Talk:John W. Bryant

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

No new information since 1985?[edit]

Comment moved from Talk:John W. Bryant/Comments. Astronaut (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that Davied Israel, Hava Pratt, and others, breaking away to form a new group of their own, Sons Aumen Israel, deserves mention. I wholeheartedly disagree with the decision to delete the SAI wikipedia page, using the premise that SAI is not sufficiently notable. Sex cults operating in America are most certainly a matter of significant public interest.

Apparently there once was a page Church of the New Covenant in Christ, but now clicking on it just links back to the this page. I'm going to delete the link, but leave the text as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.47.164 (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2009

You want to know what happened since then? He lives in southern California. Sarah died and since then he's been getting older and sadder.

Disputed material[edit]

Note to the proponent[edit]

The disputed section "sexual rites" should be re-titled with reference to the ordinance of sealing rather than the sensationalist title "sexual rites" which is, after all, only two words in the text of the passages in the book. It might also be better to leave the references to incest out as they are sensationalist. Plural marriage carried on in the temporary and provisional manner described in the book is dramatic enough. Also, rather than consisting of flat statements of fact it should be attributed to Richard S. Van Wagoner author of Mormon Polygamy: A History and to his anonymous informant (According to language) User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about we take out the quote and the reference to "sexual rites" and we simply say that he was married to six wives, while keeping the reference to the Van Wagoner book? That seems like a reasonable compromise. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited does not state anywhere that "Bryant had six wives." In fact, it doesn't make metion at all of the total number of wives he had. This is a faulty citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.219.233 (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a possible supportable compromise, with clear attribution to the divorced wife as being an opinionated opposition source. Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rob, could you please clarify? I can't figure out what you think is a "possible supportable compromise".--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Basically keeping the book citation with a simple comment - as uncontroversial as possible, what we have now seems uncontroversial-ish, Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious why it is so important for you to reference the book at all. None of the other sections even cite sources. It seems this whole page has been set up simply as a vehicle for this singular source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.219.233 (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book contains relevant information about Bryant's involvement in Mormon polygamy, and the reason he is notable is that he was a leader of a fundamentalist Mormon group that practiced polygamy. For now, it seems to me reasonable to delete the disputed quote but to include the book in the references. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the opponent[edit]

We are reporting here the contents of a book which seems to be well researched. Our reporting is more or less accurate in terms of reporting the contents of the book, although it could be improved as noted above. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the 71.193.219.233 has stated elsewhere that she has a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not censored. No evidence has been provided that the source does not meet WP:RS. Good Olfactory owns the source in question, and seems to think that the quotes were appropriate. 71.193.219.233 has countered the use of the source, and given her COI, censorship, and edit warring, I'm inclined to think that Olfactory isn't a liar when it comes to what the source supports. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not a liar. I'm willing to compromise on the issue, but the info about "sexual rites" is not the only thing the book says about Bryant. It's the most "outrageous" part, but I would consider the Van Wagoner book to be on balance a fairly central source about Bryant, as far as Bryant's involvement in Mormon polygamy goes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've filed a report about the repeated reversions here. I'm more than willing with others to work on improving this article, but the repeated reverting does need to stop. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am willing to compromise, if given the opportunity. Perhaps you could refrain from adding content before the compomise is made. If you are not a liar, cite the page and line that the information about Bryant having six wives is on. If you can do that, I will agree with your above stated compromise. If you cannot, I will continue to challenge you. Feel free to ask me about the book. I have it right in front of me. My concern is apt. Furthermore, there are other more appropriate, in depth, and authoritative sources about Bryant's group, such as Divergent Paths of the Restoration. They just don't mention anything about this sensationalist libel. The Van Wagoner book is secondary source which only quotes from a primary source. That makes it very suspect when considering the voracity of claims such as those that were made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.219.233 (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is your proposed compromise? See mine in the section above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a difficult case, but I've protected the page. For the heavy accusations, it would be helpful to have a second source (one source can some be inaccurate) unless the author is well known and considered honest. Also, perhaps you could simply create a scan and upload it to a temporary file service like photobucket? Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to cross-post this at WP:NPOV/N to give everyone a head's up. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Van Wagoner is considered to be one of the experts on Mormon polygamy, but that doesn't mean he's infallible. For now, I've proposed eliminating the questionable quotation in the text and just including the Van Wagoner source in the reference section, which seems reasonable to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my compromise: if you can state the page and line that contains the reference to Bryant having six wives, you may use it as a source. If you cannot, you leave it out of the article entirely. It is not a reliable resource in respect to its coverage of Bryant, anyways, because it is simply a direct quote from a very biased primary source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.219.233 (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the clearest statement that Bryant had six wives is found in the Melton source, so Van Wagoner would not need to be cited for that claim at all. Are you saying that you think the source is completely inappropriate even to be listed in the references section? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can state the page and line, you may use the Van Wagoner book as a reference instead. Can you not state the page and line? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.219.233 (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what? The number of wives? I don't have the book in front of me right now, but if I remember correctly it doesn't state that he had six wives, but rather includes some general information/background about Bryant and it includes excerpts from an interview with Bryant's second wife, "Dawn". We don't need to worry about whether or not the Van Wagoner book says Bryant has six wives, because the Melton source says that and it can be used for that issue. Are you saying the Van Wagoner book shouldn't be included in the references for the other information it does include about Bryant? I realise you don't think it supports the number of wives issue, which is probably correct, but it has other information, both general and specific. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Here's "for what:" you cited the Van Wagoner book as the source for the statement that Bryant had six wives. You also stated that you had the book. This proves several things: a)that you are a liar, b)that you don't actually know the content of the book you are attempting to cite as a resource, and c)that you are an unreliable in your ability to accurately and fairly edit this article. The only "other information" that you speak of, in the Van Wagoner book (that he originally converted to mainstream mormonism, that his first introduction to fundamentalism was through AUB) is easily found in your other sources. The rest is just quotes from the heavily biased ex-wife. So, no, I don't think it is an appropriate source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.219.233 (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, whoa—before you call someone a liar, let's get the situation straight. The Van Wagoner source was initially used in the article for a reference for the sexual rites. That quote was removed and shorted to a simple statement that he had six wives, which was already part of the initial text that included the longer quote. If that specific information is not in Van Wagoner, that doesn't make me a liar, that just means the Melton source should have been substituted at that stage as a footnote, but it was not. (I overlooked doing this and was my mistake.) The text was not well-footnoted at that stage, and it wasn't completely clear what statements were being sourced to which texts listed in the references—not just with this part of the article, but the entire thing. If we go on to reference the "six wives" claim (which seems like a logical thing to do, since it is in a different reliable source), it is clear that that the claim is made in Melton's book (which I have in front of me right now). I have also now got the Van Wagoner book in front of me now, so I was not lying about that and I have read the work numerous times, so I am familiar with its contents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for how reliable the Van Wagoner book is on the points it includes, I would just say that it's not the only source that talks about this stuff. In Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven, it says at pp. 154–155 that "Bryant was a libertine by temperment, and his teachings emphasized experimentation with drugs and group sex—homosexual and well as heterosexual—proclivities seldom acknowledged by other Mormon Fundamentalists." So it's not like the Van Wagoner source is alone on these claims. It's for that reason I suggest including Van Wagoner in the reference section, but not quoting anything from it as was previously the case. With what is reported in Van Wagoner also being somewhat substantiated in general terms by Krakauer's book, this seems like a decent compromise. If you really don't want Van Wagoner listed (the reasons for which I am a little suspicious, seeing as how you have a clear conflict of interest here), then we could just use the more general claim from Krakauer. Either way is OK with me. (The parts you left out about Bryant (not attributed to "Dawn") from the Van Wagoner book include the points that as convert to Mormonism he became "obsessed with early Mormon teachings on polygamy"; that he and his group typically maintained a lower profile than some of the Mormon fundamentalists like the LeBarons, Laffertys, etc.; and that he can generally be categorized as an "Independent Fundamentalist". These points are on p. 214 of my copy.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From another work, this one Brian C. Hales' Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generations After the Manifesto. At p 477, footnote 61, quoting an email to the author from Robert Black about the Bryant group: "They were highly spiritual. They would have meetings where the Prophet Joseph Smith would appear. They were operating in 1978. The received much revelation. Much prophecy. But they were mostly known for their deviant sexual temple ceremonies. ... They perform every possible deviant sexual ceremony that is known to man and call it a temple ceremony." This is of the same "flavour" of what the Van Wagoner source and the Krakauer source refer to. Would it be better to include this reference instead? Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, the claims of a convicted child murderer, as told by Krakauer are adequate enough corroboration for you? As far as the Hales source, I haven't read that book. Do they cite where they're getting their information from? Perhaps they were reading Van Wagoner, too. Furthermore, you attempted to have me banned for deleting the falsely cited information, even after explaining my reasoning. It seemed to me that you didn't care what I was trying to say, even though my claim was correct, you just didn't want me meddling with your article. As far as the COI, I am not friendly with my father. I don't talk to him or see him. I don't even like him as a human being. He is a narcissist and I don't exist to him except as an extension of him. I don't feel the need to defend him. I do, however, know my experiences. This is my life, too, that you are writing about and I do have information about the motivations of the ex-wife that the world wide web does not. So, to get down to it, I don't appreciate being told that I am not trustworthy because of the life I was born into. If it makes you happy to switch the Van Wagoner source for the Krakauer source, fine, though I'm curious about why you're insistent on including resources that, reliable or not, speak to Bryant's sexual proclivities. Why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.219.233 (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "So, the claims of a convicted child murderer, as told by Krakauer are adequate enough corroboration for you?" It's cumulative. When you have Van Wagoner, plus Krakauer, plus Hales, plus others giving the same sort of information, it starts to look like there are multiple reliable sources saying the same thing. — Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. "Dawn," however, is not a reliable source, which is what you're getting with the Van Wagoner book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.219.233 (talk • contribs)
  • "Do they cite where they're getting their information from?" It is a direct quote from Robert Black to the author. — Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Robert Black? What makes him an authoritative source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.219.233 (talk • contribs)
  • "Furthermore, you attempted to have me banned for deleting the falsely cited information". Not really. I reported that you had violated WP:3RR, which you had. The information was not incorrect; the citation was. If you had taken the time to deal with the issue on this page rather than deleting it repeatedly, I think the citation error would have been quickly identified. (I see above that you did comment on this, but in the flurry of edit reversions I was not clear whether you had a problem with the fact being cited, the book being used to cite the fact, or both.) Had you been blocked for violating WP:3RR, it would not have been permanent, so there was no risk of getting "banned". — Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am completely new to wikipedia. I attempted to explain on the edit page. Though another person told me to deal with this on the talk page, it was accompanied by several threats. Most people, myself included, do not respond well to threats. You might have tried to understand. To hear me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.219.233 (talk • contribs)
  • "I don't appreciate being told that I am not trustworthy because of the life I was born into". That certainly was not what I was suggesting. If you read WP:COI, it discusses why involving yourself in editing pages about yourself or about family members can be problematic. That is all I am suggesting—that you have a conflict of interest and therefore may not be a neutral arbiter of what the article should include, and your opinions about "Dawn" seem to color your opinion about the validity of what she reported to Van Wagoner. Normally, in WP, we just report what sources say if the sources are reliable. Van Wagoner would be considered a reliable source (and has been, for several other WP articles). — Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that most of the information was directly quoted makes it problematic, as I have said. The Van Wagoner book is not a reliable source because it consists almost entirely of sensationalist quotes by a person who is a very biased primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.219.233 (talk • contribs)
  • "I'm curious about why you're insistent on including resources that, reliable or not, speak to Bryant's sexual proclivities." No particular reason apart from the fact that it is repeatedly mentioned in sources that discuss Bryant and his group. Articles are usually written to reflect what is in the sources, and this information is very consistently mentioned in the sources. — Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article must be the exception. until recent changes, it contained a lot of information that didn't reflect the single source at all. Also, it highlighted (in bold letters) sensational information from a questionable source. The article appeared to have been manufactured strictly to deliver licentious information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.219.233 (talk) 08:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement above is not accurate at all, but I'm tired of discussing this with you, because you're obviously in a pretty significant conflict of interest and are worried more about how it affects you and your family members than about the quality of Wikipedia and its content. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of proposed additions[edit]

I'd like to propose that the following sentences (in italics below) be added to the conclusion of the "Leader of polygamous sect" section. I have included a few comments of this in the section below and invite others to comment on it in the comments section below.

Proposed addition[edit]

First- and second-hand sources have reported that members of Bryant's sect participated in various sexual practices, some as components of the group's temple rites.[1][2][3] Bryant was married to six wives.[4]

Notes for proposed addition[edit]

  1. ^ Brian C. Hales (2007). Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generations After the Manifesto (Salt Lake City, Utah: Greg Kofford Books, ISBN 978-1589580350) p. 477, fn. 61.
  2. ^ Jon Krakauer (2004). Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith (New York, Anchor: ISBN 978-1400032808) pp. 154–155.
  3. ^ Richard S. Van Wagoner (1989, 2d ed.). Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books) pp. 214–216.
  4. ^ J. Gordon Melton (1996, 5th ed.). Encyclopedia of American Religions (Detroit, Mich.: Gale) p. 569.

Comments on proposed additions[edit]

  • Drafter comments: Just a few things I'd like to point out about the draft:
  1. The draft does not include any direct quotes from any of the three sources cited for the first sentence. Previously, Van Wagoner's source was quoted, which was the original source of the dispute.
  2. The draft does not state that Bryant participated in the sexual practices, even though the sources allege that he did. For BLP reasons, the first sentence has been drafted to avoid any sort of "direct" attribution of acts to Bryant.
  3. The draft includes three independent sources for the claim that members of Bryant's sect participated in various sexual practices as part of the temple rites. Krakauer and Van Wagoner cite (different) first-hand sources and Hales cites a second-hand source.
  4. The number of wives Bryant himself had is properly cited to the Melton encyclopedia, which corrects a previous citation error. — Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't object to anything about the Hales source if what you posted is the entirety of the content about Bryant and you are certain that it is a refutable source (like I said, I don't know the book), nor do I object to the Krakauer source for any of the content specifically, though I would be hesitant to take the claims of a delusional child killer too seriously. However, I still object to the use of the Van Wagoner book as a source for reasons I've stated numerous times. This is my only objection to the above stated proposed changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.219.233 (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't know the sources and accept good faith on the part of editors citing the sources. My only issue is I don't understand what "sexual practices" means. Sounds weasely to me. Do the sources specify what the practices were? And what does "some" (referring to those practices) mean? Without some clarification, the assertion in the first sentence has little meaning and therefore little relevance to anything. As for 71's objection to the citation of the Van Wagoner book, if the book supports the assertion, it should be cited. My sense is that 71 doesn't want it cited because somehow it will obtain some publicity from the cite and 71 doesn't like the book. That's not a valid reason to omit it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will admit it is weasel-sounding; I suspect that is because in a way I tried to make it as diluted down as possible since the initial dispute involved a complaint about using a direct quote from Van Wagoner's account. Initially, the article had a quote (from Van Wagoner), which included quotes from one of Bryant's ex-wives. In summary, it stated that within Bryant's sect there was open heterosexual and homosexual sex acts between the members of a "family" that were sealed to Bryant and one of his wives as "children" using Mormon temple ceremonies: see old version. Krakauer states that "Bryant was a libertine by temperment, and his teachings emphasized experimentation with drugs and group sex—homosexual and well as heterosexual—proclivities seldom acknowledged by other Mormon Fundamentalists." Hales quotes a source that says, "They were highly spiritual. They would have meetings where the Prophet Joseph Smith would appear. They were operating in 1978. The received much revelation. Much prophecy. But they were mostly known for their deviant sexual temple ceremonies. ... They perform every possible deviant sexual ceremony that is known to man and call it a temple ceremony." I thought the text was fine as it initially stood, but my proposal above represents an attempt to water it down as a compromise. Perhaps it has gone too far so as to make the sentence meaningless, as you say. To me, it sounds like 71—who I believe has self-identified as a member of Bryant's family—has some sort of vendetta or bias against the ex-wife quoted in Van Wagoner, and wants the citation to her quote completely removed. The problem as I see it is that other reliable sources are essentially saying the same thing that the wife says in Van Wagoner, so it's not like we're relying on one source for crazy claims by a crazy person. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm trying to figure out from the passages you quote what relates to sex in the ceremonies and what just relates to sex among members of the sect itself. I'm also trying to understand what assertions in the books are based on primary sources, and, if so, who, and which ones are not. I also have a problem with the word "deviant", which tends to be a word used by people who disagree with the practice and is therefore not particularly descriptive or helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm trying to figure out from the passages you quote what relates to sex in the ceremonies and what just relates to sex among members of the sect itself. To me, that was not clear from the sources. The wife in Van Wagoner suggests that there were three levels: at level one, Bryant had to perform a new ceremony between two unmarried persons before each time they had sexual relations. At level two, Bryant would do the ceremony and it would last for a month or two. Then at level 3, you could have sex with that person at any time as long as Bryant gave permission. But how close in time the ceremonies were to the sexual acts or whether they overlapped—not terribly clear. The ex-wife says Bryant had to be present whenever she was having sexual relations with someone else, but it's worded a bit ambiguously in Van Wagoner. (Reading through it again, I get the impression that they overlapped at least somewhat. Most of the Van Wagoner text is available at amazon.com through their preview feature if you want to read through it.) I'm also trying to understand what assertions in the books are based on primary sources, and, if so, who, and which ones are not. That is a little more clear. In Van Wagoner, all the information on the sexual stuff appears to come from one of Bryant's estranged wives; Van Wagoner gives her the pseudonym "Dawn Samuels" and directly quotes her extensively. In the Krakauer book, Krakauer is relating information given him by Ron Lafferty, a Mormon fundamentalists who says he associated with Bryant's sect for a time. The Hales quote is in a footnote and is reported to be from Robert Black, who I believe is a Mormon fundamentalist, but not of Bryant's sect. The "deviant" language is a direct quote from Black, which is not surprising usage if he is referring to homosexual acts, since Mormon fundamentalists generally view homosexual acts as deviant and sinful. I didn't use that terminology in the proposal above as it is obviously a POV characterization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Tough stuff, you're very brave to be plowing through this. What exactly do Lafferty and Black say? Other than Black's use of the word "deviant", it's hard to evaluate the assertions that are based on Lafferty and Black without more.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Black quote is in a footnote and is quite short. The entire quote (starting at "They were highly spiritual" and ending with "...and call it a temple ceremony.") is reproduced in its entirety above. Apart from quoting Black, Hales doesn't say anything much about Bryant, except that he is one of the many who have claimed to be the One Mighty and Strong. In Krakauer, the author reports that in late December 1983 Lafferty decided to visit Bryant and his commune so that he wouldn't be alone during the Christmas holidays. Lafferty had heard that Bryant had claimed to be the "One Mighty and Strong". Then it says (and here it's not clear if Krakauer is speaking for himself or if this is what Lafferty told him) that Bryant was known his teachings about experimentation with drugs and homosexual and heterosexual group sex. Lafferty says that this type of behavior was new to him and that he was "both enthralled and taken aback" by what he saw in Bryant's group. Lafferty says one of Bryant's wives told him that she found him attractive and that he "was extremely tempted to hop into bed with her", but was worried that doing so would cause problems with Bryant, so he decided to leave the group and return to Utah. In Krakauer, there are no direct quotes of Lafferty; Krakauer just kind of relates what he has learned from Lafferty in a story-telling-like way. Bryant pops up a few other times in the Krakauer book, but this is the main part about him. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on everything you've said, here is my suggestion for the language: "Bryant was married to six wives.[Melton] According to one source, Bryant taught his sect about drug experimentation and group sex (both heterosexual and homosexual).[Krakauer] According to another source, sect members had sexual relations during the temple ceremonies.[Hales]" The new language clearly sticks to the specifics of what the sources say (not weasely). I also don't like the phrase "first- and second-hand sources", which strikes me as an odd qualifier (even though I know what you're trying to achieve) for the reader and somewhat vague.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds good to me. I would have proposed something along these lines (it's definitely much better), but was thinking if it was kept vague it would be more likely to be supported by the IP user. What would you do with the Van Wagoner source? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not good at the vague-compromise part. It's a little like the political wrangling that goes into a new law or a legal decision (by a panel of judges). After reaching a tortured compromise, no one can understand what the final product says. As for Van Wagoner, you could add the following sentence: "Yet another source confirmed both Bryant's teachings and the linkage between sexual relations and temple ceremonies." [Van Wagoner] I like that it clearly separates all three sources and attributes them to the appropriate material. On the other hand, it's a bit clunky, so perhaps there's a more elegant way of doing it?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that compromises to be more vague never turn out particularly well. (Personally, I was fine with the original, in that it quoted a source directly so there was no risk of misunderstanding the source.) Your suggestion can probably be prettied up a bit, but overall I think it's a solid approach. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to 71.193.219.233 to summarize position[edit]

  • OK—at this stage, I want you to explain (re-state, if necessary, points you have made above) very clearly why you think that the Van Wagoner source should not be included as a reference with the other two. (Note that all three are stating very similar things, and that the text of the article isn't stating that the first- and second-hand reports are true.) Then once we get a summary of your position, we can get some third-party comments on this dispute. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, it is clear that I am willing to compromise. I have stated my position. You also know that the Van Wagoner source is not saying the same things as the others. It is interesting that you are telling me what to do while reinforcing your own position/agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.219.233 (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I think you should summarize your position here is that I was going to invite uninvolved third parties to take a look at the arguments and venture an opinion. They probably won't want to read through multiple pages of comments to learn the background. If you don't summarize your position here I'll have to provide a summary of your position, and I figured you would rather provide that yourself. In my view, the Van Wagoner source is saying the same things, generically summarized in my draft sentence. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, you have set the parameters and terms for the changes. You are saying that you will summarize my position and you are inviting your friends to take a side. Why does this feel like a set-up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.219.233 (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it will not be "my friends". There's a process whereby you can request non-involved third party editors to take a look at a dispute and give an opinion. See WP:RFC. The reason I wanted you to summarize your opinion is so that I would not have to—I thought that was clear. Really, I'm trying to help you here present your position so that it can be considered. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You proposed earlier that you could included the Krakauer book as a resource in leiu if the Van Wagoner book and I agreed that that was fine. So, why all of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.219.233 (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's an option, but on further reflection I think this one is preferrable. None of the three sources gives as complete a picture as all three together do. We could also choose to not cite Van Wagoner for the "sexual rites" stuff, but if we did that I'd definitely use it for a citation for some of the stuff not provided by "Dawn" in Van Wagoner. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Preferable for whom? Again, a set-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.219.233 (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's clear you don't want to co-operate in this process. Perhaps you're starting to see the weakness of your position—I'm not sure. What I'll do is the standard thing rather than use WP:RFC, I'll just invite those who have already been involved in this process in the past few days to have a look at the proposal and venture their opinions. If they're OK with it we'll implement it. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to defend my argument when it appears you'll only let me do it under your terms, your compromise. We had already agreed on terms and you changed them. How can I trust you? Especially when you ask me to state my position while in the same line you bolster yours. You could ask me, flat-out, to state my case because it is procedure without throwing a punch for your side. Come on, give me a break. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.219.233 (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And "the weakness of my position" is another pot-shot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.219.233 (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've invited the other people who have commented here previously to assess the proposal I've made. I'm done with discussing things with you directly, as you've made it clear to me at least you're more interested in getting your own way than making a compromise. As far as I can tell, you have not adjusted your position one degree at all, whereas I have proposed significant changes from how the article was initially written. If you can't do a little give and take, I don't see how "working together" is a meaningful idea. You won't even bother summarizing the rationale for your position so others can understand it. It is becoming very clear that you are more interested in protecting and pursuing those personal interests you hold than actually making content improvements to Wikipedia, which is the definition of being in a conflict of interest. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you'll recall, I was will to compromise quite well. I was willing to go along with every one of your changes except for one because it it an unreliable resource. You were the one unwilling to compromise. You had to have everything exactly your way. This is ridiculous. I thought we were doing quite well until you told me to make my statement while in the same breath undermined my opinions. I am willing to compromise. You are the one unwilling to compromise. You are a bully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.219.233 (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, though I am not sure since you won't summarize your current position, your opinion has been from the start to 100% restrict the usage of the Van Wagoner source from this article. Has your position changed in this regard? I have compromised dramatically, as I have been willing to adjust my support from the initial version of the article to the proposal above, and they differ quite significantly. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am done trying to talk to you. It is too distressing. You know my position. If you need a refresher, it is in the comment section under the proposed changes. You seem to be only interested in pushing until you get everything that you want, not in having a discussion. You are a bully and I am done. I am fine with letting the previous commentors inform the decision that is made and having that be it. That is all I have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.210.17.14 (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I know your position, but as I stated above, I'm not entirely positive, though I am assuming that it is that under no circumstance could the Van Wagoner source be used for any purpose with respect to this article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, the anon don't compromise at all on Van Wagoner, won't simply state what he wants, and is calling GO the bully? That's the pot calling the cast of Friends black. Well, since anon is leaving, I guess consensus at this point is to use Van Wagoner as a source. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Hi, as I was involved in the previous discussion alththough only as a neutral attempting to bring discussion and consensus compromise, Good Olfactory notified me to comment as is normal wikipedia practice. As I am from the UK and the closest thing I ever got to anything to do with Mormons was Donny Osmond and all the sources are unaccessible for me, I am unable to assess the supporting texts, however, if the only stumbling block to agreement is the support from Richard S. Van Wagoner's book, then why not just remove it, he is a not notable writer anyway and the text appears unaccessible as an online resource and as such is of little to nil additional value to our readers. Off2riorob (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can view the text of the Van Wagoner book on its Amazon page by searching for "John W. Bryant". It is only a few pages and transparently relies heavily on information from an estranged wife, seldom a good source. I would like to have simply suppressed these edits, but there are out there visible to the public. What I want a compassionate approach which takes the feelings of family members into account. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would've been nice if Magog at least summarize the dispute a bit more so that I'd at least know what specifically is in dispute. Anyhow, the 6 wives thing should not stay unless GO can find the exact passage. The Van Wagoner's source should stay if it contains something relevant to John W. Bryant. Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that no one really knows the exact issue that is central to the dispute, since the IP user won't summarize his position. It appears that he is OK with the six wives info, as long as it is cited to Melton. If I had to guess, the IP user's central issue is with any use of the Van Wagoner source. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless Van Wagoner's source is irrelevant, dubious, or published by User:Good Olfactory, there is no reason to remove it. If the IP user did not outline the exact reasons that back his claim that Van Wagoner's source is dubious, then what he did is WP:DISRUPT. By the way, are you an olfactory specialist? If so, I believe the Olfactory system page needs your help. It's in the process of adding new info. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, unfortunately not an olfaction specialist. I'm also not Richard Van Wagoner, his publisher, or agent, either. :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The IP user did state his exact reason. See above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.210.17.14 (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's a lot of stuff above, and I personally cannot determine what the core reason was. If you can identify the exact reason by quoting it here, it would be helpful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for not using Van Wagoner's source[edit]

There appears some objections on using Van Wagoner's source. For anyone who opposed the use of this source, please concisely outline your rationale in an organized manner so that others can easily understand what's going on. By the way, I don't have a position on this but was asked to comment from the NPOV RFC. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what needs a new section, the content included is from an attacking estranged wife, and the writer is not wikipedia notable, the cite is objected to for these reasons and as its unaccessible anyway and adds nothing to our readers understanding we can happily just remove it without wikipedia readers losing anything at all. Richard S. Van Wagoner - just remove it and move along.Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The work is probably the leading source on the history of Mormon polygamy, and Mormon polygamy is the broader subject area within which John W. Bryant is a notable person. The information contained in Van Wagoner is supported by other sources; however, the information in Van Wagoner is far more detailed. Thus, there are very good reasons to include it, and the article is poorer for not including it. We therefore need a stated rationale for not including the source. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, this is a person of minor note, we don't have any mission or obligation to report minor local details about minor local people, reported in the books of minor sales written by not wikipedia notable authors. Off2riorob (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "a person of minor note"—Bryant or Van Wagoner? If Van Wagoner—are you familiar with the academic literature on Mormon polygamy? I'm not sure where you're getting your information. Since you said above that "the closest thing I ever got to anything to do with Mormons was Donny Osmond", I'm curious as to how you've decided who is an author of minor note within Mormon studies. If Bryant—your comment is irrelevant as long as this article exists. I also wouldn't refer to the proposed content as "minor local details", since the religious practices of Bryant and his sect are ultimately the reason he became notable—that's the issue that the sources focus on when Bryant is discussed. It sounds like there is a bit of grasping at straws going on here, with no one able to produce a reasonable objection to using Van Wagoner's source in conjunction with the other sources. AFAIK, the IP user had no objection to the content being included, he just didn't want the Van Wagoner source used. Now you're suggesting the content itself should be excluded? Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GO, can you provide an RS that suggests Van Wagoner is a noteworthy author of this field? Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure: "Utah, LDS historian won acclaim", Salt Lake Tribune. Funnily enough, he just died just over a week a few months ago. Let me know if you want non-obit-type stuff. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ẝ. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Bryant or Van Wagoner - both, minor notables related to local Mormon circles. One just deceased and not wiki notable and the other of dubious notability and unworthy of this excessive discussion. As as NPOV uninvolved editor, just remove the cite and cease the disruption and move along., it might me exciting in some mormon back yard but as for as the wikipedia educational project and ambitions goes it is completely valueless. Off2riorob (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So now you are speaking for WP in terms of its aims and ambitions? Anyhow, GO did provide a good source that says Van Wagoner is a notable figure. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Off2riorob's comments seem to me to present a fairly provincial attitude. As long as the article exists it is appropriate for interested editors to work towards using the best sources for it. I honestly don't see how those comments are directly relevant to the issue we are discussing—or trying to have discussed—in this section. He's not obliged to participate if he finds this topic unworthy of his attention or unexciting. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have started the WP article Richard S. Van Wagoner. I think this probably puts to rest the idea that Van Wagoner is a "non-notable author". I have also linked the other WP pages that mention or cite Van Wagoner to the new article. As can be seen, he is cited in many articles that deal with Mormon polygamy and Mormon and Utah history. If there are there any continuing concerns that Van Wagoner is not a reliable source for information dealing with Mormon polygamy, could they be explained here? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me nit-pick you a little... The citations you listed are what would put to rest the idea that Van Wagoner is a "non-notable author" - The act of starting an article about him is not that important to this discussion. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • True enough—what I meant to indicate was that the WP article about him contains some references that indicate he is known as an author or Mormon history works, and one can also see that numerous WP articles cite his works, and that together these should answer questions in this regard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incidentally, Van Wagoner's research papers he accumulated while writing the book in question are found in the University of Utah library in Box 5, Folders 1–15 of the Richard S. Van Wagoner Papers special collection. Users are therefore suggesting that a book that is backed up with documentation that is now housed with a public university in the United States is not a reliable source? I don't understand this position. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal #2[edit]

No one has commented here for about a week. Based on the discussions in the two sections above, I'd like to propose that the following now be added to the conclusion of the "Leader of polygamous sect" section. I believe there is a consensus for this approach based on the comments that have been made. This proposal of course in no way presents a "final version" that could not be changed in the future. But before adding this to the text of the article, I wanted to post this here first to provide one more opportunity for anyone who objects to the Van Wagoner source to explain why it should not be used so that we don't end up with another edit war over the issue. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During his time as a leader of the group, Bryant had six wives.[cite to Melton] According to one source, Bryant taught his sect about drug experimentation and heterosexual and homosexual group sex.[cite to Krakauer] According to another source, sect members had sexual relations during the group's temple ceremonies.[cite to Hales] A third source confirmed both Bryant's teachings and the linkage between sexual relations and temple ceremonies.[cite to Van Wagoner]

– Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or:
According to sources, Bryant had six vives [cite to melton] and taught his sect about drug experimentation and heterosexual/homosexual group sex [cite to Krakauer] during his tenure as leader of the group ... Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that combining the first two sentences probably flows better. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More crucially, it attributes the "six wives" to the opinion of a source. I consider that preferable because Mr. IP didn't like it being stated as fact. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez is this still being pushed, Why not just leave it alone, these obscure cites to add this sexual stuff is valueless and looks like slurring the guy to me. Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guess you are the one who knows best about Wikipedia's priorities. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First you want to add hes incestuous and now you want to add hes a homo and a gang banger - don't you guys like him? Is he from a different sect or something? Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GO wants to win at any cost. He doesn't care who he hurts, he'd just rather be right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.210.17.14 (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well GO, it appears you've done more than enough to accommodate those two. This is as far as I'd go when it comes to AGF. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two users are still upset about this, I see. I just wish they would present their views in a way that reflects how Wikipedia "works". Whenever Bryant is mentioned in reliable sources, this is the focus of the content. These edits will reflect the content of what is in the sources. Without this information, I daresay that he's not really particularly notable, since the sources almost never refer to him outside of the context of this information. Can't we discuss the issue with respect to these issues without resorting to attacks upon me, my (supposed) religion, or my intent? If not, I suppose the edits should just be made and the issue put to rest. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can also try WP:DR with them. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have tried to solicit outside views, but maybe a more targeted notice on the Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject would be appropriate. That way we could get some other editors who have some background in the general subject area and would know what constitutes a reliable source. I have hesitated taking that route because I didn't want to be accused of recruiting people who would be exactly what Off2riorob alleged when he asked—"Is he from a different sect or something?" Most of the participants in that project are not Mormon fundamentalists, but many are Mormons. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking about a more behavioural-oriented type of WP:DR. As an outsider, I see that you've provided WP:RS and good reasoning. They didn't but refused to relent. That's a problem. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which route would you suggest? I'm not terribly familiar with the processes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am 5 months old and you are an admin, so that better be a sarcastic comment! Anyway, what I see from those two are early signs of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing (read WP:COMPETENCE if you haven't, though it's not a guideline). I think you can first try to settle this in their respective talk pages. If that doesn't resolve anything, then present this Van Wagoner thing to NPOV noticeboard. If those two still don't relent (and do not present reasonable counter-arguments), then you may want to try RFC/U. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, no—I never use sarcasm! :) Honestly, as an admin I have generally steered clear of most DR issues on purpose ... Every time I have become involved in a dispute I always wish I had not, so I avoid ones not of my own making like the plague. In general, I do find it a bit frustrating to deal with editors who are willing to toss out opinions that don't really have a basis in policy or guidelines and expect their opinion to carry as much weight as everyone else's, and that seems to be relatively common in DR situations. Perhaps I'll make these particular edits soon and if the dispute continues, then I'll pursue some of the solutions you mention.
Incidentally, if you have only been around for a few months you appear to me to have quite a solid footing in WP policies and procedures, so I "commend you" (.... I guess what I'm saying is——do you want to be an admin?) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes are a crucial part of WP. If you don't get used to the wrath aspect of your tenure, then you may find yourself playing many cycles of merry-go-round with a persistent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT offender.

On admin, I suspect a certain American Samurai may have a good laugh upon seeing this. No, I am too wrathful to be a good admin. I think it's a task more suited for pacific people like yourself. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll call on you next time I need some heads bashed together. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

move request/notability[edit]

The subject of the article is of low notability and is not notable except in relation to the church, the title of the article should imo be moved to Church of the New Covenant in Christ - if the church is not notable then perhaps the whole article needs deleting. The church name is already a redirect to this BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the relevant sources typically discuss Bryant, and rarely mention the church by name. I'm curious as to what evidence would prompt you to make the claim that the person is "of low notability". Have you examined the relevant sources? Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Issue of notability was discussed earlier when GO brought up his citations. Can User:Off2riorob comment on those? If not, I am afraid this conversation is going to become circular, which is not productive. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you assert a previous discussion can you please add a link to it, thanks. So you both object to moving the article to the church title and assert that he is more notable than his church? Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the article is currently named correctly, given the sources. The various names that have been used for the church are mentioned in (some) of the sources, but invariably the sources discuss Bryant by name, whether or not the church names are mentioned. If the church is mentioned, it's always accompanied by discussion of the person, but the reverse is not true. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current location[edit]

Just a note that "near Salem, Oregon" is not in Salem. According to this source, they actually settled in Woodburn, Oregon, north of Salem. I would normally just change this, but this seems to be a contentious article, so I'll just request here that it get changed please, as well as the "people from" category. No POV, no COI, just interested in accuracy. Thanks. Valfontis (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be an uncontroversial point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_W._Bryant&oldid=1206463043"