This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mormonism Unvailed article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Peter Ingersoll was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 03 October 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Mormonism Unvailed. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Latter Day Saint movement Low‑importance

	Latter Day Saint movement portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

1 February 2007

If it's an exposé, why isn't it called UNVEILED? UNVAILED is not a word!Proofreader J-Man 04:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, and I believe that Howe intended to call it exactly that: "Mormonism Unveiled." One of the great mysteries is why Howe misspelled the title of his book...but it is indeed titled "Mormonism Unvailed." No doubt it will cause Wikipedia proofreaders some grief... :-) Bochica 04:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No mystery here - at that time spelling was much less standardized than it is now. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The [sic] should probably be removed. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Smith and LDS movement

How is this not just another article to list criticisms of Smith and the LDS church? There is little to nothing in this article about the book. It's all about the contents and it gives yet another platform to produce criticism of the LDS church. Shouldn't this article be about the book? where it was published? How it was published? why is the name misspelled? Anything? Padillah (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what the heck is "Use of the Howe/Hurlbut affidavits in modern works" doing in this article? What does this section have to do with the book under review? This is pretty blatant WP:SOAPBOXing. Padillah (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which Manchester?

Is it Manchester USA or UK?Fletcherbrian (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fletcherbrian. I've given it a link. Manchester in New York - near Palmyra. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hurlbut affidavits

There is not enough material specifically about the Hurlbut affidavits, separate & distinct from the Mormonism Unvailed work itself, to merit a separate article. The material currently at Hurlbut affidavits should be merged into this article, and that article then redirected here. ^—^Asterisk*^Splat^→ 00:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Tripleahg (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. TuckerResearch (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and merged the two. TuckerResearch (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resurgence of the Spalding theory

This section is not part of Mormonism Unvailed. What it says is WP:WEASELWORDS and the citation is not to a reference that discusses this. I removed it. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]