Talk:Early life of Joseph Smith

message: I'm listing this article for peer review. This article is particularly controversial, and needs a few good eyes to ensure that all notable points of view are represented. COGDEN 08:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: Since time is growing short, I'm listing this article as a featured article candidate. COGDEN 04:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article candidate

message: I would like to commend whoever was the first to put Parenthetical Citation in this article. I think this should be how all of our references are kept. Good Job. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 04:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Parenthetical Citation

message: I have twice reverted a specific date for the first vision from a anon using an AOL IP.  Left them the following message.
:Thanks for the recent edits on this article, but please keep in mind that Joseph Smith gave several accounts of the first vision during his lifetime, with relatively minor variations.  One of these accounts was adopted as the official version by the largest LDS schism, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Since the LDS project group here tries to present a balanced view of all offshoots of Mormonism, as well as presenting opposing points of view (via Wikipedia's NPOV policy), articles about Mormonism have to be carefully written to incorporate as many viewpoints as possible.  As there is some minor disagreement on the actual date of the first vision, a less than precise date has been selected for this article.  We encourage people interested in LDS/Mormon issues to become involved in our project group.  Please see:  Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement Hope to work with you soon.  WBardwin 23:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of First Vision 

message: Because the section about early experiences with visions, et. al. is only one sentence, I incorporated that sentence into the First Vision section and got moved the subsections up one. I think it reads a little better this way since the entire article is about his early life - no reason to keep repeat it in the section heading usig early experiences. Comments? Trödel•talk 23:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing section heading 

message: The vandalism was not as bad as I expected, 128 edits, I think, and only a few where offensive pics or information was put in. This is much better than usual - I don't know what could explain that - other than the 23rd being a holiday for many people, and a lot of students gone for the Christmas Break. Personally, I am somewhat disappointed, but maybe I shouldn't be because of the overall high quality of the article, but I expected more improvements to the article, as has happened with some of the other featured articles when they are put on the main page. 
Here is a before and after diff we should probably review the edits to see if any useful suggestions were deleted as vandalism. Does anyone want to volunteer - **Warning there will be explicit pictures in the history** - if no one can do it right away I will be happy to review them after Christmas. 
Thanks to all those who helped watch this article today - especially the admins who quickly reverted nonsense and explicit pics - it is amazing how fast they catch stuff - I was sitting her clicking refresh but by the time I could revert - it was already done. Great job everyone! Trödel•talk 00:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've actually gone post-by-post (as far as I am aware, at least), and reviewed 90% of edits.  I think this is what we're stuck with.  The Jade Knight 00:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I'd like to congratulate the people who got this article up to Feature Article status.  Second, I'd like to thank whomever got it featured on the 200th anniversary of his birth.  Third, I'd like to thank all of the editors who monitored the feature status.  All of this was people besides me.  While I was watching today, I found one edit that needed revering but hadn't yet been revereted.  By the time I got it reverted, someone else had already done so.  Thanks to everyone. Val42 01:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't able to get to the computer, and it slipped my mind anyway - sorry I couldn't help at all. --Trevdna 02:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post Featured Article AAR 

message: On my browser, this article shows that, under categories, it is under "articles lacking sources". I go to change this (it's obviously wrong), and I cannot find it anywhere? Is this only happening to me, or does anyone else see it? Why would it be there in the firsdt place??? --Trevdna 23:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice the same.  The Jade Knight 23:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess this has been taken care of by now, but I assume someone had put a  tag somewhere, which used to add an article to that category. (Now it adds it to :Category:Articles with unsourced statements.) User:Angr 15:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category - Articles lacking sources?????

message: -- Trevdna 23:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The nomination is complete. It is now a Stable Review Version on the Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr./Stable sub page. -- Zondor 11:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where was the voting?  The Jade Knight 05:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I rushed it. -- Zondor 06:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  The Jade Knight 07:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What's the purpose of having a "stable version"?  The Jade Knight 03:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In short, it means its ready to be printed to millions and millions of people to read. -- Zondor 07:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think it is, personally.  I think it still needs a lot of work—I think the sources should be checked and analysed historiographically before we consider calling this article stable.  But that's a lot of work which requires access to the sources.  I've done it for a few, but there are many, many more.  The Jade Knight 07:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, that's not what I really meant. Actually, what you describe is a perfect candidate for a "preprint" version prior to the stable version. It's complete but just needs to be verified. -- Zondor 13:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shouldn't be verification be part of the nomination procedure? Markus Schmaus 17:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps, the nomination procedure can include "alpha testing" (verification) as a hurdle to have it good enough. However, after this nomination it has to undergo "beta testing" (verification) for a Stable Release Version. -- Zondor 01:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Definitely not.  I doubt the article is accurate, and I think it's important that it remain open to corrections, particularly if people can review the sources and ensure that they are accurate and supported.  As it is, the Howe references remain in the article when they are completely unsupported.  The Jade Knight 05:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is open to corrections. Hence it was called Stable Review Version. -- Zondor 06:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stable versions

message: I removed the VERY long blockquote from the part on his surgery, because it did little for the article, was tedious, and can be accessed from the references. If you want to add it back in, please at least provide a rationale for it on this talk page. --Trevdna 06:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved to footnote.  But I don't know how to do paragraphs in footnotes, so it is ugly.  Can anybody help me?  Tom Haws 17:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blockquote from the surgery 

message: I converted the footnotes to the new  Information for note system. I think it is more useful since it puts the note right next to the information being notated. Trödel 03:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New footnote system 

message: I was thinking of starting an article about the 1826 "trial," as this event is particularly controversial in the JS's history. I'd imagine that other events would be addressed similarly in the future.  Sound like a good idea? uriah923(talk) 16:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes Trödel 11:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I look forward to reading that article. ErinHowarth 08:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate articles on particularly controversial events 

message: The conversation topics found at this talk page are stale by several years; is it time to archive this talk page's contents? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive talk page?

message: John, Though I like, and agree with many of the smaller tweaks you are making in the article, the larger, substantive changes must be discussed here on the talk page first. Mixing controversial substantive changes between small tweaks and agreed-upon revisions is bad form, as it is very hard to see which changes are which, and very hard to reverse the individual changes. Because of this, I am reverting to the last stable version, and asking that you make only "tweaks" from here on, and bring up larger changes on the talk page. -- Adjwilley (talk)   22:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You should sort out what you don't like and bring it here so that we can discuss it, not revert my many stylistic improvements. I'll be glad to give you some time to come up with a list of objections. I'm in no rush.--John Foxe (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I really am sorry about the revert. I will try to sort through and restore the stylistic improvements, but it will take me a while. It is not an easy task sorting through a bunch of changes, especially when whole paragraphs were moved, split, or deleted. I will not be able to do that tonight, but I'll get on it tomorrow. -- Adjwilley (talk)   23:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about rushing off yesterday; I was on my way to a piano tuning appointment. I finished restoring your stylistic improvements, section by section. I didn't move any paragraphs, and I didn't move the picture, so the changes are easy to trace. In the future, please propose substantive additions and deletions on the talk page, and please don't mingle them among helpful tweaks, paragraph merges, and picture moves, as it makes them very hard to detect. -- Adjwilley (talk)   18:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rapid-fire edits

message: Here's the diff of a paragraph about Joseph Smith's youthful character that Adjwilley has reverted, although it's based on secondary sources rather than the primary sources which he has now restored without explanation.  So, the ball's in your court to explain why you've reverted a paragraph that's based on reliable sources but reflects unfavorably on the credibility of Joseph Smith.--John Foxe (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the discussion should be about whether or not the paragraph reflects unfavorably on Smith. My concern is that you completely transformed a paragraph about Smith's childhood activities (school, farm work, odd jobs, local junior debating club) into a lengthy discussion of his post-1823 character without giving any compelling reasons for the change on the talk page, and with the edit summary, "added some material." I also disagree with including long direct quotes from people who knew Smith. For our purposes, it's not important what Tucker and Hendrix thought about Smith; what matters is what Bushman and Brodie thought. For your convenience, I have added some secondary sources to the paragraph. -- Adjwilley (talk)   16:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph should not deliberately gloss over the aspects of Smith's character that an investigator of Mormonism would like to know.  Certainly Lucy Smith's testimony about her son's storytelling ability is one of the very few things we know for sure about Smith's childhood and should be included.  I agree that the secondary voices of Brodie, Bushman, Vogel, and Quinn should be front-and-center in this article.  As it stands, the article is deficient because it's largely based on primary sources; it needs to be "completely transformed."--John Foxe (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that is much better. I had to revert the drinking change though because it was most definitely not supported in Bushman. There were probably multiple reasons Smith Sr. had partially abdicated leadership, and drinking may have been one, but since it's not supported, we leave it in the footnote as a possible cause, along with discouragement, being "worn down with setbacks", and shame for having lost the Vermont farm. -- Adjwilley (talk)   21:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to give way on the mention of Smith, Sr.'s drinking, but Vogel calls him an alcoholic.  I'd bet that a lot of the responsibility for the dysfunction of the Smith family can be laid at the doorstep of Smith, Sr.'s drinking.--John Foxe (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly. There are a lot of possible reasons, however your view doesn't seem to be supported by Bushman. I'd guess that the drinking was more likely a result of his discouragement of having lost the farm in Vermont, and other setbacks. -- Adjwilley (talk)   00:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Bushman is a Mormon patriarch with every reason to play down Smith, Sr.'s alcoholism (if alcoholism it was), and Vogel is certainly an equally reliable source for Wikipedia purposes.  Of course, why Smith, Sr. was drinking is a matter that we don't have to address.--John Foxe (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of Joseph Smith's personality and character 

message: I'd like to replace the current material here on the First Vision with material from the article First Vision, making it clear that the story has no connection with Smith's adolescence except in his own, much later, later reminiscence.--John Foxe (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little uncomfortable about taking material from a B article to replace material in a Featured Article. There's a lot of stuff in First Vision. What specifically did you have in mind? -- Adjwilley (talk)   22:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

text: The current article seems to already have all of the information you presented, except for the parts about Latter Day Saint interpretations (which arguably doesn't belong in this article anyway.)  You'd also be cutting out a substantial amount of material. Can you justify these cuts? I think it's already crystal clear that the First Vision is a faith statement, just the same as all his later visions, and for that matter, the visions of any other person. -- Adjwilley (talk)   16:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I've added a few Bushman references to the section. I would recommend that instead of deleting large portions of the article, you start by flagging references you find unreliable, and give people some time to find reliable ones. -- Adjwilley (talk)   02:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Vision 

message: You've reversed Brodie's meaning.  She says that he wasn't taken for a visionary, and you've quoted her as saying that he was. That quotation, by an authoritative source, provides negative commentary about Joseph Smith of which the LDS Church would not approve. Therefore it should be included in the text.  But I'm fine with you choosing the best location.--John Foxe (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies. I was quoting Bushman on the visionary part, hoping the quotes in the footnote would make that clear. Bushman calls Smith a rural visionary no fewer than six times. (See pages 58, 72, 111, 127, 130, and 143.) I disagree that the views of the LDS Church should determine what should be included in the text. Instead, we should compare the Bushman and Brodie quotations and then try to reach a consensus. -- Adjwilley (talk)   00:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously I don't believe the views of the LDS Church should determine content either. That's why I'd like to see that Brodie quotation in the text. It would provide appropriate balance to the LDS teaching that Smith was concerned with religion during his childhood.--John Foxe (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Been monitoring your edits as an outside, neutral editor.  Looks like you guys are doing a good job working together.  Thanks for being amicable! SocratesJedi | Talk 07:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to have you along for the ride.--John Foxe (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

text: We both agree that we shouldn't let the LDS Church determine the content, but I still disagree that we should add content to "ballance" the views and teachings of the Church. There are plenty of websites that do that, and Wikipedia should not be one of them (see WP:Advocacy and WP:NOTADVOCATE). Instead of focusing on the LDS Church, we should focus on reliable sources. That said, I must say that I also appreciate the civility. -- Adjwilley (talk)   19:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brodie quotaton 

message: I'm sure the standard for featured articles was less stringent seven years ago.  But at this point, this article needs reassessment.  Too much of it is cited to primary rather than secondary sources, especially the latter half.  I'll be happy to ask for a reassessment myself, but I'd prefer a Mormon to do so in the spirit of good will.--John Foxe (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy to do it, but I don't know how. I've never done it before. So, just let me know what needs to be done, and I'll do it. Btw, I am a very active member of the LDS Church, so I am probably one of the people you're looking for. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I'd be glad to have your help.  The instructions on applying for a reassessment are here.  Now that I've raised the issue, lets wait few days to see if we can interest anyone else in the conversation.  It might be that a number of us working together could improve article enough without the jolt of first getting it delisted.--John Foxe (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA reassessment needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Early life of Joseph Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110723194235/http://signaturebooks.com/2010/11/excerpts-joseph-smith-the-first-mormon/ to http://signaturebooks.com/2010/11/excerpts-joseph-smith-the-first-mormon/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060427074342/http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu:80/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/NCMP1820-1846&CISOPTR=2821 to http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/NCMP1820-1846&CISOPTR=2821
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I was surprised to see that Joseph Smith's life is broken up into 6 time periods. This seems very unusual, why is this? Is each aspect of his life so notable as to justify this separate series?
I could not find any famous American, religious or otherwise, where this occurs. For example George Washington,William Penn, L. Ron Hubbard, Ellen G. White, Mark Twain, Neil Armstrong, Elvis Presley, John D. Rockefeller, Benedict Arnold, etc.
Dig Deeper (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Smith is the recognized founder of a religious movement embraced by millions. The nature of his life is notable because he founded that movement. This article is subdivided into different periods of time, and rightly so, because it is easier to focus on the mammoth accomplishments of each period rather than having one EXTREMELY large article to cover it all. You make a fair point: not many have this. This particular method for tracking the events of Smith's life was agreed upon by consensus. If you think you can make it happen, I might suggest requesting that the articles mentioned above be so subdivided, and you can obtain a consensus to make that happen. I don't follow many of the other articles you mentioned, but you do make a fair point. If this is the method for cataloging Smith's life, why not expand that to other significant world figures? That would be my suggestion. In the meantime, if you have sufficient grounds to do so, you are always free to make a motion to merge articles you feel are unfairly or unnecessarily split. So either course of action would help you address these issues. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  6 sub-article series  for a life biography? No other famous American has this. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Early life of Joseph Smith. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113090055/http://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/08/archaeological-work-at-the-smith-log-house to http://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/08/archaeological-work-at-the-smith-log-house
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120090052/http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings/ to http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified