and this fact is compounded by the fact that people on both sides are often too stupid to recognize an objective rendering.

More bigotry, AnonymousCoward's exposure to Mormon history is very limited then and apparently he is much less stupid than all people on "both sides"

As an example, I'll leave you with some quotes from LDS General Authority Boyd K. Packer:

"I have come to believe that it is the tendency for many members of the Church who spend a great deal of time in academic research to begin to judge the Church, its doctrine, organization, and leadership, present and past, by the principles of their own profession.... In my mind it ought to be the other way around...." "Your objective should be that they will see the hand of the Lord in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning till now....there is no such thing as an accurate or objective history of the Church which ignores the Spirit.... Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a very powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer..."

"Some things that are true are not very useful."


Boyd Packer does not speak for the Church nor all its members; he has opinions just like you, AnonymousCoward. See, for example, the introductory paragraph to Controversies regarding Mormonism which it states, "Please note that apologetic positions, even when supported by General Authorities of the Church, do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the Church nor the beliefs of Latter-day Saints at large."

[edit] Reference removed

I removed the "Further reading" reference: The Refiner's Fire: The making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844 by John L. Brooke, Cambridge University Press 1996. This book, if it is to be referenced anywhere, should be on one of the broader articles on the LDS Church or its history. Much has been written on the Kirtland Safety Society which goes into better depth and detail on that subject than this book. If any references are to be listed, those should. B 18:00, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect statements

Firestar's latest edits are incorrect in serious respects along with some unsympathetic POV problems. For example, "In March, Smith and Rigdon were fined $1,000 for operating an illegal bank", is seriously incorrect. The suit was initiated in February 1837 and wasn't adjudicated until October of that year. That version confuses the rest of that paragraph in the article which implies that the suit is initiated after the adjudication! It also fails to mention that the fine was entered in default because they were not present and that they later appealed the fine. These points were stated in the earlier versions and are now cut out. There are other problems, but rather than state them here I'll let my edits speak for themselves. What I'd suggest to Firestar and others who are eager to add anti-Mormon propaganda and POVs to wikipedia articles is to become more acquainted with the various sides of the issue and facts before editing an article based only on one POV like the Tanners or Brooke's book. B 22:00, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

I've more editing but its late. B 04:52, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
According to my source (a history professor at Tufts University), not me, they were fined 1,000 dollars for running an illegal bank. You may not like that (his documentation isn't flattering to the Mormon leadership), but what I've put in here is from a reputable source. If you don't agree, put in an alternative view. I'll maintain the version I've put in.
My source:
The Refiner's Fire: The making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844 by John L. Brooke, Cambridge University Press 1996.
Regards, Fire Star 02:26, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Read my comments above closely: the issue is NOT the fine...the issue is WHEN the fine was made. It was adjudicated in OCTOBER, NOT MARCH. February is when the case was initiated; March is when a hearing was held postponing the trial until later that year....my guess is because the court was going to allow the defendants time to acquire a bank charter. Folks like you who are sloppy about the details make this work way harder than it has to be. And I don't care for your bigoted remark, "You may not like that"...you assume way to much with that little comment. B 02:47, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Firestar’s characterization of "poor" converts is irrelevant. The bank was needed to provide liquidity. In that era this was done by printing money and giving loans. Banks serve wealthy people more than poor people precisely because poor people do not have collateral to qualify to get loans. While the Church had plenty of land, it did not have liquidity to pay off its current loans. So what did they Church leaders do? Just the same as any other community does to provide liquidity…they formed a bank, and the Church used the land it owned as collateral to get loans. If I was in a position to buy stock in a new bank with good growing potential, I probably would have subscribed to buy shares of the bank too! And the "employer" comment is ridiculous. To speculate that Mormons would need to go out of a bustling, growing, industrious town (Kirtland) to smaller, nearby non-Mormon communities for employment rather than vice versa is just stupid. And the tone about the Church “still borrowing”…arrggh…how many publicly-traded corporations in America auction corporate bonds everyday?! Or even better, which ones don’t?! Why would Coke or GMC or even the US Government issue bonds?! FOR LIQUIDITY!!! It should be no surprise that the Church was “still borrowing”, this is a long standing practice that allows commerce and enterprise to transpire! The issue is NOT borrowing, it’s whether the Church was sufficiently capitalized to borrow the sums that it did, and that is usually a business decision left to the firm doing the lending since IT is taking the risk in lending the money. Firestar, with the few comments I have made here, I hope that you realize that your ignorance of finance should really make you hesitant to edit an article on the failings of a quasi-banking institution in the 19th century. B 02:39, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

I'm finished with any significant additions, rewrites and other editing on this article for now. I'm also going to remove the NPOV msg as its original author has not participated in this article since he put it up, and the article has changed substantially since then. B 23:07, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tanner book reference

I do not have time right now to find them, but there need to be better balances of references here. For example, most of the references are from BYU studies. This could be construed as bias toward the LDS position. Also, the Tanner reference is laughable as they have not been a part of serious discussion for many years and have no credibility scholarly. I will try and find more on this subject soon. E-mail if you have a comment as I might forget (new user and all).

Not sure of your email address, however, completely agree if you can add in some additional references. Although the Tanners research is not current, it is farther ahead in my opinion than most other critical research - simply there is a lack of real research on the matter by non-LDS scholars or church critics that is reliable and credible. And as expected D.M. Quinn draws too many conclusions in his treatment of the matter. It seems that the Tanners put forth the known and verifiable facts and then draw conclusions, whereas most others draw conclusions along the way to support their view points. In saying this, I'm not saying that their research is credible or unbiased, but they at least attempt to show a neutral stance to begina foundation... -Visorstuff 18:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think then, that until we get better references, that the Tanner book should stay. Forgot to sign my article, sorry.--Dvhatwiki 19:39, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brodie as a responsible source, POV alert

Quotation from Brodie's work repeatedly inserted by User:Anon166 has been moved here for discussion. First of all, I don't believe the quote should stand alone in a distinct section - assertions of conspiracy needs to be placed in context with the historical events. In my opinion, use of this quote by Brodie, a source questioned by both Mormon apologists and non-Mormons (see discussion Joseph Smith, Jr. Archive 5), requires:

  • an introduction to its purpose in the article.
  • appropriate placement in the sequence of events in the article
  • background and discussion of Brodie's perspective.
  • a discussion of sources accessed by Brodie for this quote.
  • confirmation of her interpretation of those sources by at least one other author.
  • contrasting opinions and perspectives from others sources.

Despite emotional allegations, I am not suppressing information -- I am asserting that any "drop in" quote from Brodie must be understood by the reader as questionable and that the use of any such quote requires the editor to be willing to put time and effort into documenting Brodie's sources and perspective. The tactic of flinging this and similar disconnected quotes into articles is simply irresponsible. Comments here before replacing the quote, please. WBardwin 18:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Fawn Brodie, in No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith:

None of the men who remained faithful to Joseph ever publicly discussed the true financial situation of the Kirtland bank. But several apostates at different times related an identical anecdote which suggests something of the quality of the bank's assets. Lining the shelves of the bank vault, they said, were many boxes, each marked $1,000. Actually these boxes were filled with "sand, lead, old iron, stone, and combustibles," but each had a top layer of bright fifty-cent silver coins. Anyone suspicious of the bank's stability was allowed to lift and count the boxes. "The effect of those boxes was like magic;" said C.G. Webb. "They created general confidence in the solidity of the bank and that beautiful paper money went like hot cakes. For about a month it was the best money in the country." (p. 196, cited from W. Wyl, Mormon Portraits p. 36; Oliver Olney, Absurdities of Mormonism Portrayed p. 4; letter of Cyrus Smalling in E.G. Lee, The Mormons, or Knavery Exposed p. 14).

It's not an emotional allegation at all, WBardwin, the fact is that it is information from a source that is footnoted and deleting it for attacking the messenger in an indirect way without proving fraud on her part is ad hominem, therefore information suppression, which is opposed to Wikipedia's policies. Those sources that you claim are questioning her are not related to these claims. As far as I know, those claims are not answered directly in the apologetic material, hence their "need" to attack the messenger to deny it. The missing material you suggest can easily be placed by those interested, it is not my job all at once. We don't need everyone in Mormonia to agree with Brodie on her other claims to clear Brodie as a source, that would be information suppression as well. I believe the sources listed by Brodie on now on the internet, and can be linked directly, but I think Brodie deserves credit too for her observation. Also, I think you might need to explain your actions using policy, not your own wishes or POV. Anon166 19:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I am questioning -- as historians have done for fifty years -- Brodie's methodology. The quote is not accurate nor can be used as evidence of a conspiracy simply because it is footnoted. Historians use established documentable historical methods. Brodie did not. Historians question their sources and examine alternative views. Brodie did not. Brodie shopped her sources until she found something that fit her agenda, then used it, often without reference to context and reliability. This is similar to using/citing internet links today, as the internet is chock full of unreliable POV material (which is one reason Wikipedia tries to be a more dependable source). We are writing an article here based on a historical event. Historical rules of evidence and sources apply. My notes above are in reference to standard historical rules. You did not really respond to them. Can you provide some of that information? If you edit Wiki articles -- it is your responsibility to work on documenting all material you enter. It is irresponsible to present Brodie's POV without additional work on your part. As to policy here -- obviously, even between the two of us, there is no concensus on this material, so it should not be included in the article until concensus is reached. I will not revert today -- but will alert other editors of this article to this issue. WBardwin 03:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
That would be a Mormon POV, and an exremely biased one that refuses to allow the most significant claims of this bank failure, ie, that it was a confidence scheme. Someone would be wondering if anyone claimed it after reading the material, at least they can come here to discover what is suppressed. Additionally, those quotes do not represent Brodie's POV if they are accurate. Can't have it both ways. Either she is a fraud or not. Those quotes are apparently not denied by Mormons as others having said them. Therefore, the responsibility is on you to prove they are fraudulent quotes since you say they are. Ad hominem refusal to allow to material from Brodie is an unexcusable argument, but difficult to explain to someone who doesn't know what it is. Put it this way, the claims themselves don't have to be verified as true or not, because they represent a claim from a witness. All points of view relevant to the subject matter must be presented. That is policy. You are merely determined to suppress the idea from sources that may lead the reader to decide against your POV, despite having a fraudulent bank to explain away. And I don't need to convince the self-appointed guardians of Smith's legacy. We will let arbitration decide that. I placed the lack of neutrality tag on. Anon166 15:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

While my extended absences from Wikipedia lately has (and will continue to, for some time) prevented me from following this discussion closely, just to add my two cents, Fawn Brodie is hardly an author that any serious historian, Mormon or otherwise, would consider legit. It's not because of a Mormon POV, an ad hominem, or anything else — she's just well-known for having written a number of complete fabrications that contradict Mormon and non-Mormon historians alike. I would advocate either removing contributions based upon Brodie's work, or at the very least, noting her unreliability as a factual reference. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 22:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Not according to Marvin Hill or Newel Bringhurst, to name two Mormon historians. I would point out that Brodie was vindicated by DNA in her controversial claims about Jefferson, but Mormon apologists still smear Brodie by quoting these critics. If she would have been wrong about Jefferson, they might have smeared her for that too. Mormon critics have denounced her secular objectivity in the same pieces they denounced her personal subjectivity, rarely noting their own personal devotion to the subject. I don't think anyone's overturned Brodie's portion related to this discussion. The irony here is that her apologist critics routinely cite her when combatting the Spalding accusation, and her most sour critic, Hugh Nibley, repeatedly referred to her demeaningly as "the lady" in his reply, which is often cited negatively for its ad hominem.
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs2/Hill1968.htm

Although Brodie has had her critics, her version of the origin of the Book of Mormon has remained the most widely accepted one in non-Mormon scholarly circles during the past forty-four years. (p.24, Marvin S. Hill, Quest for Refuge 1989)

http://www.lds-mormon.com/hill.shtml

For more than a quarter century Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows My History has been recognized by most professional American historians as the standard work on the life of Joseph Smith and perhaps the most important single work on early Mormonism. At the same time the work has had tremendous influence upon informed Mormon thinking, as shown by the fact that whole issues of B.Y.U. Studies and Dialogue have been devoted to considering questions on the life of the Mormon prophet raised by Brodie. There is evidence that her book has had strong negative impact on popular Mormon thought as well, since to this day in certain circles in Utah to acknowledge that one has "read Fawn Brodie" is to create doubts as to one's loyalty to the Church. A book which continues to have this much influence warrants the second edition which Alfred A. Knopf published in 1971.... To raise doubts about the validity of some of Brodie's arguments is not to dismiss her book. Her biography will continue to have great influence upon professional historians until someone writes one with equal or greater plausibility. With the benefit of new sources and better insight into the intellectual and cultural background of early Mormonism, this may be possible.

Your comments reminded me of the last review (7th) on this list: [1]
Anon166 05:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced tag

The new "unreferenced tag" brings up an interesting discussion, as this is an article done in the old wikipedia style, before the inline footnotes. The information is actually sourced quite well in the "sources" section, but not inline. Suggestions on how to change this after this article has been pretty stable for quite some time? We can go back and add in the sources at the point of research but there are hundreds of other examples of wikipedia articles that are not using the new citation system. Should we change it now, and expect all article to be retrofitted for this new system? COGDEN and Trodel, if you are reading, can you weigh in, as you did the most work on the citation systems? I'd like to see the change made, but perhaps a better approach is to nominate for the mormon collaboration of the month, and get an entire group working on it? Definiately the tag needs to be removed at the top and placed at specific areas needing citation. -Visorstuff 00:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the best approach for now is for somebody to just go in and do manual harvard citations (without necessarily using the templates). At some point, the Wikipedia will probably be shifting to the slick Wikicite system now in development at mediaWiki, and we'll have to change everything again anyway. COGDEN 00:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the unreferenced tag is totally inappropriate - it is referenced in the references section. The Attribution proposed policy (that is synthesizing the existing reliable sources, no original research and verification policies makes clear that not every line or even every paragraph must be attributed. Only those lines that are in dispute.
"Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable published source, in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged; for such material, Wikipedia must answer the question: According to whom? The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material."
Finally, citing sources is a style issue. Inline cites are one way to provide reliable sources. Of course, information that is disputed should be cited inline to the person holidnig that view, but common facts can be referenced to the list of references at the bottom of the article, for now. As time goes on each article will gain more inline cites. --Trödel 19:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
In an eight section article there are at least half a dozen calls for cites. That would indicate to me that the 'unreferenced' tag is valid (and needed). Duke53 | Talk 03:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
You are confusing a request for clarification or a cite on a disputed sentence or paragraph with the article being unreferenced. The items you are requesting are available in the references at the bottom of the article. Thus there is no need for unreferenced. The tags are requestiong specific citations to those disputed facts, not alleging that there are references missing from the article in general. --Trödel 04:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you show me where that criteria is defined? Duke53 | Talk 04:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Please read the policies referenced in my comment on 27 Oct --Trödel 03:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
When are the [citation needed] tags in the article going to be addressed? I have seen some editors pull sentences and paragraphs after as little as 7.5 hours. The person(s) responsible for adding the text are responsible for citing sources. As it is written now this article is definitely POV (check the sources used; 6 out of 7 are pro-Mormon sources). Duke53 | Talk 05:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Eventually, however, please identify the {{fact}} tags that follow disputed material, as most of them do not follow anything that is disputed; thus the need for a citation is not as urgent. E.g. see my comments on the first few requests below --Trödel 06:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Quote preceeding {{fact}} request Comment
Critics have charged that the KSS was engaged in illegal, unethical or fraudulent actions nearly from its formation, while others contend such charges are at best inflated and at worse baseless. This doesn't really need one as it is an accurate summary of the information in the article
LDS church president and prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. attributed the lack of sponsorship to discrimination against the Mormons. Is this disputed? Whether that was true or not (the lack of sponsorship being due to discrimination) could be disputed, but I don't think any scholar disputes that JS attributed the sponsorship problem that way
Due to their influence, the legislature refused all applications for bank charters during 1836 and 1837, in part because of endemic nationwide problems with land speculation, wildcat banking and counterfeiting. This snippet does not support the NPOV that you allege the article has; so I am not sure it is disputed. However, since a supposed LDS POV might dispute this claim, this should probably be prioritized as needing a citation sooner.
The LDS church also raised and put up $38,000 in bail money for Smith at the Geauga County Court which was to be held to satisfy any judgment that might be rendered against Smith. Clearly a fact that should be cited, but I don't know of anyone that disputes that the bail money was given.

[edit] Article citations

Okay you re-entered them; now find sources for them. If you are going to state something, then the burden of citing that statement is on you. Some of the [citation needed] tags were up for three days, plenty long enough to back up the statements.
Using a bunch of Mormon issued books, some as old as 23 years (and most likely out of print), as primary sources is not going to cut it, especially when discussing the value of objects in 2006. Saying that Smith said something in 'that way' doesn't make it verifiable. Give a citiation.
This article has a definite pro-Mormon slant, as most articles concerning the church do; I am going to suggest to the powers-that-be that the editing of LDS related articles be placed under a 'super-editor' of some sort. When one pro- Mormon editor makes the claim (on another page) that you'd 'have to be Mormon' to understand parts of these articles, then it is time for a change in editing policy for these articles. And I am not suggesting that 'pro-Mormon' and Mormon editors be placed in charge of the editing. Duke53 | Talk 01:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The sources are in the article already - there is no urgency to immediately identify them - Unfortunately, I spend too much time trying to keep useful information from being randomly deleted, robbing me of the time I need to track them down faster. --Trödel 04:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please point out the sources already in the article for the following items:
  • “The credit needs of the church, growing population and ongoing land transactions required a local bank”.
  • “LDS church president and prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. attributed the lack of sponsorship to discrimination against the Mormons”.
  • “Newell was close to three legislators who had taken the LDS charter requests under consideration and used his influence to dissuade them”.
  • “Due to their influence, the legislature refused all applications for bank charters during 1836 and 1837, in part because of endemic nationwide problems with land speculation, wildcat banking and counterfeiting”.
  • “ ... other, larger quasi-banks had been operating in Ohio longer than KSSABC and were not being prosecuted”.
  • “ ... they are now collector's items worth many hundreds of dollars”.
If there is no great urgency to immediately identify them, then I say that there is no 'great urgency' to include them now ... when someone has time to cite sources they can be added back to the article. Duke53 | Talk 05:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
* Adam, Dale W. Chartering the Kirtland Bank. BYU Studies 1983, Vol. 23, No. 4, p.467.
* Bitton, Davis. The Waning of Mormon Kirtland. BYU Studies 1972, Vol. 12, No. 4, p.455.
* Hill, Marvin S., C. Keith Rooker, and Larry T. Wimmer, The Kirtland Economy Revisited: A Market Critique of Sectarian :: Economics. BYU Studies 1977, Vol. 17, No. 4, p.389.
* Ludlow, Daniel H., Editor. Church History, Selections From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Deseret Book Co., Salt Lake City, UT, 1992. ISBN 0-87579-924-8.
* Partridge, Scott H. The Failure of the Kirtland Safety Society. BYU Studies 1972, Vol. 12, No. 4, p.437.
* Sampson, D. Paul and Larry T. Wimmer. The Kirtland Safety Society: The Stock Ledger Book and the Bank Failure. BYU Studies 1972, Vol. 12, No. 4, p.427.
* Tanner, Jerald and Sandra. Mormonism, Shadow or Reality by ]], Chapter 35. Utah Lighthouse Ministry 1964, ISBN 99930-74-43-8. --Trödel 17:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
So you are saying that the entire article is sourced from a few pages (five pages) of the 'cited sources'? Could you specifically cite which book (with page number) that shows the value of those notes in 2006? Duke53 | Talk 22:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Duke53, please realize that in-line page number citations on wikipedia is a very, very new thing, and as stated above, won't last in its current form very long. The article citation in its current form is is how things were generally done until this past summer (2006).
You may want to visit this Wiki for more in-line sources about the KSS.
Rather than citing one of those for your specific question about the value of the notes, I did a very quick Google search and found that a $1 Kirtland Safety Society note sells for approximately $2450.00 [2]. Mormon Americana sales outpace what is written in this article. Not sure why you didn't do that yourself? -Visorstuff 23:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
We can use Google searches as sources now ? Cool (don't be taking down any that I put up, okay ?). When I use the Encyclopedia Brittanica I don't have to google anything to verify what they say; is this an encyclopdia or a site full of puff pieces? Encyclopedia articles have to be verifiable. Duke53 | Talk 04:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

When was the last time you verified anything from Encyclopedia Brittanica? How do you personally verify what Britannica says? Do you just "trust" that they are correct? Or do you really look through their footnotes?

I do, and the process is pretty much the same in both venues. Using a google search to help support or provide evidence is one thing, but actually reading through primary sources is another. (again, which you complain at). We get more detail at Wikipedia due to the ability of researchers across the world being able to provide items from primary documents that not every britannica writer with a POV has access to.

Please notice I didn't cite my google search within the article, but used it on the talk page as a supporting point that the data in the article is likely correct (if not undervalued). However, there is nothing wrong with showing that coin collectors pay a certain amount of money or more for items, or a value of a book at amazon.com. That is done in multiple articles. Most modern researches start off at google.com or lexus nexus or other search tool and branch out from there. This is a normal research method for academians. But that is not your core issue.

The issue is that you don't trust sources on Wikipedia that you don't have access to, and have a history of disputing other's sources across multiple disciplines from religion to politics to pop culture. I can find multiple issues with most Wikipedia articles, but to be honest, I find just as many in Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Seriously, I want to know how you - Duke53 - personally verify the accuracy of Encylopedia Britannica articles? If you don't have to "google anything to verify what they say." By knowing this, we can better provide the right mix of sources to satisfy your "verifiability" issues. I await your response. -Visorstuff 18:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I will continue to doubt the verifability of some sources. Taking something at face value just doesn't cut it. The mention of the value is stated in the article. Cite the source from those listed; we both KNOW it isn't there. This is why all Mormon related articles should be taken away from regular editors. They will never be uncyclopedic under the current system, where pro-Mormon sources are taken as gospel. Cite all the statements made in the article. Duke53 | Talk 22:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
This is the fundamental issue - you don't think that any pro-Mormon source is reliable. Assuming that to be true, then no one can satisfy your requests regardless of the effort they put into it. Fortunately, Wikipedia values reliable sources based on a scholarly criteria rather than prejudicial judgments. --Trödel 22:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Then this should be easy for all you scholars; show me something that cites the value of those notes in 2006 from the sources you expect me to accept. The problem with the sources that many of you use are the inconsistencies in them. Also, any non-Mormon (or 'anti-Mormon') sources are automatically dismissed by many editors here as being POV; that cuts both ways. Duke53 | Talk 22:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Does that mean you will accept reliable sources without ad-hominem attacks based religious background, or is this more busy work? --Trödel 02:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Very odd that you would post the following on another page, but choose to not follow your own advice here."I suspect that there are reputable sources - but exmormon.org is not one of them. I suspect Dialogue has some - as I have a vague memory of reading something like this - but it would be less polemic than the original poster wants. And since I don't have the time to find sources for things all the things I think should be included, why should we waste our time discussing this, or searching for them - the duty is on the person who wants to add the info. --Trödel 00:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)". I find http://www.exmormon.org to be at least as credible as some of the sources used here. Duke53 | Talk 06:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I see that you continue to use ad hominems rather than rational evaluations of the sources. As the attribution proposed policy puts it "*Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; and their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analysing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable, but see below for exceptions." Or as it says in the current verifiability policy, "In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight." And, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."
That you can not tell the difference between a peer-reviewed journal like Dialogue and exmormon.org convinces me you do not understand these policies. The information from which you quote my comment was never referenced to a reliable source(see talk page of above quoted comment. In this case, the information is referenced to a reliable source in the "References" section as mentioned many times above. --Trödel 13:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I wouldn't call Dialogue or Sunstone exactly "pro-Mormon." I am amazed that Duke52 suggests that Mormons not be allowed to edit Mormon-related articles. That is like saying people in the US shouldn't edit any articles about the US. Simply amazing. A few of us long-time editors have been published in peer review journals and conferences, some mormon and some not (at least in my case). or the scrutiny of defending a masters thesis. Our research has withstood that scrutiny. Are all the Mormon-related articles perfect? No. And we appreciate your help to push the limits in citations, but try not to be so iconoclastic. I'd take five Mormon contemporary journal sources that have the same details about an event over a recollection from one former mormon 60 years later. There is much more research available corraberating events and details that what you realize.

Incidentally, Duke53, you still have not answered by basic question. There are many errors in Brittanica articles (one study said that Wikipedia had nearly 4 errors per article, while Britannica had about 3 per page [3][4][5][6]). How you verify the accuracy of Encylopedia Britannica articles? -Visorstuff 14:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Just as had been predicted to me the personal attacks have begun. The hilarious part is that it was from somebody who brags about having more than 10,000 WP edits on his home page. I will not be bullied away from the mormon articles; in fact, this will strengthen my resolve. The [citation needed] tags have been up long enough for the people who made the statements to cite their sources. Duke53 | Talk 04:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please quote the alleged personal attack, as the discussion above merely points out that unless you understand what a reliable source is, how can one ever provide the citation that you request. You have claimed that the sources in the article are not reliable. So lets address that issue first. Why should anyone go to the effort to provide a specific page number for a source you deem unreliable?? it is wasted effort. If; however, the referenced articles are reliable sources, then it will be a fruitful effort to identify the exact page number. --Trödel 14:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Duke53, you still have not answered my basic question. There are many errors in Brittanica articles (one study said that Wikipedia had nearly 4 errors per article, while Britannica had about 3 per page [7][8][9][10]). How you verify the accuracy of Encylopedia Britannica articles? -Visorstuff 14:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Personal attacks

Speaking of accusations -- here is one directed at me. Anyone else see that I've done anything resembling a personal attack? Duke53 -- you even have a template to respond? Sounds like you expect to be attacked on a regular basis? My response is found below. I will restore the material in question until regular editors all have a chance to respond. This is editorial courtesy, in my opinion. WBardwin 19:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Duke53 | Talk 04:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
What personal attack? I simply said that it was your opinion that enough time had elapsed to respond to the citation notice. I disagree and believe that editorial courtesy allows time for all editors to see posted concerns, research information, and respond. If you choose to cut that time short, editors should revert/restore material for others to review. The imposition of any time limit on responses to templates and notices on Wikipedia is generally a matter of personal opinion and impatience. So - after observing your comments and edits on a number of pages on my watchlist - I would encourage you to be more patient with other editor's time constraints. Hope to see constructive work. Best wishes. WBardwin 19:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, the value paragraph as it currently reads meets wikipedia citation standards just fine. -Visorstuff 20:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Under what criteria? Someone made an uncited claim; now prove it. Duke53 | Talk 22:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
"now prove it." Hahaha ROFL hahaha. "Proving" is elusive. "Underdetermination of theories" applies to history as much as it does to science. B|Talk 23:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't made regular edits to wikipedia in a long time and just happened to stop in on this article. I'm glad to see Visorstuff is still here and some new users too. I was the primary author of this aricle when wikipedia was still getting momentum and on its feet. This article is substantially the same as when I wrote it 2 and a half years ago, and I am confident that the content will continue to be validated over time. I relied on a number of different sources and I don't care to try to cite them to meet a newer wikipedia standard that is apparently going to change again soon any way. For the most part, (as with almost all LDS related topics), only LDS-sympathetic sources have done the research on this historical event with far greater thoroughness and depth than unsympathetic sources. Academic Mormon studies have been in large part ignored except by, surprise, Mormons. Non-Mormons are still only beginning to approach Mormonism academically. Of course, some folks are too ignorant and too careless to take this into consideration and demand a perfect world despite their own imperfections. I would advise such to lighten up. Wikipedia is not the arbiter of truth and never will be, but it still has some good reliable content...just like the current article! B|Talk 23:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Academic Mormon studies have been in large part ignored except by, surprise, Mormons".
Perhaps that is a result of the following exchange by your 'prophet':
  • "Larry King: Are people ever thrown out of your church?
  • Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes.
  • Larry King: For?
  • Gordon B. Hinckley: Doing what they shouldn't do, preaching false doctrine, speaking out publicly. They can carry all the opinion they wish within their heads, so to speak, but if they begin to try to persuade others, then they may be called in to a disciplinary council."

When true Mormons aren't allowed by the church to state anything else publically it strengthens the idea that they are just spewing church propoganda. "Wikipedia is not the arbiter of truth and never will be, but it still has some good reliable content. And I suppose that's why we are all here, to sort "some good" content from the crap that is sometimes written as 'fact'. Duke53 | Talk 02:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/i/r/Talk%7EKirtland_Safety_Society_30f9.html"