Jump to content

Talk:B. H. Roberts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Polygamy

B. H. Roberts did a lot of stuff! Why such a huge focus on polygamy in the first paragraph? Its mentioned about 3 times. Is that all he is remembered for? Certainly not! Why give people the wrong impression? I think a section down below about his polygamy would be better. Epachamo 20:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because this article isn't a tract for the Mormon Church. It's about B. H. Roberts, who was a polygamist, and was refused his seat in Congress because he was a polygamist. Denying his marital status, or downplaying the impact it had on his political career, gives more of a wrong impression than burying the facts at the bottom of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LayneJohnson (talk • contribs)

  • It is possible to overemphasize something. Epachamo's question was reasonable - fixing an article so it is well-balanced is not the same thing as making it a tract for Mormons. Get some perspective! Rabidwolfe 23:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epachamo's question is certainly reasonable. But so was my response. Roberts was one of only two elected official in US history to be denied his office due to his religious practice. How can that be over-emphasized? Would putting that down at the bottom of the page be getting some perspective? The truth is Roberts is remembered as a polygamist elected to Congress everywhere except within the LDS Church, where he is remembered as a historical apologist writer. The article is balanced as it is. LayneJohnson 19:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, Layne - but your response was snarky and somewhat rude. Asking for a second look (I also think the article intro is basically fine as is) at the article is not the same as turning it into a tract for the LDS church, but you immediately jumped to the assumption Epachamo wanted to sanitize the article or something. Your response may have been reasonable in content, but not in form.Rabidwolfe 01:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was eight years ago. The first paragraph now mentions "plural marriage" instead of "polygamy" which reads better. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC) -- I'm new to 'watching' the article.[reply]

Evolution

Didn't he have views on evolution and fossils that the Council of the Twelve disagreed with? It talks about it in the article on the History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Why does it not talk about that in here? It seems to have been a noteworthy part of his life. Dan 03:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter? Perhaps in a "Mormon views on evolution" article, but what's the compelling reason to discuss it in this article? Rabidwolfe 16:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it matters because, again, "It seems to have been a noteworthy part of his life...". If this article is a biographical article about him, I would argue that that was a compelling enough reason to at least mention his views and dealings with the church about evolution. No need to get "snarky". Dan (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that such information is worth including here. The dispute between James E. Talmage and Roberts with some other members of the Quorum of the Twelve over evolution was a significant series of incidents during Roberts's tenure as a general authority, so by all means it should be included. There are entire books and journal articles written solely about the matter, so it's difficult to argue it's not noteworthy enough. Snocrates 04:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A wonderful balanced entry

I really enjoyed reading this piece. It was well done, and it showed the difficulties, that many of us in all different faiths face, in reconciling faith with scholarship.--Jackkalpakian (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate that encouraging word.--John Foxe (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name at birth

I seem to remember that Roberts's name at birth was not "Brigham", but that this name was later adopted by him in honor of Brigham Young. I can't recall even if his given name was "Henry Roberts" and he added the first name or if it was "Benjamin Henry Roberts" (after his father) and he changed his given name partly b/c his father left his family. Does anyone have any sources on his birthname that we could add? Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are my edits gone?

I included some information on the journal entry of a friend of Roberts' in which the friend related a meeting he had with Roberts at which time Roberts told him that he now believed the golden plates and the Urim and Yhummim were "subjective" not "objective" with Smith. I cited my sources and all. Why was it edited out? This seems an attempt to keep this information bottled up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.17.39 (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see from the history your edits are still there. User:John Foxe made some changes, but the part you mention about "subjective" vs. "objective" is still there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question on recent edit

I have been seeing two different versions of the same paragraph going back and forth (see here for both edits side by side). Both appear to be sourced, and I don't see how they contradict one another, although I may be just missing that. I am curious as to why each version keeps being reverted rather than possibly combined. I'd be interested to see a discussion on the edit. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other party has so far refused to discuss why he insists on his changes—although I hope he may discuss his position here eventually. The information is roughly the same, but (if I may modestly say so) my version is much better written.--John Foxe (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That does the recent edit that changed values to "date = 1902-19-32" "date = 1907-19-12" & "date = 1907-19-12" possibly mean? It seems like some (semi)automation did not handle year ranges properly, and tryed to reformat those values in yyy-mm-dd format. Can't fix as article is semi-p. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BrighamHenryRoberts.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:BrighamHenryRoberts.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on B. H. Roberts. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on B. H. Roberts. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DoB

FyzixFighter thanks for the edit summary note. I did wonder whether that source might be incorrect. Do you have an online reliable source for Roberts' correct DoB? I am working through the entries in March 13 and would prefer to have a source I've verified myself for all the entries. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wham2001: No problem. A couple of the external links at the bottom of the article look like they might be sufficient, such as this from the American National Biography Online or these excerpts] from History's Apprentice: The Diaries of B. H. Roberts. I'll look for others later today. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FyzixFighter: the ANB Online looks good to me (and I didn't know that there is an American counterpart to the ONDB; that's super-helpful!) Thanks again, Wham2001 (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:B._H._Roberts&oldid=1209282559"