Talk:Samuel L. Mitchill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mormon related footnote[edit]

Kraxler has removed the following sentences from a footnote on the ground that "it is irrelevant, source is WP:POV anyway." I believe he's wrong on both counts. Would someone else like to weigh in on this issue?

Despite his interest in philology, Mitchill may have escaped connection with [[Joseph Smith, Jr.|Joseph Smith]], founder of [[Mormonism]], only because he died in 1831 before the new religion became generally known. Smith sent [[Martin Harris (Latter Day Saints)|Martin Harris]] to New York to show to various learned men a sample of "[[Reformed Egyptian]]" said to have been taken from [[golden plates]] given to Smith by an angel. Although it was previously believed that Harris first visited Mitchill, who sent him to [[Charles Anthon]] (Charles Anthon to E. D. Howe, February 17, 1834, in ''Early Mormon Documents'', 4: 378), recent research suggests that Harris first visited Anthon who directed him to Mitchill. Richard E. Bennett, "'Read This I Pray Thee': Martin Harris and the Three Wise Men of the East," ''Journal of Mormon History,'' 36 (Winter 2010) 178-216.

--John Foxe (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it prudent to replace the EMD primary source with a quotation from Bushman.--John Foxe (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant in which order somebody was visited. It has nothing to do with the subject of this article anyway, who has been visited by thousands of people while still alive. My dear Mr. Foxe, you seem to be a religious fanatic who is on a crusade to add the name of your guru to a maximum number of articles. I hope some admin looks into this. Kraxler (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The material is not irrelevant, especially since it's just part of a footnote. I'd be happy to join you in asking for a Third opinion. (I'm sure the many LDS members with whom I've crossed words in the past six years would be amused at your mistaking me for a Mormon.)--John Foxe (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think it makes much difference whether the material is kept or removed, especially since it's tucked away in a footnote. I understand Kraxler's objection to shoehorning in tangentially-related POV material, but I'm not convinced this is the case here. That said, the footnote is rather long, and spends a lot of time talking about who was first, and I wouldn't mind seeing it trimmed a little. Perhaps something like:
Burnett, p. 44 {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Richard Bushman (2005), Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, p. 64 (Despite his interest in philology, Mitchill may have escaped connection with Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, only because he died in 1831 before the new religion became generally known. Smith had sent Martin Harris to New York to show to various scholars a sample of "Reformed Egyptian" said to have been taken from golden plates. "Accounts vary as to whether he saw Mitchill or Charles Anthon, another scholar, first or if he saw Mitchill before and after Anthon."); Richard E. Bennett (Winter 2010), "'Read This I Pray Thee': Martin Harris and the Three Wise Men of the East", Journal of Mormon History, vol. 36, p. 178–216.
I changed "learned men" to "scholars", got rid of the "given to Smith by an angel", and got rid of the "Recent research..." part that didn't add much to the "Accounts vary" sentence. I also stuck the citations in citation templates if you'd like to use those. As a side note, the Burnett, 44 part of the citation probably needs a little more information, as it's not entirely clear who Burnett was, and what his publication was named. ~Adjwilley (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Burnett, p. 44" means the same publication mentioned in footnote number 1, just a different page. "May have escaped connection" is pure speculation. I myself may have escaped connection with John Smith only because he was dead when I was born, otherwise... If you want to add something, please stick to facts or citable (i.e. notable person's) opinions. The order of having been visited is irrelevant, and subject of a hermetic debate among Mormons. If Mitchill had voiced an opinion on what Harris told or showed him, that would be more interesting... Kraxler (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Mitchill had left an opinion, the current article would be 50% longer.
How about this? In 1828, [[Martin Harris (Latter Day Saints)|Martin Harris]], an associate of [[Joseph Smith, Jr.|Joseph Smith]], the founder of [[Mormonism]], visited Mitchill asking that he authenticate the "[[Reformed Egyptian]]" characters that Smith said were taken from [[golden plates]] to which he said he had been directed by an angel. Mitchill would have been unsympathetic to the view that Indians were related to the Jews or the Egyptians because he was one of the few scholars of his day who believed that Native Americans were descended from Asians. But unfortunately he left no record of Harris's visit. {{citation |author=Richard E. Bennett |title='Read This I Pray Thee': Martin Harris and the Three Wise Men of the East |work=Journal of Mormon History |volume=36 |date=Winter 2010 |page=178–216}}; {{citation|author=[[Richard Bushman]] |title=[[Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling]] |publisher=New York: Alfred A. Knopf |year=2005 |page=64}}; {{citation|author=[[Fawn Brodie]] |title=[[No Man Knows My History]] |publisher=New York: Alfred A. Knopf |year=1971 |page=51}}. --John Foxe (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline WP:UNDUE applies to the proposed addition. The visit by Harris was a non-event, resulting in nothing concrete. Its presence in the article would be wildly out of balance. Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

Owing to the content dispute, I've full protected this article for one week. Feel free to contact me if a consensus emerges before then. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency: The title is "Samuel L. Mitchill" but the spelling alternates in the text between Mitchill and Mitchell. Surely one is correct, or if both are correct, then likely one of them replaced the other at some point in his life. John O'Neil. 173.178.49.208 (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Samuel L. Mitchill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samuel_L._Mitchill&oldid=1209831851"