Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Roberts, ed. History of the Church

I have written elsewhere more thoroughly about B. H. Roberts, ed., The History of the Church published from 1909 to 1912. The abbreviated version is that I am interested in trimming History of the Church references from the notes of this Joseph Smith page for the following reasons:

First, History of the Church is not a secondary source; it is a compilation of primary sources and does not even regularly include scholarly commentary (which would qualify as a secondary source) accompanying the sources the way papers projects (like The Joseph Smith Papers) or documentary histories (like Bringhurst & Harris, ed., The Mormon Church and Blacks) do.

Second, even as a primary source, History of the Church does not have good source integrity. The compilers sometimes excised material they considered embarrassing or out of harmony with their own theology, and many documents were altered to seem as if they were written from Joseph Smith's perspective even though they were not. Even where using a primary source would be appropriate, a different primary source would be strongly preferred, such as found in The Joseph Smith Papers which compiles many of the same documents, includes scholarly commentary and contextualization, and does not alter the sources.

Therefore, I suggest trimming History of the Church references from the notes. A control+F search for "Roberts (19" yields fourteen results, so I think it would be possible.

I raise the question here since there has been previous sensitivity surrounding the trimming of sources. Shall we go ahead and do this? I hope I have been persuasive, but I remain open to hearing from editors who might think differently. P-Makoto (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree for the reasons you've stated. Trevdna (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Reporting for full clarity that I have now trimmed all citations of Roberts, History of the Church and trimmed the volumes from the reference list. Where necessary, additional references were supplied to verify the content in the page. In only one instance was content in the page changed because the remaining reliable source did not verify the in-text claim. P-Makoto (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Revisiting JosephSmithTranslating.jpg

@John Foxe: Am I correct in assuming that you had JosephSmithTranslating.jpg commissioned as a work for hire?

I think this 14 year old issue can be resolved. According to this article from the government, if you commissioned the work then, for legal purposes, you are the author and copyright owner of the work.

There are a few other details (looks like technically it should have been in writing, primarily), but if this applies, I think it’s entirely appropriate for you to alter the copyright notice to claim yourself as the copyright holder and author of the work. Do you agree?

If so, it would be a good point to clarify before we put this back up for FAC again.

-Trevdna (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Your assumption is correct. I'll be glad to claim myself as author of the work. John Foxe (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Not to impede maters, because I've no brook with the image, but just for clarity—the image was commissioned expressly to be uploaded to Wikipedia? Because as the PDF states, generally, commissioned works are only considered works-for-hire if it is agreed they are works-for-hire. If JosephSmithTranslating was always meant to be used on Wikipedia, I think the situation is fine since lacking paperwork is a mere bureaucratic hiccup in a process in which the copyright was always meant to be transferred.

(I ask because the situation is different if the art was originally created only to exist, in the way that many commissioned artworks are, and only later, absent artist's knowledge, was it uploaded to Wikipedia since that'd suggest absence of agreement to transfer copyright.) P-Makoto (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

When Joseph began envisioning and espousing an embodied God

Short version: Based on reliable sources published within the last 30 years (and mostly the last 10 years), I have revised the page to state that historians have debated how early Smith conceived of God as embodied and to include a mix of content, weighted to favor widely accepted university presses.

In the version just preceding the edit made at the time of writing, the second paragraph of the "Cosmology and theology" subsection under "Views and teachings" states the following:

Though Smith initially viewed God the Father as a spirit, he eventually began teaching that God was an advanced and glorified man, embodied within time and space.

The reference note appended to the first comma adds,

prior to 1835, Smith viewed God the Father as "an absolute personage of spirit" (emphasis added)

This is based on the following references:

• Dan Vogel, "The Earliest Mormon Conception of God", an essay in Line upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine, ed. Gary Bergera (Signature Books, 1989), 17–33.
  • With statements such as this statement does not mean that in 1830 Mormons were teaching that the Father has a body like the Son's—this concept was not introduced until much later (24).
• Thomas Alexander, "The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine: From Joseph Smith to Progressive Theology", an essay in 'Line upon Line, ed. Gary Bergera (Signature Books, 1989), 53–66
  • With statements such as I focus on the period 1830–35... The Book of Mormon tended to define God as an absolute personage of spirit.

However, pace Vogel and Alexander, more recent scholarship published by reliable presses suggests that Smith conceived of an embodied God much earlier, as early as the Book of Moses dictation in 1830 or even the Book of Mormon dictation prior. See the following:

• Catholic philosopher Stephen Webb in Jesus Christ, Eternal God: Heavenly Flesh and the Metaphysics of Matter (Oxford University Press, 2011) writes,
  • Take, for example, a revelation he had in 1830... a new version of the story of Moses meeting God face to face. God addresses Moses as 'my son” and tells him that “thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior.' Several features of Smith's theology are on display in this text. Smith has a fully embodied understanding of how we are created in the image of God. We are all the Father's sons because we are all not just like God but actually similar to him. We resemble him. (254, bolding added, italics original).
• Terryl Givens and Brian Hauglid in The Pearl of Greatest Price: Mormonism's Most Controversial Scripture (Oxford University Press, 2019) write,
  • His [Smith's] first clarification comes with the creation itself, where he inserted a crucial addition to Genesis 5:1–2: 'in the day that God created man (in the likeness of God made he him) in the image of his own body... Based on occasional intrusions of Trinitarian language into Smith's discourse, it is sometimes alleged that he came late to the idea of an embodied God. The historical record is fairly clear in attesting the contrary, however (73, bolding added, italics original to Givens).
• Steven C. Harper in First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins (Oxford University Press, 2019) writes
  • Smith and others were telling of the [first] vision in the 1830s, and its implications for the trinity and materiality of God were asserted that early (55).
• Terryl Givens in Wrestling the Angel: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Cosmos, God, Humanity (Oxford University Press, 2014), writes,
  • Clues to Joseph Smith’s thinking about the Trinity and divine materiality, or at least divine embodiment, emerge even prior to 1830. If his first vision did plant the seeds of God and Christ’s corporeal distinctness, the Book of Mormon may have confirmed the view. The climactic event in that scripture occurs when a physically embodied, post-ascension Christ appears to vast multitudes among the ancient Americans. More strikingly, in his translation of the Book of Mormon, Smith depicts a visitation of the pre-mortal Christ to the prophet Ether. In that scene, Christ emphasizes the corporeal nature of his pre-mortal self (93–94, bolding added).

At the very least, these sources complicate the idea of a "late" development of embodied deity for Smith. I decided to make this post on the talk page in case there was any confusion (since changing the page from "he didn't think of God as embodied yet" to "there's a good chance he did" could seem like a significant change to some. So I have included relevant quotations here for other editors' and readers' convenience while the edit is fresh. I will add that I have been able to access all four Oxford University Press titles through Wikipedia Library. P-Makoto (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Cleaning up Reference and Citation sections, and proposing new efn section

Nikkimaria's comments on the references needing to be cleaned up and standardized are right, of course. But many editors have come and gone over the years, making it hard to standardize everything. (It also probably doesn't help that I have access to a small fraction of the referenced works.) I've listed some thoughts and issues below. I'd like to seek some guidance and consensus before I just jump in and start changing things.

Issue 1: The first thing I notice is that many of the cited works have extensive explanations included with them. Although @P-Makoto made a good point that the article's current style ("Footnotes mixed with explanatory notes") is one of the acceptable styles shown at H:NOTES, it is less elegant, and makes it hard to make everything feel consistent. After spending some time reviewing other Featured Articles, I will say it generally seems to be rare for a Featured Article to have this style.

But at the same time, I understand why it was done this way: during edit wars of yesteryear, it seems it was done to head off any possible criticism of the references from the "other side", by explaining exactly what was said on the page. So my question is: do we think we have moved on sufficiently from edit wars - built enough mutual trust amongst ourselves - that the flavor text surrounding these references can be peeled back quite aggressively?

As an example: the current reference 19 refers to the following sentence: "Smith said he recounted the experience to a Methodist minister, who dismissed the story 'with great contempt'." The current reference shows as follows: "Vogel (2004, p. 30); Remini (2002, p. 40) ('The clergyman, Joseph later reported, was aghast at what he was told and treated the story with contempt. He said that there were no such things as visions or revelations ... that they ended with the Apostles'); Harper (2019, p. 9)." Instead of all that, could I prune it back as follows: "Vogel (2004, p. 30); Remini (2002, p. 40); Harper (2019, p. 9)." And likewise throughout the article.

Although all of these could be each given their own efn (see below), I think many of them would be excessive. Many of them simply amount to slightly wordier restatements of what the main body of the article already states. Therefore I'd like to prune quite a few of them.

Issue 2: I don't think it makes sense to remove all the explanatory footnotes, as many of them typically give needed context and explain disagreements among scholars that should be included - even though the average reader really will not be interested in them for the most part. Therefore, I recommend these go to a new section of Explanatory Footnotes: from there, additional subreferences should be handled easily. (Also this was directly suggested by Nikkimaria: "You might also want to consider splitting explanatory footnotes into a separate section from citations.") The style I'm proposing is called "Shortened footnotes with separate explanatory notes" at H:NOTES. (Edit: or even "Shortened footnotes with separate explanatory notes with references" where needed - see next paragraph.)

There will still be additional footnotes to tease out that still don't fit neatly into either of the two categories. For instance, I'm thinking of the current Reference 300, which starts with a reference; then does a sentence of explanation; then does a "see also" reference; then does another sentence; then does a final "see also" reference. But, for instance, I think the best way to handle this one would be with a reference (the first reference), then an efn, which in turn has two separate references within it.

Issue 3: As discussed by Nikkimaria: "Right now there's a mix of handwritten, {{cite}}-family, and {{citation}} templates." Will just need to jump in and start standardizing these. Does anyone have any thoughts on which of these formats is preferred? If not, I'll probably just come up with the one that seems most common and make the others conform to it.

Issue 4: As discussed by Nikkimaria: "Some books include publication locations and others don't, and of those that do the formatting varies." Again, I should probably just jump in and start fixing this: finding locations where possible and standardizing formatting between them - unless anyone has any objections or issues with it. It looks like P-Makoto found and fixed the one of these that Nikkimaria specifically mentioned, but it seems likely there will be more. Trevdna (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

If few Featured Articles use "footnotes mixed with explanatory notes", meaning it might impede the nomination, making that change is understandable. I'm afraid I might not be much help with this specifically; creating and formatting efn has long eluded my understanding. Is that something you feel comfortable doing? I see you got started and already have a great-looking efn in place.

As for the matter of "peel[ing] back quite aggressively"—it is hard to gauge mutual trust in a porous community. I would like to be optimistic. The example you gave (of the reference appended to "Smith said he recounted the experience" etc.) is one that I would agree with you on, and that I hope most folks would be comfortable with pruning. However, it was also only a few months ago that a careful and conscientious contributor was chased away from the page through aggressive bullying, with the end result being only a mild rebuke to the instigator. Add to that our uneven access to some of the works cited, and the precarity of libraries (libraries are wonderful, but renewals can run out when we least expect it, and then all of a sudden if a footnote is challenged we are hard pressed to defend it), and it is hard to be certain of mutual trust. I respect the loose group of regular editors on this page, and when I sense their/y'all's trust in me I feel very grateful. But this being Wikipedia, there are untold possibilities of editors who could unexpectedly join in and alter existing dynamics or respond quite differently to the page.

Lastly, I thought Issue 3 and 4 are resolved? I thought that problem applied specifically to the list of cited references used for shortened notes. Is that something that affects works in the notes? It's possible I don't fully understand, as I usually use the visual editor and don't know as many details about {{cite}}-family and {{citation}}. And I don't remember if there are any books left in the notes. I would add that I think only books need a publication location. Journal articles and website don't generally include a location of publication, and those are the sorts of sources that would be in the notes but not the references list.

Thanks for raising these questions/issues, proposing ways forward, and hearing out my thoughts. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed FA Candidacy (again)

Hey all: last time I proposed to put this article up for FA status, some people brought up a few final finishing touches. I just want to do that one more time: do we all have a complete consensus on nominating this article - or are there any other final issues that should be addressed beforehand?

@P-Makoto: can I ask you to be a co-nominator with me? Your extensive and very well-researched edits in the last two months have made this article even beyond what I was expecting. Your knowledge of the very latest research has been, well, encyclopedic; your resources and deep knowledge would be very helpful in rapidly responding to any source controversies that may arise.

Thanks to everyone for your help and hard work up until this point. Trevdna (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Trevdna That's very kind of you to say. I'm just glad I've been able to help and grateful that my contributions have been received fairly and openly. Before deciding whether to co-nominate, I should probably ask: what do nomination and co-nomination involve? I'm open to helping, but I wouldn't want to promise something and then be unable to deliver when you need the assist.

As for other final issues, while others might be revealed with a closer review, the following is what I think of off the top of my head:

• Not an existing issue I suppose since I have already made the edits, but I'll note that I just now revised the "Impact and assessment" subsection, which I'd been meaning to do for awhile. I was and am of the mind that a more chronological history of Smith's reception over time (as described by secondary sources which describe that reception) might improve the subsection, and I hope the results are amenable to other editors.
• I am still inclined to remove from what is now footnote 244 the "speculat[ion] that [Emma Smith's] denial [of Joseph Smith's polygamy] was a form of revenge and animosity against Smith's plural wives". While the footnote now references and represents a variety of interpretations, that of No Man Knows My History in this particular case is so out of step with the rest that just from looking at the list of possibilities, the take is clearly out of place. Even in this summarized, non-quoted form, I still don't think the interpretation escapes the sexist "woman scorned" characterization that animates the secondary source cited. With so many other quality reliable interpretations on offer, I think that minor trim would only improve the page.
• Disagreements about the suitability of No Man Knows My History for use on Wikipedia generally have been discussed, and I've already expressed my thoughts, so at this moment I will only recognize that disagreement without insisting on any action in particular.

That's all that personally comes to mind as worth bringing up at this stage. I suppose only the second bullet is a pragmatically actionable point. I'm glad to have helped, albeit only recently, and thank you for your patience and hard work of your own. This seems to have been quite a project, so kudos on getting it so far. P-Makoto (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Re: what does nominator / co-nominator status entail: 1) we would set up the FAC by posting on the page that we’d like it to be considered for FA status, etc. Then 2) when reviewers have comments / requested improvements, it’s (primarily) up to us to respond to them in a timely manner. Failure to respond to those comments could lead to a failure of the article’s FA candidacy.

If that sounds interesting, your dedicated help in getting timely responses would be greatly appreciated. But if you’re not, that’s fine too, no pressure.

Re: your other three comments: 1) thanks for your edits to Impact and Assessment. I couldn’t find anything to challenge on them at this time. 2) I suppose I would disagree. I think any reader who is interested and savvy enough to dig into the footnotes that deeply, should be savvy enough to make their own decision about whether they think Brodie’s explanation is out of step with the others or not. We’ve already done a good job de-emphasizing it by stating it as “sepculat[ion]” while the others have stronger verbs attached to them.

But as ever, I don’t want to monopolize the discussion. And truthfully I don’t feel that strongly about it either way. So if you feel that strongly about it, feel free to strike it unilaterally and I wouldn’t revert.

3) I think one of the strengths of this article is it effectively balances the relative contributions of many different secondary sources. Brodie’s work has her contribution here - but doesn’t overpower the article - which I feel is entirely appropriate, given her massive contribution to scholarly research on Smith. Granted, much of it has now been superseded by additional research - but in the cases where a Brodie reference reinforces other references, I think it’s appropriate to leave her in. Trevdna (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Re:co-nomination: What entails a "timely manner"? Would we be expected to respond within minutes, or within days? In the former case I don't know if I could quite commit to being that prompt, but in the latter I think I'd like to help out, so it's not all falling on one person, especially when I've added content and references.

Re:three other comments: 1) Thanks for the second set of eyes on the additions; always good to have others take a look and review. 2) Just figured I'd bring it up; I hesitate to unilaterally edit where there's been contestation if I can help it. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter. 3) I'd add that I think Fawn Brodie's contribution to scholarly research on Smith was "significant" rather than "massive"—for massiveness (as well as standards of scholarly rigor), The Joseph Smith Papers has raised the bar very high. My view remains that No Man Knows was historiographically meaningful but is long superseded, as evinced by approaches modeled in encyclopedic consensus sources like the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History and in twenty-first-century historical scholarship, in the same way that Perry Miller launched Puritan studies in the 1930s but is not cited on the Wikipedia article for Puritans because of how much the field's consensus has changed. But in any case, I'd rather not rock the boat on the matter beyond recognizing that there has been a matter. Thanks for hearing out my thoughts. P-Makoto (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

We’re talking more like a day. Trevdna (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. If you're still interested in having me as a co-nominator, I am willing to make the co-nomination and assist with responding to reviewer comments. P-Makoto (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! Of course!

I’ll draft a nomination statement and put it on your talk page in the next few days. Then if you’re OK with it, I’ll post it and sign both our names to it.

These nominations run until there is either a consensus to promote, a consensus not to promote, or until it becomes clear there will be no consensus (which means not promoted). Typically that’s 2-3 weeks, although that time can vary depending on how it goes. If you’re interested in seeing how these go, I recommend you browse WP:FAC for an idea.

For background, I nominated this article, twice, unsuccessfully both times, about a decade ago. It’s come an awful long ways in that time, though, so here’s hoping third time is the charm! Trevdna (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Umm… you know what? I’ve been looking through the nominations at WP:FAC aand… I’m actually somewhat intimidated. They absolutely shred these things. Not that Ido t think this article wouldn’t *probably* pass. But I’m not sure it would *definitely* pass. And I’d like to make it as sure as I can.

One resource they strongly recommend for first time nominators (and those who haven’t yet had a successful nom) is to get a “mentor” to guide them through the process.

To boost our chances of a successful nom, I have put out a request for a mentor to review this article and suggest changes. Hopefully another set of eyes never hurts - and if nothing else, I hope it will signal to the reviewers that we are serious about doing our diligence here. Trevdna (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Trevdna Entirely understandable; I trust your judgment on this. I'll do my best to be available and receptive for what feedback we might receive from a mentor; just let me know as it happens. What sort of background and questions might we expect from the mentor and eventual reviewer? P-Makoto (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It would be someone who has extensive experience in the Featured Article process. Most (all?) of them have several successful FA nominations under their belt. Trevdna (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey guys, before nominating this I'd suggest figuring out a consistent citation style. Right now there's a mix of handwritten, {{cite}}-family, and {{citation}} templates; some books include publication locations and others don't, and of those that do the formatting varies; some refs are missing required pieces (eg Harris & Bringhurst has no publisher listed); and some of the harvlinks are non-functional. You might also want to consider splitting explanatory footnotes into a separate section from citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

By the mix, I take it you mean the References list? Making that consistent is not an easy task, but it probably would be worthwhile to do it. I will do my best to make some headway on that when I have time.

I will point out, though, that Harris and Bringhurst, The Persistence of Polygamy, in the References list, does have a publisher listed—John Whitmer Books—and that "Footnotes mixed with explanatory notes" is an accepted style of notes (indeed, it is the first style listed on this help page). P-Makoto (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

My apologies; I briefly mixed up Bringhurst and Foster with Harris and Bringhurst. Good catch on the missing publisher. That should be fixed now, with University of Illinois Press given as the publisher. P-Makoto (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for bringing this up, and apologies about my delay in responding.

You are correct: there is a wide variety of reference styles in this article, due to successive generations of dedicated editors each doing it in their own preferred manner (as well as POV edit wars in the relatively distant past). As you can see, there is a complete range of footnotes and explanations, including brief references to full Harvtext citations, lengthy discussions with multiple internal citations, and everything in between.

What would you say is the best protocol for splitting explanatory footnotes from citations? I see there are several options, including using the {{refn}} template, the {{efn}} template, and/or <ref group> tags. I am not familiar with the pros and cons of each, or with what is preferred at WP:FAC. We will probably need to seek consensus here per WP:CITEVAR and I'd like your opinion before we jump into it with both feet. Trevdna (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Which is easiest will depend a bit on what approach you end up taking for citations (eg if you use sfn often that's paired with efn), but from the FAC perspective the technical mechanism by which notes are achieved isn't really important. For that matter there is no prescribed citation format, so long as the citations are clear, complete, and consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @Nikkimaria:! Could I ask you politely to review and evaluate the references section in this article again? I think between P-Makoto and myself, we have handled all of the issues you've brought up. And for good measure - this is actually what took 2 months to find time to do - I've separated out the references from the explanatory notes, giving the article its own efn section. It now uses {{cite}}-family and {{Harvtxt}} templates consistently, and (I think) correctly throughout. I've also trimmed a lot of unnecessary quotations or explanations from the citations if I've felt they added little additional understanding to the reader, or went into excessive detail. (The ones that I thought were not excessive and added to the article, found their way into the Notes section.) I believe the result is much cleaner, and I hope the folks at WP:FAC will appreciate the difference. Thanks so much! Trevdna (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Certainly much improved. There are still a few inconsistencies here and there - for example, sometimes locations omit state names, sometimes they are spelled out in full, and sometimes they use postal abbreviations (which they typically shouldn't). Some of the details in the lead/infobox don't appear to be sourced anywhere, eg the full sibling list.

A couple other things you can do in preparation for FAC: for each source, consider what you would say if someone asked what makes it a reliable source. In particular take a look at wrldrels.org, which has been previously questioned at RSN. Also have a look at all of the images and make sure the conditions of their tags have been demonstrably satisfied. For example, the tag on File:Interior_of_Carthage_Jail_by_C.C.A._Christensen_(cropped).jpg indicates that "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States" - but no such tag is currently included. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I confess to confusion as to why the World Religions and Spirituality project has been questioned at RSN. I would point out that the very next comment on the thread states that WRSP "is a bunch of academics working in the academic study of new religious movements". academic scholarship seem like precisely the kind of reliable source Wikipedia looks to. The criticisms apparently leveled against CESNUR (in the event it is relevant to WRSP as the Wikipedia comment seemed to imply) also seem disconnected from academic assessments. Reviews of works published in association with CESNUR or by people involved in CESNUR describe the organization without criticism, such as in these two examples: "This short book is the first in a series of general introductions to new religions offered by the Center for Studies on New Religions... Gordon Melton needs no introduction. He is among the foremost experts on new and nonconventional religions" (Journal of Church and State, Fall 2000); and "The Plymouth Brethren is the latest book by Massimo Introvigne, widely known for his work on new religious movements and as the managing director of the influential Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR). This is a straightforward, concise summary of the history, beliefs, and practices of the Brethren" (Nova Religio, May 2019)

I would add that the author of the cited article on Community of Christ, David Howlett, has has his research in history and Mormon studies published by multiple academic journals and by an academic university press.

As for places of publication: I have omitted state names where the state name was obvious from the press' name (e.g. a book published by University of North Carolina Press is published in Chapel Hill, North Carolina and not in any other Chapel Hill) or from the city's name (Provo, UT is likely to be the most well known Provo). State names were included where the city's name might result in confusion (e.g. Cambridge, Massachusetts specified to avoid confusion with the recognizable Cambridge, UK). I also did not repeat a city name if it was in the name of the press (e.g. University of Chicago Press and Princeton University Press). The postal abbreviations I'm sure can readily be changed to states' full names where applicable.

Thank you for advising a review of the infobox to confirm or provide sourcing as well as to review image permissions. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

On locations, it's fine to have variations of the kind you describe, as long as there is consistency in how that's done - at the moment there is not. For example, Jenson and De Groote both list "Salt Lake City, Utah" as their place of publication, but many other entries use only "Salt Lake City". It's also usual to omit only when redundant to the work title rather than the publisher, per the template documentation. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I have now trimmed "Utah" from Jenson, ed. The Historical Record and the place name from the De Groote source (which was a periodical and not a book anyhow) and will keep an eye out for other cases of slippage.

I confess to some confusion about omitting a place name when "redundant to the work title rather than the publisher". Why would work title matter for the place of publication of a book? Benjamin Park's Kingdom of Nauvoo: The Rise and Fall of a Religious Empire on the American Frontier, just to use an example from the page, mentions the city name "Nauvoo" in its title, but it was published by Liveright, an imprint of W. W. Norton, a publisher with offices in New York city, New York state. Wouldn't the publisher's name be more relevant than the title, which could theoretically mention all manner of places? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

On that all I can do is point to the documentation: Template:Cite_book#Publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Those examples are newspapers which, yeah, are named after the cities they are in. Not sure the same applies to books. Thmazing (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Postal abbreviations or full state names in the references list?

I'm grateful to you for going through the minutiae, @Trevdna, but I thought that Nikkimaria specifically instructed that "postal abbreviations... typically shouldn't" be used? That is why I did my best to change all postal abbreviations of state names in the publication locations to the full names of the states. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

In the MOS:STATEABBR it does say that "... standard abbreviations with period or periods are acceptable...".

Is that acceptable to everyone? Padillah (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

MOS:STATEABBR is a little confusing because it states that "Postal codes and abbreviations of place names—e.g., Calif. (California), TX (Texas), Yorks. (Yorkshire)—should not be used to stand for the full names in normal text," but then it states that in references and bibliographies abbreviations with periods (but not postal codes) are acceptable. I would just spell them out to eliminate confusion. By the way, in the example given those postal codes are not acceptable, likely because this is a worldwide encyclopedia. They should be changed to standard abbreviations or that state spelled out. Bahooka (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oof. Alright, thanks everyone. I Had figured a superficially more consistent approach would be better, but I guess I have some more learning to do here instead.

Feel free to revert to how it was if that was more aligned with preferred Wikipedia style guides. Trevdna (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

(Or whatever other approach is deemed best by consensus.) Trevdna (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The Armenian Genocide page, an FA suggested as a model to look to, does not even mention place of publication in any of its book references, so I'm not even sure anymore whether to include place of publication at all. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

It's an optional parameter. If you want to include it, you can - you just need to be consistent in when and how. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

More work for FA status

The saga continues…

Per discussion here with experienced editors (2 of the 4 FA coordinators): before this article is ready for FA status, we’ll need to mostly eliminate the Notes section, as well as trim the main article’s prose by about a third.

I intend to 1) move the affected text to the sub articles, and 2) improve the sub articles so it doesn’t feel like we’re “banishing” the detailed text that leaves the main article. (Some of them are looking a little rough right now.)

So, to everyone involved, 3 questions:

1 - Any objections with this plan? 2 - If not, does anyone want to help out with it? And 3 - Even though no one WP:OWNs the article, we all know there are parts that we each like more than others (usually because we remember which parts we wrote!). Are there any sections in specific that anyone here feels *very* strongly need to remain *exactly* as they are and should not be trimmed or summarized or moved to sub articles at all?

Thanks all. Trevdna (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Trevdna. Thanks as ever for spearheading this.

1. Any objections with this plan? I admit I have mixed feelings, partly because there's mixed messaging. Is it possible whether to have notes is just personal preference? Nikkimaria, the earlier FA mentor, actively recommended having a notes section. And is it possible that length is also just personal preference? One of the FA coordinators pointed to the Armenian Genocide as a model Featured Article, but according to the DYK readable-prose tool, the Armenian Genocide page is ~7,000 words, only ~3,000 words shorter than the body text of the Joseph Smith page (~10,000). I am of the mind that Wikipedia is not paper, so as long as the page is well organized with sufficient subsections that help orient the reader (and the current Joseph Smith page does helpfully have plenty of sensible subsection headings), a page can manage this kind of length. My impression was that the "too long" problem is leveled against pages twice as long, like the Reconstruction era page (~20,000 words).

The suggestion to move content to sub articles is also part of my mixed feelings. Much time has been put into this article. It seems like a bit of a shell game to be advised, "actually, go make [ten, or however many] articles". And how does that improve the situation? If page editors and FA reviewers are limited in number or not forthcoming for one 10,000 word page, will they be any more available or forthcoming for several 7,000 word pages? Or will we just be left with pouring time and energy into even more articles doomed to not be featured? It is a lot already to try to improve and maintain one page by sheer volunteer effort; it is another to be asked to do so with a whole genre of pages.

2. If not, does anyone want to help out with it? Perhaps another part of my resistance to the proposed course of action is that I am not as optimistic about my capacity to assist. I felt like I could squeeze time in to respond to reviewer feedback (things like "could you clarify this" or "could you reword that" or "this sentence is missing a reference") for when an FA review rolled around. But creating or overhauling several more pages is a much bigger commitment of time and energy, and I am less certain of helping contributing to so many pages in my current circumstances, as much as I would want to try, especially when I realize some of the additions to the page (which I had thought were helping the page, but which these two FA coordinators evidently think is more of a hindrance) are from me.

Adding to my reticence is that fracturing the content across multiple pages may well entail recapitulating conversations about source criticism, weighing different authors, reiterating the trends and changes in antebellum/religious/Mormon historiography, with editors who did not take notice of this Joseph Smith page but might take notice of other "sub" pages. Discussions like that are very taxing, on time and on energy; such felt doable when it was all for "one last push" to help get one page across the FA finish line, but it feels less doable if it's going to be for several more pages.

3. Are there any sections in specific that anyone here feels *very* strongly need to remain I would hope that at least "Impact and asssessment" sticks around (I grant that a lot of its current text is from me). I consider it a very concise summary of how Smith and his legacy have been received over time, and that's useful in the biography of a figure whose legacy has been as contested as his. Other featured biographies have similar legacy sections, like Andrew Jackson (another ~10,000 word FA). I don't really think excising this and instead having a "Reception of Joseph Smith" page would be all that purposeful, and it might come across as a fork.

The "slavery and race" subsection also strikes me as important. It would not do to leave Smith's views and teachings on this untreated, and I think those three paragraphs are about as concise a treatment as one might hope to achieve for his thought on the subject (barring an unsatisfying non-treatment like "Smith's thoughts on slavery and race were complicated" that pipes to some other page about the subject).

If View of the Hebrews is going to mentioned as a potential inspiration for or source of The Book of Mormon (something that a reviewer several years ago appears to have insisted on, despite how contested the claim is), I would consider noting the academic contestation over that assessment (whether in a note as it is now or in the body text instead) a necessary inclusion (currently it's this note) so as to accurately reflect the state of that topic in the historiography.

I wouldn't say that the Polygamy section needs to stay exactly the same (the observation that the Polygamy subsection has a long paragraph more about Emma Smith is fair enough, though how she figures in Joseph Smith's practice, such as in getting him to partly attenuate the practice, remains important to his biography as well), but I think at least some substantial element should persist. The Mormonism & polygamy subpages on Wikipedia are, from what I've seen, in difficult states, torn between defensiveness and sensationalism. It'd be nice to have at least this page presenting readable summaries of academic assessments of at least Smith era polygamy.

I realize that one of the FA coordinators suggested excising everything after Life—views, teachings, family, legacy, everything—but what would otherwise become of that content? Would it really be useful for there be "Joseph Smith and conceptions of God", "Joseph Smith and family", "Joseph Smith and politics", "Joseph Smith and ritual", "Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon", etc. pages? I am not sure that's as helpful as the FA coordinators thus far consulted seem to imply. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Good points all. I guess I underestimated just how tricky this whole thing was going to be (and I knew it was going to be tricky).

To start: I agree that excising everything after “Life” is almost certainly not the answer here. The narrative of Joseph’s life just doesn’t do well with large interruptions to explain the revelations etc. And given how some of these topics are thematic (don’t fit well in just one section of his life), I’m not sure it would even be possible. Taking it all out would leave big holes in Smith’s story.

Also: I appreciate your help in everything. I would hope that the feeling of “one last push” doesn’t burn you out if it doesn’t go exactly how we hope or want. I told myself that several times but it never quite worked out - 10 years ago. My natural optimism often gets the better of me, but I think we’re finding that - because of good faith differences of opinion - there are very different views on what this article should look like from those who haven’t been steeped in it. I’m starting to wonder if there even is a way to truly obtain consensus between outside FA reviewers and ourselves :/

I think I owe it to you and your hard work to show you my vision for the sub articles. In a similar way to how I jumped in and tackled the Notes and References thing, I’d like to take probably a few more months myself (fitting it in with real life) to improve the sub articles and import the text from this article (without deleting it from this article yet). Then, I’d like to draft a trimmed version of this article that I think will pass FA review, and pass it by yourself and the other editors here. I don’t think it would be fair to ask you to work on it too much more given the tremendous amounts of time and effort you’ve put in already.

My goal is to have 1) an article here that meets FA criteria (including length), and 2) quality sub-articles that, while they may never become Featured (I mean, I don’t have it in me), can still be references for a general audience and we can still take pride in them. But I will lead out on making the changes, and I will try to do it slowly enough and with enough discussion that we can form consensus.

As far as the Notes thing goes: of course I can’t speak for others, but I am guessing that Nikkimaria saw the copious amounts of text included in the References section and suggested they be broken out so we could see the length of the text more clearly. I think there have probably been 2 implicit issues from the FA regulars, one being how everything was mixed up, and two being the overall length of it. The second hasn’t come into focus until the first was resolved.

One final parting thought: I’ve been around long enough to remember when Wikipedia was still very concerned about longer articles loading in older browsers: at the time, 32 kB was a much more strictly enforced limit. (One of the reasons we have 5 sub articles on his Life: I believe it was originally done to respect this limit!) Although there’s no technological limit on it any more, I think the idea of shorter summary articles (with additional details put into robust sub articles) has stuck around in the WP culture. Trevdna (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

It's great we are on the same page about retaining thematic subsections in addition to the chronological life narrative. Thank you also for describing what you envision as next for the page, which seems to make sense as a way to meet the FA reviewers' interests. What topics would you envision these two potential sub-articles covering?

And thanks for your kind words on my contribution. I would not want to overshadow what you have done, since you've been improving this page for ten years and have put in time and effort which I have only added to. I can't claim to match that tirelessness, and your fortitude amid recent speed bumps is very admirable.

I do appreciate your bearing with my constraints on time and capacity. Even so, feel free to let me know about the sub articles and to ask of me if there's any way that the additional books and articles I have at hand might be helpful. I wouldn't want to leave you in a lurch if there's something I can do to help resolve a question of details or provide additional sources to substantiate something. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Subarticles

Hi, @Trevdna. Noticing your good work and have a moment. Hope it's alright to say something about first: the deletion of the "Life of Joseph Smith" page; and second: the "Legacy" and "Teachings" pages.

First: You'll almost surely notice this yourself since you probably had the page on your watchlist, but the "Life of Joseph Smith" article was deleted. Is there content there that you think should be un-trimmed? Or how else could it be put to use?

Second: I think the "Legacy of Joseph Smith" page makes a lot of sense. I wonder about the title (alternatively, "Reception of Joseph Smith"? "Perceptions of Joseph Smith"? "Joseph Smith in memory"?), but I think the subject makes sense as something that can stand as an article, given scholarship available on the topic.

Moving content to the "Teachings" page is another move that makes sense, now that I see you do it. When sub-articles were first proposed, I over-thought in thinking they'd be broken down per topic. Now that I'm looking, I realize there's a genre of Wikipedia pages for "teachings of X" that cover various subjects, so this makes sense.

To say it all more briefly: at first impression, I'm supportive of the recent efforts and hope to contribute in ways that are helpful. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that everything in a Life of Joseph Smith page can be covered on a combination of Early life of Joseph Smith and History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If Legacy of Joseph Smith isn't ideal what do you think of Reception and legacy of Joseph Smith? It matches what we do with other historical figures of great impact, for example Reception and legacy of Muammar Gaddafi. There also seems to be room for a Personal life of Joseph Smith page for centralized coverage of his immediate family. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I think I'd rather wait to hear from Trevdna.

I will point out that there are other "Life of X" pages out there, so it's not unprecedented: Life of William Shakespeare, Life of Jesus. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow, how did I miss this one? Sorry for the delay in repsonding.

I have no problem with changing to a Reception and legacy of Joseph Smith article. Most of my WP:BOLD edits are not meant to be taken as gospel, but usually as a starting point for further improvement and refinement. If that's more in line with established Wikipedia norms, my vote is for it. My biggest focus is (I'm sure you're shocked to hear) getting this article ready for FAC and so my vote on this one is definitely "either way." Thanks all. Trevdna (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Pre-FAC review for Missouri War stuff

Some thoughts on that portion of the article ahead of a potential FAC:

• Can you double-check your sources for some of the chronology of this material? I'm reviewing the section in Perry McCandless's A History of Missouri: 1820 to 1860 published by Mizzou, and it seems to disagree with the article on the chronology of events. Armed bands exchanged fire, killing one Mormon and two non-Mormons, until the old settlers forcibly expelled the Latter Day Saints from the county. In response, Smith led a small paramilitary expedition, called Zion's Camp, to aid the Latter Day Saints in Missouri. The men of the expedition were disorganized, suffered from a cholera outbreak and were severely outnumbered. Smith sent two church representatives to petition Missouri governor Daniel Dunklin for protection and support, but Dunklin declined to aid the Mormons is what our article has for this. But McCandless has a chronology of 1) the original 1833 atrocities 2) petition to Dunklin instigated by Smith (apparently sometime between July and October 1833) 3) the fight at the Big Blue where the three people were killed in November 1833 4) Zion's camp on the move (May 1834)
• Something that seems an odd exclusion: p. 109 of McCandless claims that After the Gallatin melee, a rumor circulated that the Adam-ondi-Ahman colony was to be destroyed. Sampson Avard and Sidney Rigdon organized a force to resist the attack, and Smith accompanied the group to the colony. Finding no danger there the men marched to Gallatin, where leaders demanded and secured from Justice of the Peace Adam Black his pledge to respect the legal rights of Mormons. As a result of this action, Smith was arrested, tried, and bound for $500 to keep the peace, but there was to be no peace. So most of that isn't relevant to a Smith article, but do any of the sources you consulted mention this arrest and placement under bond apparently not long after the Gallatin incident?
• McCandless mentions that in October, Smith made a direct appeal to support fighting for their rights (pp. 109-110). Is this supported by other sources/worth mentioning
• I know it's not best to get too much in the weeds for background with this, but is the infamous Mormon Extermination Order (which didn't get struck from the books in Missouri until the 1970s) worth mentioning?

I unfortunately only have the McCandless source on me right now, and it's a general history of the state during the statehood to brink of the Civil War period. If there's any further research needed, I can manage to get ahold of a copy of LeSueur's work on the conflict. Hog Farm _Talk 03:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I have access to a handful of publications that treat the events in Missouri, including some of the referenced titles, and some time this month. I'll see what I can do to confirm, clarify, or straighten out.

As for Smith being arrested, is that not the jailing at Liberty? It's mentioned in the article as Smith and five others, including Rigdon, were charged with treason, and transferred to the jail at Liberty, Missouri, to await trial.

I plan to for now consult some or a combination of:

• Adam Jortner, No Place for Saints: Mobs and Mormons in Jacksonian America (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2022) (a history of the expulsion from Jackson County)
• Richard Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling: Joseph Smith (Alfred A. Knopf, 2005) (referenced on the page)
• Marvin S. Hill, Quest for Refuge: The Mormon Flight from American Pluralism (Signature Books, 1989) (referenced on the page)

P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@P-Makoto:, were you ever able to look into this? Mostly I'm concerned about the possible chronology issues about Zion's Camp that Hog Farm references. Trevdna (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: circling back to this one after a while. It appears you're correct on the chronology of the petitions happening before Big Blue and Zion's Camp. I've updated the article. As far as the rest of these items, I think they are all either addressed already (for instance, the Mormon Extermination Order is referenced and linked to, albeit briefly, under the "Life In Missouri" section) or - I would argue - are beyond the scope of this summary article. We're already struggling to keep its length down. For instance, the part about Smith being arrested but released on bail, proved to be relatively minor in the long run. I've already slimmed up the Missouri section (for overall article length) and I think Smith's arrest would be a little much. (Note: I'm under the assumption that the incident you're referring to is a separate incident from the eventual imprisonment at Liberty Jail. If the two incidents are one, then the answer is much simpler, in that the arrest is indeed covered in the article.) Likewise on the "direct appeal" you were talking about: I'd say it's probably not worth mentioning. If you'd like either of them included, we can look at putting it in the subarticle, fair enough? Trevdna (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree that given the length considerations the ommissions are appropriate. If you do want me to look back into the arrest issue at some point in the future, I can. I'll try to look over the chronology thing sometime but I've become very busy and can make no promises about when I can look at that. Hog Farm _Talk 23:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

For me, it’s fine where it stands, and I’m cautiously optimistic about its chances at FAC. So unless you see anything else that’s outstanding, I think we’re fine here.

Thanks for your time and efforts in reviewing, and for all you do generally. Trevdna (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)