- September 2006

I was about to revert you here but I held off because I didn't want to welcome you back in that manner. That said, could I perhaps convince you to address 208's core concern (WP:OR), taking it to the talk page before hitting the revert button ( BRD style as opposed to BRR, or BRB)? ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 22:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Each of my edits was different and each an attempt to meet his objection. By limiting the current statement to the content of the official LDS website, I think the statement avoids WP:OR. But I'd certainly be willing to discuss the matter here or at the article. Of course, my original sentence ("No official LDS Church history has ever portrayed Smith's translation in this way") is correct and would be acceptable in a peer-reviewed journal—just not at Wikipedia.-- John Foxe ([[User talk:John Foxe#top|]]) 19:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply

You're probably right that it would be OK in a peer reviewed article, though you'd probably have to define "official church history". I noticed that they weren't straight-up reverts, thus the slightly punny title of "BRB" :-). It looks as if a talk page discussion has been started anyway. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 04:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply

By no "official church history," I meant Joseph Smith is never portrayed looking in a hat in any picture produced or authorized by the LDS Church.-- John Foxe ( talk) 21:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply

	The Original Barnstar
	For writing Monaghan Mill - a lovely new article :). (well, newish) Ironholds ( talk) 12:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you for those kind words.-- John Foxe ( talk) 14:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your appreciation on Fawn Brodie. I remain interested that she learned and documented so much about Hemings-Jefferson and their descendants, and was so much ignored at the time. The power of wishful thinking. At last the consensus has joined her. Parkwells ( talk) 13:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm more agnostic about the Jefferson-Hemings connection, but that skepticism doesn't lessen my appreciation for your copy editing skills.-- John Foxe ( talk) 23:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply

[1] Of course there is reason to archive the discussion. An edit request was made, the consensus was a resounding NO, and the discussion now has no possibility of leading to changes to the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply

if you want to seriously propose that we identify Hams ideas as complete whackjob, please make an actual proposal. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Don't you think a larger audience should enjoy the benefit of your considered thought?-- John Foxe ( talk) 10:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Please carefully read the following notice:

This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee have authorised discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience and fringe science, which you may have edited. The Committee's decision can be read here.

Discretionary sanctions are intended to prevent further disruption to a topic which has already been significantly disrupted. In practical terms, this means that uninvolved administrators may impose sanctions for any conduct, within or relating to the topic, which fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, expected standards of behavior and applicable policies. The sanctions may include editing restrictions, topic bans, or blocks. Before making any more edits to this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system as sanctions can be imposed without further warning. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any other editor if you have any questions.

Please note that posting creationist propaganda such as this is disruptive, a violation of talkpage guidelines, and can result in Wikipedia administrators taking disciplinary action against you without further warning.

jps ( talk) 11:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Here's the sentence that's supposed to be disruptive: "I agree that science is falsifiable. Origins are not falsifiable and therefore not "science" in the normal meaning of that word."-- John Foxe 19:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Please notify me the next time Joseph Smith goes up as FAC. It seems that most people were too scared to jump on board last time, but I would be pleased to help resolve any remaining issues in the article. Shii (tock) 14:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I'd be happy to do that; but I suggest that Adjwilley and Jgstokes would be more knowledgeable about plans to nominate Joseph Smith again. All the best, John Foxe ( talk) 13:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi, John, while I appreciate the many helpful tweaks you've been making at the Joseph Smith article, I couldn't help but notice that your edit summaries are exceptionally vague, and don't always reflect the changes you are making. As the content you are changing is stuff that has been argued over for years, I feel it is important to at the very least justify substantive changes in the edit summary. (Note however that I disagree with Jgstoke's comments that substantive changes need to be first justified on the talk page...I feel that's going too far...but some justification is necessary.) I reverted the latest two edits, but left the rest of your changes intact. ( This one in particular was more than just "stylistic tweaks".) In the future, may I ask that you make more use of the edit summaries, describing what you are changing and why it needs to be changed? Thanks. P.S. I didn't initiate the last FA review, and I don't really have any specific plans for one in the future. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 18:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I'll try to be more careful about my explanations in the future. Usually I'm just trying to make the prose more readable. And when I've made substantive changes, they've been adapted directly from the sources cited.-- John Foxe ( talk) 19:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I've reverted this edit for the same reason. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 00:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply

And I've done the same. Feel free to discuss it with me on the talk page. I'm in no rush.-- John Foxe ( talk) 14:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I think you might have misunderstood my intentions here. I am trying to convince you to use valid edit summaries when you make significant changes. When you are trying to change a long-standing wording that is the result of discussion and consensus, it is your responsibility to provide a good reason for doing so. You can sometimes get away with vague or missing edit summaries when you have accumulated a certain amount of trust with the community, but when you use misleading edit summaries you quickly lose that trust and are more likely to be reverted by edit-summary-snobs like myself. Does that make sense? ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 16:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply

No. I'm most interested in improving style. If I say something's a "stylistic tweak," and you don't think I've improved the style (or if you think I've significantly changed the content in the process), you ought to be able to tell me why you think so.-- John Foxe ( talk) 19:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I agree that I should be able to justify my revert (and I can), but it sounds like you're saying that you shouldn't have to justify your edits. Could you perhaps be more specific about what doesn't make sense in my previous post? ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 02:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC) reply

If I believe something's a stylistic improvement, and you say it's not, we're (at least theoretically) at an impasse unless you explain your rationale. Would you be satisfied with edit summaries that say "better syntax" or "fewer words"?-- John Foxe ( talk) 14:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Pardon for butting in, but I think the purely stylistic tweaks are a red herring. I believe Adjwilley's concern (which I share) is regarding vague edit summaries for "tweaks" that go beyond stylistic adjustments and alter the tone, focus, or substance of the material. "Serious tweaks", "some stylistic tweaks but some substantive ones as well", and "stylistic tweaks with some substantive overtones" fail to disclose the nature of the substantive changes. On the other hand, edit summaries such as "removed sentence; it improperly quotes Brodie by ignoring her statement that those years consisted largely of ecclesiastical trials for drinking, sexual misbehavior, and heresy" and "some substantive changes to highlight Smith's dabble with the Methodist church during the summer of 1828" provide helpful insight into the nature and aims of those edits. alanyst 14:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I can do that. But I really am mostly interested in style: pruning word count, cleaning up syntax, etc. Clean prose in volume can itself be substantive change.-- John Foxe ( talk) 21:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC) reply

You recently reverted my edit on the article Sisera saying I repeated material. As you know, the lead introduces the topic and provides some context. I knew nothing of the topic and so I wanted to make it clear that Barak was a general, as opposed to a king or other rank, especially since it's not mentioned in the rest of the article. Plus, I shouldn't need to read another article to know who the key people are in a lead. And I added that the topic source flows from religious texts since there doesn't seem to be any evidence that these were real-world people or events (at least not that's within the article). My edit was really simple, clarified some things, and didn't detract from anything. Having said that, unless you strongly object, I'm going to re-do my last edit. If you do object we can discuss it further. Coinmanj ( talk) 19:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

"General" sounds odd to me, since the Bible doesn't call him that, and I think if you check other articles about biblical characters or those in the mythologies of other religions (including Barak and the Hindu god Shiva), there's no attempt to add words like "according to religious texts." That's understood from the context. But there's certainly room for compromise. See if you're satisfied with how I've modified the lead.-- John Foxe ( talk) 01:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Looks good to me. Coinmanj ( talk) 21:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks.-- John Foxe ( talk) 22:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

John,

I am contacting you about this because (A) it is not clear as to how to add something to the talk page for the specific article I am referencing; and (B) you commented on someone else's "talk".

Concerning the page for "The Old Rugged Cross", it states that, "it speaks of the writer's Christian experience rather than his adoration of God." It's interesting that the reason I searched for information on this song in the first place was that I was contemplating the words to the chorus. Clearly whoever wrote this article does not understand what George Bennard was referring to. This song is about his experience AND his adoration of God. Christians who are saved by grace through faith understand the sacrifice God made when He sent His only Son to die on that cross, so that we could be forgiven of our sins. Jesus (the son of God and God incarnate) took our sins upon Him on that cross. So yes, we adore and love God with all our hearts because we experience His perfect grace and love. So I'm asking that the sentence be removed or corrected to reflect the truth.

Also, you commented on the person's post who asked that the lyrics of the song be added to the text of the song's page. You replied, "Done." However, in viewing the page today, there are still no lyrics.

Thank you,

Martie Vacek East Moline IL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.122.44 ( talk) 14:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Martie,

I did add the lyrics back in 2008, but someone else removed them, probably because they're still under copyright. Wikipedia's sensitive about such things.

To add a new subject to an article talk page, click on "New section" at the top of the page, and then add your comment.

I can't remember if I wrote the line that you've mentioned, but I'll defend it to the extent of noting that the fundamental difference between a hymn and a gospel song is that the latter reflects personal experience by including many first-person pronouns while a hymn directs one's thought directly towards God. In "The Old Rugged Cross," I think there are 6 personal pronouns in four verses and 3 in the chorus. Compare, by contrast, " All Hail the Power of Jesus' Name".-- John Foxe ( talk) 18:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC) reply

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. — Eustress 23:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I think it would be prudent for you to cease editing Bob Jones University while the above COI investigation is going on. — Eustress 23:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I'll be happy to do that if you promise to do the same.-- John Foxe ( talk) 23:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Eustress 21:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello, I have closed this ANI report an not an administrative issue. I believe from the discussion and the evidence provided that you are making efforts to edit in a neutral fashion.

That being said the appearance of a conflict of interest may exist even if you are acting neutrally. Please understand that the appearance can be as damaging as the real thing. I recommend that you take extra efforts to discuss disputed changes on the talk page and entertain contrary opinions when it is reasonable to do so.

Have a nice day. Chillum 21:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Thank you.-- John Foxe ( talk) 00:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

follow truth
Thank you, veteran editor named after "a man of his own era, yet one who followed truth. He sometimes got the story wrong, but as his duty to God, he tried to get it right", for quality contributions to articles such as Bob Jones University including a logo, for Robert Sheffey and the Swamp rabbit trail, for maintaining article talk page archives, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1118 of Precious, a prize of QAI! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you.-- John Foxe ( talk) 12:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Five years now! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Glad you're still plugging away at Wikipedia, Gerda! John Foxe ( talk) 18:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you. Your recent violation of BLP policy on the Peter Ruckman article clearly violates the BLP guidelines as I warned on the article. Please self revert before I report to the BLP violations page. BLP violations are taken very seriously especially when they can be considered libel and are from very poor sources such as the blog you have inserted as a source for your claims about a living person. Thanks 208.54.39.193 ( talk) 21:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I refuse. Either report me or express your complaints on the article talk page so that they can be discussed by the community.-- John Foxe ( talk) 21:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Your recent edits and long history of adding controversial poorly sourced material has been added to the BLP noticeboard. 208.54.39.193 ( talk) 22:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Here is something right up your alley as a historian John. You could create this article about the church fellowship created by John Rankin (abolitionist). The Free Presbyterian Church of America has a very similar name to the Free Presbyterian Church of North America that you frequently edit but much older and at one time much larger. Thought you might enjoy creating an article about an denomination you have some interest in. It also would get you out of some controversial editing for awhile. 172.56.9.207 ( talk) 11:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Done—well, at least a stub. See Free Presbyterian Church Synod of the United States.-- John Foxe ( talk) 03:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. There is a discussing concerning your COI editing at the COI noticeboard concerning Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire) of which your own posts indicate close personal ties with individuals and institutions involved. 172.56.9.207 ( talk) 13:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply

this has got to one of the most self-destructive things I have seen anybody write in WP. Are you aware of how much people are disgusted by clergy particpating in rape and victimization of kids? do you have any insight into how ugly your edit was? There is still time to be human and show some insight. You can strike. Jytdog ( talk) 02:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Sorry you've been offended. My intent was simply to bow out of editing that article in as few words as possible.-- John Foxe ( talk) 02:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

interesting response. from a scholarly perspective, your edit is indefensible. from an ethical perspective of editing with a COI, your edit is indefensible. in my view, from a moral perspective, your edit is indefensible. with that edit, you lost whatever trust i had for your judgement (and i have reviewed your edits before). when you lose trust, you have to gain it back. you start to gain it back by acknowledging your mistake. if you cannot see the mistake, you do not deserve to be trusted. and in my view, you don't deserve the community's trust anymore. I realize you are saying as little as possible. If that is the path you want to continue on, that is your call. At this point, i don't trust your judgement and will seek to have your editing privileges restricted. Jytdog ( talk) 02:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

adding a link to the edit to the article i am talking about: here. Jytdog ( talk) 03:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

If you have the time, your input in how to address two NPOV concerns at Gordon B. Hinckley would be appreciated. One NPOV is the word 'implicate' used next to a 'forgery'. The other is Hinckley purchasing 'on behalf of the church' debate.

/info/en/?search=Talk:Gordon_B._Hinckley#BRD

The talk page is cluttered, but here is the current proposal:

BEFORE: The Mark Hofmann document forgeries, bombings, and investigation occurred during this time. "The news interest was global" and "the whole episode achieved epic proportions."[11] Several books[12] describe the arrangements for acquiring supposed historical documents for the church by Hinckley and others. For example, the Stowell forgery implicating Joseph Smith in gold digging was purchased for $15,000 by Hinckley on behalf of the church from Hofmann on the promise of confidentiality. However, two years later, Hofmann leaked its existence to the "Mormon intellectual underground."[13] Upon press inquiries, church spokesman Jerry Cahill denied that the church possessed the document.[14]Hinckley corrected Cahill and released the letter to scholars for study.[15] The document was later found to be a forgery.

AFTER: The Mark Hofmann document forgeries, bombings, and investigation occurred during this time. "The news interest was global" and "the whole episode achieved epic proportions."[11] Several books[12] describe the arrangements for acquiring supposed historical documents by Hinckley and others. For example, the Stowell forgery was initial assume authentic, but later found to be a fake during the bombing investigation of Hofmann. It was "reportedly written by Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith describing money-digging pursuits and treasure guarded by a clever spirit". Using $15,000 of church funds, Hinckley purchased the Stowell forgery from Hofmann on the promise of confidentiality. However, two years later, Hofmann leaked its existence to the "Mormon intellectual underground."[13] Upon press inquiries, church spokesman Jerry Cahill denied that the church possessed the document.[14] Hinckley informed Cahill of the document's existence and released it. Hofmann was later arrested for murder and the ensuing investigation discovered that the Stowell forgery, along with many others, were fraudulent historical documents produced by Hofmann himself.

Mormography ( talk) 09:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#I am evading a block but not a sock for which I was blocked Self Reported regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nil Einne ( talk) 13:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply

"For 'tis the sport to have the engineer / Hoist with his own petard." (Hamlet)-- John Foxe ( talk) 21:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Scientists do not believe that the universe is billions of years old, they conclude it as the inevitable result of multiple observations or, if they have no directly relevant expertise, they accept it as the conclusion of specialists in the relevant fields. Substituting thousands of years for billions in calculations around biological, geological, astronomical and other processes simply gives nonsensical answers. There's no scientific debate for the same reason there's no scientific debate around the laws of thermodynamics. In science, facts are neutral, they have no ideology. Guy ( Help!) 17:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I disagree. And, obviously, so do a tiny minority of scientists and other academics.-- John Foxe ( talk) 22:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Actually, John, the inside-cover states that my Aunt Bessie gave this to my grandma in 1935. So wouldn’t that be considered early 20th century? Thanks for your help. GEOGOZZ GEOGOZZ ( talk) 12:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Earlier than I would have guessed. Any other chronological markers in that printing that might push the date back even further? Otherwise, we could say, it's a "c. 1935 printing." (I can't read the name of the school for "Christian workers" that it comes from.)-- John Foxe ( talk) 01:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire). Since you had some involvement with the Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BenjaCamp ( talk) 19:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi John Foxe. Thanks for your message on my Talk page. I do take your point and did struggle to find a form of words that did not assume the flood was necessarily an actual event. I don't know if the story happened but my assumption is that there is debate as to this. I'm happy to look again at the wording, or for you to have another go yourself. Best wishes. Peteinterpol ( talk) 08:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC) reply

The edit you made might be concise, but it destroyed the sense of the sentence. If you have the book its all in the prefatory pages. The volume I have is the 5th printing. WEB realized he had no grounding in the topic and resolved not not sermonize on the Second Advent until he had done the research in the Holy scriptures. The 1924 work was the result of his realization of his original neglect of the topic and then his decade long study. Church of the Rain ( talk) 03:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I've added a long quotation to the footnote explaining Biederwolf's intent, as well as a citation to the first edition. Hope that's satisfactory. If not, I'll be glad to try again.-- John Foxe ( talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I love lengthy footnotes myself. I suspect the general reader, however, will ignore them. The footnote covers the important aspect of the commentary--its neutrality towards the tribulation and second advent timing. Its a significant fact that a scholarly preacher went twenty years neglecting a bedrock doctrine of Jesus. He took up a decade long study so we have thirty years of the man's life marked by the subject. At some point WEB's premillennial position should be noted and I'd love to access his pre-trib thinking if any scholarship exits on that. Its probably in his published sermons post 1924. I wonder if the most convincing pre-trib preachers cited WEB. The pre-trib position and latter-day theology took off after the founding of the modern Israel. I am continuing to read the volume and thank you for your efforts. Happy Thanksgiving! Church of the Rain ( talk) 15:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Adoption of the pre-trib position began earlier (especially among fundamentalists in the North) with publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909 (and especially after its revision in 1917). So the study of Biederwolf's sermons between say 1909 and 1924 would be most interesting. Hard to believe he made no reference at all to eschatology during those years. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, his personal papers did not survive.-- John Foxe ( talk) 17:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I appreciate the clarification on the timeline. Wheaton is the holder of his papers. See Billy Graham Center. Church of the Rain ( talk) 18:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Funny thing is that I've actually looked through those boxes at Wheaton.-- John Foxe ( talk) 21:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello John Foxe, I've added a section to the Edward Bancroft Talk page to discuss Bancroft's espionage activities if you are interested. Libertybison ( talk) 00:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I think you've done a great job with the edits to the Edward Bancroft page. I do have a few suggestions that I'll bring up on the article talk page and make more edits to the Silas Deane page. Also since I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, I was wondering if you would be willing to look over the extensive edits that I made to the Bixby letter page.-- Libertybison ( talk) 00:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Done. See what you think.-- John Foxe ( talk) 02:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I think it's much improved. I did have to correct a few minor errors that creeped in but the wording of the article is much better now.-- Libertybison ( talk) 06:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I was considering going back and converting most of the reused citations I made of Schaeper into single citations with the page numbers because it looks a little confusing to readers how it's set up now. I've noticed you've already been doing so. I also want to add a link to the google books webpage of Schaeper for each entry. Also good work on those stylistic edits! You seem to be able to think much more succinctly than I can. Would you consider looking over the Silas Deane page? I've made a whole bunch of edits to the page, maybe you can make the text a little neater. I probably should add more information on his death on that page. Libertybison ( talk) 00:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for those kind words. As you can see, I've tweaked Silas Deane a bit. Hope I didn't add any additional errors. (I'm baffled by those error messages that appear in the "Show preview" view.) I've put the article on my watchlist; maybe sometime I'll have a chance to add more information.-- John Foxe ( talk) 02:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC) reply

I just came across this article about Benjamin Franklin's relationship with his son. Do you think this new found record would change the way the Edward Bancroft article is worded in regards to Franklin's possible knowledge of Bancroft being a spy? Libertybison ( talk) 08:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

All the images appear fine when I view the article. I added an image of Schouler and the original newspaper article a couple of weeks ago, but since you've already edited the page since then I don't think that's what you are referring to. Is there something specific you would like me to look at? Libertybison ( talk) 18:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Sorry, it must have been a temporary problem. I can see all the images again.-- John Foxe ( talk) 19:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

To John Foxe and others who have contributed to the discussion about Frank Sandford and Shiloh: I just want to throw in my thanks for your intelligent participation in this complicated and sensitive story. If there's a possibility of connecting directly, I'd appreciate it.

Shirley Nelson
Author of Fair. Clear and Terrible: The Story of Shiloh, Maine  — Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
73.69.176.92 (
talk) 12:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
reply 

Thank you, Shirley.-- John Foxe ( talk) 12:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Brandon Mill. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 ( ^{Talk to me}/ _{What I been doing}) 20:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for fixing my oversight.-- John Foxe ( talk) 20:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC) reply

This comment contains elements of personal attack, as well as a confusion that there is some "local cabal" controlling the article in some way that contradicts policy, when in fact PSCI is en-wiki policy. You have made a series of comments like this on that article. Please to do be aware of the discretionary sanctions on this topic.

No one has replied to your comment yet, so it is still changeable, and there is always REDACT. Jytdog ( talk) 18:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Those 3 people were all Fundamentalist Evangelical preachers with whom Ironside shared a great deal. Of course he was contemporaneous with a billion people but they have a special significance and interest to people interested in the life of H. A. Ironside. Torrey used to pastor the very same church Ironside pastored. Gipsy Smith spoke at Moody on at least 3 occasions. And Morgan was called the Prince of Expositors. Harry was the called the Archbishop of Fundamentalism. Both are considered two of the greatest Fundamentalist preachers of the first half of the 20th century. CrossReach ( talk) 11:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I think I could make just as good a case for Charles E. Fuller, James M. Gray, Billy Sunday, and Paul Rader. In any case, a bunch of names are out of place in an article's lead.-- John Foxe ( talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Community input is politely requested for Jimbo's tkpg with regard ur expertise in gen. notability per wp:GNG & applicabilities of eg wp:PROF, wp:AUTH, etc. w/in AfD's
... here: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Suggested fix.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 00:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I'll recuse myself on this one. Someone unknown once wrote a WP article about me that was later deleted because I wasn't notable as a prof.-- John Foxe ( talk) 01:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) 15:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply

I was going for " proof by verbosity" and that redirects to "proof by intimidation". Just clarifying, I'm not going to dispute the case. Kleuske ( talk) 22:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Ah. Thanks for that clarification.-- John Foxe ( talk) 14:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

== BoringHistoryGuy ( talk) 15:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC) reply

If you insist on improving an article, make sure you're actually doing so. Your section about the military career in teh section about Arnaud Beltrame is wrong literally from start to finish: 1. He is a military officer and you have stricken his army service. The French National Gendarmerie is an armed service just like the army. It's not like the former is the military chapter and the latter the civilian chapter of his professional life. 2. He did not graduate from the Lycée militaire de Saint-Cyr L’Ecole in 1999, but in 1995. You fail to note the difference between the Lycée militaire de Saint-Cyr L’Ecole, which is a military boarding school and the École militaire interarmes de Saint Cyr - Coëtquidan, which is an officer schools for promotion of servicemen and NCOs to the officer ranks. Just because both are located at Saint Cyr does not mean they are connected. He graduated from the first in 1995 and from the second in 2001. 3. He did not graduate from the Gendarmerie Officer School in 2001, but in 2002. 4. His service in the Armoured Groupment is not mentioned. 5. He never served in the GIGN, which I have specifically explained when I edited the article. He served in the EPIGN. This particular unit was absorbed into the GIGN A YEAR AFTER he transfered to the Republican Guard. 6. HE WAS NOT A GUARD. A guard means a regular serviceman standing sentry. He was a company commander. 7. "joined the gendarmerie unit in southwestern France" about a high ranking officer is like saying "yeah, he was a cop in the police department in New England" about a police superintendent.

The New York Times article is completely garbage. They literally did not get a single event right, which should be quite an accomplishment. Either you revert the section, edit it with the correct content or I will. B.Velikov ( talk) 22:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

I trust you; go right ahead. I was suspicious of the New York Times wording (especially the "guard" part--which is what I was myself many years ago), but I thought certainly a reporter who had French name would have a chance of getting it right. Sorry. I just wanted to get rid of the list that was there before.-- John Foxe ( talk) 23:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks for creating Majesty Music, John Foxe!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

An interesting article and a worthwhile addition to Wikipedia.

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi John Foxe! First, I'm a fan of anyone with the user name John Foxe. He was one of the best. Second, I've seen a lot of your edits and I appreciate your work. Would you mind checking out a page I recently revised: William Joseph Seymour? I could use an experienced reviewer and historian to take a look. Any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Misterniceguy ( talk) 15:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks for those kind words. I don't know anything about Seymour, so I think my greatest contribution to this article at this point would be copy editing to tighten the prose. I've tweaked three paragraphs to get your feedback.-- John Foxe ( talk) 19:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Strong work. Thanks for shrinking some of those long paragraphs down and making them more to the point. I'd like to submit it for GA review, but this would be the first time. Any advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterniceguy ( talk • contribs) 14:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks. As I have opportunity, I'll try to do some more tweaking.

Some of the articles I've worked on have become GA, but I've never been involved in the process.-- John Foxe ( talk) 00:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello,

I have reviewed your edits to this page,"Too much citation of primary sources; too much material that has nothing to do with Harris; I'd be glad to talk this out on the talk page, piece by piece." I understand the need for more reliance on secondary sources. However, the page already has much information that doesn't have to do with Harris just from the nature of his history. I think the information is relevant to his life. If you could justify your reasoning, I would love to understand it. Otherwise, I will search out secondary sources and replace the information.

If there's other irrelevant information in that article, then we should work together to eliminate it, not be adding other irrelevant information. Maybe you can give examples of what you think is irrelevant. (The best place to do so would be the Martin Harris talk page because I'm sure there are a number of folks who are also watching that page.) John Foxe ( talk) 01:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)] reply

Just to clarify, do you want to keep the existing text (that you keep reverting to), but then cite authors who disagree (e.g. "The forgotten Pink", etc.), along with "the full citation" from Pink himself? I think that's a great idea, but just want confirmation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Londonderrry ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Yes. However, the existing text is based on secondary sources, and at Wikipedia, these trump a primary source from Pink himself, just like Joseph Smith's statements about the origins of Mormonism won't trump a reputable secondary source about the origins of Mormonism. So, if you have a good Pink quotation with a full citation, we can add it to a footnote. But if you have a reputable secondary source that communicates the same information, we can do a "on-one-hand" and "on-the-other" in the text itself. John Foxe ( talk) 01:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Yes, I have a reputable secondary source, which I will add and footnote to the article. If you want to revise it, then please do so, but I would appreciate it if you don't simply revert it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Londonderrry ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC) reply

I think Hanko and Murray differ with each other, but they're not really saying different things about Pink. So, I added the quotation from Hanko to the footnote. (You can sign your posts by typing four tildes.) John Foxe ( talk) 13:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Murray clearly indicates that he believed Pink "changed" his position after being influenced by hypercalvinists. Murray rejects that thesis. That's "saying different things about Pink." For example, Murray writes: “There is the strongest possible presumption that Pink would not have allowed The Sovereignty of God to stand unaltered had he been re-issuing the book thirty years later" (August/September 1997 issue of The Banner of Truth magazine" “A.W. Pink’s Sovereignty of God - Revised or Unrevised?” by Iain Murray.) In other words, Murray believed that Pink's theology changes, which is the BOT (Banner of Truth) republished the work, by omitting nearly half of the book.

Pink clearly did not believe in the Free Offer of the Gospel,, so I am not content to leave that quote unchallenged in the main body. For fairness, I've moved the other quote about the "free offer" to the footnotes. Otherwise, we should leave both quotes in the main body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Londonderrry ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC) reply

That's fine. I just tweaked the syntax a bit. John Foxe ( talk) 22:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi John Foxe, I dont really understand your revert of this, as I did provide a reference coming from This vast southern empire : slaveholders at the helm of American foreign policy. The citation can be seen here. Poinsett's views can be viewed here Poinsett's views on slavery seem to be complex. He was unionist, owned slaves, notably Peter Poinsett the father of Septima Poinsette Clark. Rosa Parks was one of her students. So this question is not just anecdotical, it is of paramount importance given the historical impact of the civil right's movement. I leave it to you, but I find that just reverting when it was sourced is not very cooperative, although I do agree that there is space for discussion around the fact that Poinsette was or was not a supporter of the southern slave system. He was not in favour of Secession but did own slaves and expressed beliefs on the superiority of white people as far as I can gather. I think this reflects modern views and debates that are important (see as an example http://www.tommystringer.com/2017/08/26/joel-poinsett-worthy-protest/). We should not "euphemize" racist views because a given person was recognized as a great statesman. I would greatly appreciate if you could add something to this bio in your own terms and manner to reflect this.-- Nattes à chat ( talk) 07:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC) reply

I'm here because of Nattes à chat's post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject African diaspora#Joel Poinsett. I will put it back but with the relevant page number - page 58 - which I believe was one of the rationale for reversion. The full source is: Karp, Matthew, This Vast Southern Empire, Harvard University Press (2016), p. 58, ISBN  9780674737259 [2] Tamsier ( talk) 14:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Thank you both. I only wanted to ensure that the statement was properly cited. Unfortunately, this article has never been properly sourced or edited. I did move the reference to Poinsett's ownership of slaves to a more appropriate place in the article, but perhaps there's an even better place. John Foxe ( talk) 15:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Just wondering why you reverted my edit on H. A. Ironside? Cheers DJKinsella ( talk) 12:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

It just seemed unnecessary in the lead. As I said in the summary, "We hold these truths to be self-evident." If your name were Damian John Kinsella, it seems obvious that you might also be known as D.J. Kinsella. John Foxe ( talk) 15:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Joan Pinkston requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Pinkston. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Celestina007 ( talk) 23:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Amazing how invisible someone can be when they avoid limelight and fanfare and just spend their life doing what they do best: writing hymn tunes and having literally hundreds of sacred choral arrangements published. Maybe someday there'll be a nice news story or journal article. Unfortunately it may not appear until after her death. John Foxe ( talk) 02:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Not sure if you have seen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj9xgX65vnk done by Dan Vogel. I personally am a skeptic of all religion, not just Smith's, but feel like Vogel makes a case that the first vision could have been based on an actual event that became embellished over time. I don't think there is enough evidence to say anything for certain, but based on the environment that Smith grew up in, Vogel's narrative makes the most sense for me. Epachamo ( talk) 18:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for pointing me to the video; I was interested to see what Vogel looked like. I have Vogel's book but think he tries too hard to make a biography out of what was essentially a first novel by a semi-literate. Convincing novels have to have biographical elements, but to try to work backward from them to glean biographical details is bound to lead you astray. Vogel has now invested so much energy in this theory that it's nearly a religious belief itself. Of course, Smith was immersed in the evangelical culture of his day, and he began by framing the First Vision tale in language that would make sense to his readers/hearers, a tale that grew more and more heterodox as he gained confidence in his large-scale religious con. (I assume by "actual event" you mean actual to Smith, not actual in the sense of being in any way provable.) John Foxe ( talk) 20:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC) reply

John,

I don't usually take Merriam-Webster seriously, but I have no objection to the definition of "Jew" that you quote. Note that neither of the possibilities is an ethnicity. The notional "descendants of ancient Hebrews" now include ethnicities from China to 28% of the Dinka of Sudan, and are most notably divided into Ashkenaz and Sepharad communities. These differ in language, accent, DNA, prayerbook, and politics.

We converts are almost as varied in our ethnicities.

Best wishes,

-dlj.

David Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 12:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply

I agree that "ethnicity" is the wrong word, and I've eliminated it from the lead. John Foxe ( talk) 23:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello Mr Foxe

I wish to record my strong objection to your revision of the Henry Francis Lyte page after I edited it last night. I think that anyone interested in the life and times of Lyte would be equally interested to know that his book "The Spirit of the Psalms", OUT OF PRINT FOR NEARLY 200 YEARS is now available both as an e-book and also in print.

I felt that it was important to record that fact in the main text - instead you deleted it and placed a tiny reference in the footnotes - which I had great trouble finding!

Your reason is that you regard my edit as an advertisement - presumably because I said it was available on Amazon. Hardly a strong advertisement - to me it was more important as a point of information, but if you wanted to be persnickety you could simply have removed the reference to Amazon and said it had been republished, leaving readers to find their own way there.

I worked for over a year on republishing Lyte's book - totally unavailable from any other source and I am thus very annoyed that you should be so dismissive, especially in view of the fact that I donate financially towards the running of Wikipedia and have done so for several years.

Your response would be welcomed.

William Holmes WilliamHolmes632 ( talk) 12:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC) williamholmes1951@gmail.com reply

"There are certain things that Wikipedia is not." /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion

Personally, I've looked for out-of-print books mentioned in Wikipedia articles, and I've almost always found them available online or in libraries--as I did for your new edition of Lyte's work (which, by the way, I will enjoy seeing sometime).

John Foxe ( talk) 20:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I say once again - I wanted it mentioned on Wikipedia as a matter of information not to promote it.

I published the book as printed copies were unavailable. Believe me, I tried!

Interesting that Wikipedia allowed it to be mentioned in the main text when it was just an e-book.

Now it is relegated to a couple of obscure words in a footnote where few could find it. For all the use it is, why don't you just remove it?

Think I've just gone off Wikipedia! WilliamHolmes632 ( talk) 20:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply