Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 6

message: The first few paragraphs of this article seem to have a biased tone; particularly the "controversial figure" remarks.  It is true that Joseph Smith was controversial, and I don't disagree that this should be included in the article - however, the early paragraphs of the article seem to highlight this controversy, while taking away from the fact that he is highly-regarded by millions Latter-days Saints.  These biased paragraphs set a negative tone for the entire article.
Additionally, the first few paragraphs contain much information that should be spoken of later in the article.  For example, the fact that he was a presidential candidate.  It was an important part of his history, but not one of the major accomplishments of his life, nor what he is widely remembered for today.  Most of the people who read this article aren't reading it because he was once a presidential candiate, or because he founded a once-prosperous city - most are reading the article because Joseph Smith is belived by many to be a prophet, and because of his role in the Latter-day Saint Movement.  I think that the introduction should be limited to these and more basic facts about him; the rest of the information would be better if it were presented later on in the article.
Rmisiak 06:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that controversy is one of the defining features of Smith's life. It followed him wherever he went, and eventually led to his death. And there's nothing necessarily negative about that--Jesus was pretty controversial, too. Therefore, it ought to be prominently featured in the introduction. I agree that his run for President is not as notable as his other accomplishments, but it was very important to him, at least. He did so many different notable things in his life that it's difficult to capture the diversity of it all in just a few sentences. COGDEN 01:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I understand your point of view now about his presidential bid.  The paragraph you wrote here would be much better then the grim opening paragraphs of the current article.  Even if the presidential bid is kept, I still think it needs to be rewritten. Rmisiak 00:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory paragraphs 

message: I have rewritten some of the references using Book reference and associated templates from Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles. Does this look reasonable?
We also need to choose a format for footnotes. Wikipedia:Peer review/Joseph Smith, Jr./archive1 suggests Wikipedia:Footnote3. See Johann Sebastian Bach for another style of footnote. Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check discusses the issue of footnotes and references. I don't have a suggestion yet. I'm not used to writing footnotes for wikipedia, and don't have a preferred style. Nereocystis 06:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have really mixed feelings about the use of endnotes for citations, at least at this point, when we're trying to get the article ready for featured status. The endnote system is promising, but it's still experimental, from what I understand. It's also rather user-unfriendly. It's difficult even for me to add endnotes, and I've been editing for almost two years. If everyone disagrees, that's fine, but my preference is to use simple Harvard-type citations, which I like anyway because you can tell what the citation is, the date, and the page, without jumping down to the endnotes. I also think it saves space, making the article shorter. COGDEN 03:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think it's important to make a decision one way or the other on the issue of endnotes vs. Harvard references. Use of the endnote system takes an investment in time, and I'm hesitant to add any citations until we have agreement. Another possibility is that we can use endnotes for tangential information, but Harvard referencing for citations. COGDEN 01:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The way I see it, endnotes are easier to read than Harvard referencing by people who don't care about citations (which is the majority), but more difficult to read by people who care about citations, and significantly more difficult to edit and maintain. So there are tradeoffs. COGDEN 18:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: There hasn't been any additional comment on this issue, so I'm not sure what to do. In my recent additions, I've been using Harvard referencing. Since the article is in a state of flux, and there needs to be a lot of cite checking, and additional citations, I suggest we use the much easier-to-edit Harvard referencing for now, then when the article becomes more stable in preparation for Featured status, we can see how it looks like with endnotes, and make a decision.  COGDEN 19:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References and footnotes

message: Joseph Smith, Jr.#King Follett Discourse says that the King Follett is one of Smith's most famous speeches, but this article and King Follett Discourse give no details on the speech. A one or two sentence summary needs to be added. God and exaltation are not quite enough enough of a description.
If there isn't a description, perhaps the section should be deleted. Nereocystis 20:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the section should be deleted. It's not really an important event in Joseph's life; there were many occassions where he prophesied in a similar fashion. Some very controversial doctrines stem from The King Follet Discourse, but most people in the church wouldn't know what it is if you said it, and it's only here to bait readers into being shocked at the kookiness of Mormonism. It has no place in this article. If we're going to include important or famous sermons, I think we'd be better to include Doctrine and Covenants Sections 20 (outlining of the duties of the Priesthood), 76 (the degrees of glory), and 109 (Kirtland Temple dedication), along with others, all of which have had a much deeper influence on the Church than Joseph's memorial to Follet. Cookiecaper 18:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: why not make a list of the important sermons with links, including Cookiecaper's list above and King Follett.  (Do we have a "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" article?)  I just expanded King Follett Discourse a little.  Please comment and edit.  WBardwin 19:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: King Follett Discourse needs detail

message: I have a problem with the Infobox. Infoboxes are good for things like political presidents, or kings, or prime ministers, where there is a well-defined office and a well-defined successor. However, here, there is not. Moreover, the Infobox refers to Smith as president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is only true from one POV. If we listed every position or role he held (such as prophet, apostle, elder, president, high priest, president of the first presidency, trustee of the Church, etc.), and the date he first came to that position or role, it would be a rather large box. I'm proposing a change, reflected in my last edit. Comments? COGDEN 18:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When people read a biography article, they expect to see an infobox that looks like other biography infoboxes.  Since the regular biography infobox appears to be insufficient for this purpose, make up another infobox that looks similar.  It will probably be for this particular article. Val42 19:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just changed it to use :Template:Infobox Biography, which is ugly but widely-used. COGDEN 21:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I like the old infobox. Joseph was President of what's now the Utah church, and other people might be sad about it, but it's the way it was. We've had this discussion before. RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE Cookiecaper 03:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It can be represented as and is a fact. The organization that Joseph led is today's The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the church headquartered in Utah. POV comes in when one affirms or denies that the subsequent presidents of that body are Joseph's legitimate successors or not. This is non-negotiable, it is a fact. The organization that Joseph was in charge of was taken over by Brigham Young. This does not state that Brigham was Joseph's rightful successor, it states the plain truth that Brigham Young followed Joseph Smith as leader of that same legal entity. Cookiecaper 20:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not so cut and dry as you are suggesting. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints led by Brigham Young was incorporated under its present name in Utah, several years after Smith's death. It's debatable whether or not there is legal continuity between the earlier church and Young's organization. The only court decision thus far on that subject held that the legal successor of Smith's church was the Community of Christ. That's why they own the Kirtland Temple. COGDEN 22:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: That's a reasonable decision, but he was also president of the Church of the Latter Day Saints and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Also, the idea of Smith being the president of the early church was not all that well-developed of an idea, because of all his other positions and titles in the church. I don't think it's that important to include all this information in the infobox. I also don't think we should put the date of the First Vision in the infobox, because that date is subject to different points of view, as is the question of whether or not there was a first vision. I personally think he had a theophany in about 1820, but that's definitely not the only POV out there. COGDEN 22:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox problems 

message: Has anybody got their hands on a copy of Richard L. Bushman's new biography on Joseph Smith ()? I haven't seen it yet, but from reviews I've read, people are saying it's Smith's best biography thus far, at least from a faithful Mormon scholar, and I'm wondering if it might be a good reference for this article on matters for which the primary source documents aren't readily available, and on apologetic interpretations of Smith's history. COGDEN 17:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I pre-ordered it and started reading it as soon as it arrived. I'm still working my way through it though. My wife has been reading through it too and has almost caught up with me. Which gets higher priority: reading Bushman's book or rereading BoM by end of year? So far, I like Bushman's presentation. It will probably be the definitive biography on Joseph for decades. B | Talk 16:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Bushman biography 

message: A section like this was recently added. I don't believe that it requires it's own section. There is maybe somewhere it belongs, but a passing mention in this article ought to suffice if it must be mentioned at all. This is not the first cover story about Joseph Smith and/or the Mormons and I doubt very deeply it will be the last. Is there a page like Mormons in the Media or something? This belongs in a place like that. Good job to the writer though, I like the piece, it just doesn't belong here. Cookiecaper 23:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably belongs in the History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page, which currently has a skeletal church-in-the-media section. COGDEN 04:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsweek Cover Story 

message: Some background on the various reasons for the jailing, the visit by the governor, and perhaps the motivation of the mob would be nice.  I would like to write an article on Levi Williams, as I have much geneological information on him, and it would be fitting to link him to the Joseph Smith page.
:Most of the information about Joseph's imprisonment and assassination is available at Death of Joseph Smith, Jr. Have you checked there? Cookiecaper 19:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info on the jailing / lynching 

message: We need to get the ball rolling on getting this featured if we want to have it on Dec 5. Apparently, User:Raul654 is the featured article boss and no article has been chosen for 12/5, so we have a good chance if we get it moving. I'll go through it and change what I think needs to be changed; everyone else should do the same. Do we really need to bother with a second peer review or can we go straight for the nomination? What is the copyright status of the Joseph Smith portrait? Someone does not agree that it is public domain. That must be sorted out before nomination. Cookiecaper 21:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't we want December 23? COGDEN 04:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: D'oh! Yeah we do. I always get his birthday mixed up, sorry. Teehee. December 23, yes yes, Dec. 23. Cookiecaper 04:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The subject matter of this article will make it difficult to make too much use summary style. Beyond the primary sources, there is almost nothing about Joseph Smith that is subject to any kind of broad consensus. The problem we will run into if we try to use summary style is that we'll have to ensure that all points of view are at least represented in the main article. That either means that we say very little or we say a whole lot. We're still far smaller than many Brittanica articles. I would lobby for a longish article for a subject as important and as controversial as Joseph Smith. COGDEN 04:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It's hard to talk about this problem in the abstract, but we'll run into many problems if we start to generalize too much. I'm not aware of another featured article that would be as controversial as a short Joseph Smith article. In most pages, we can solve the length issue by making generalizations, such as "Smith spent his early years employed in the occult arts", or "in 1820, Smith claimed to have seen God and Jesus, who told him that he would later organize a church". The problem is, both of these statements, like most generalizations about Smith, are not neutral, and require lots of qualifications, which also tend to make the article just about as long as if we just included the raw facts without generalizing. We might be able to make a Joseph Smith article that is both short and neutral, but it would take a concerted effort by numerous people, and probably several rounds of voting and dispute resolution. COGDEN 00:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's be clear that by "summary" or "short", I mean about half to one third of its current length.  If the main text were around 5,000 words, I think you'd have an excellent case to "get away with" the lengthy additional sections of references and bibliography at the end, so let's say towards the "half" end.  I don't think that's infeasible, though I don't for a moment suggest easy.  A tighter lead section should be eminently do-able, however, and would at least be a start.  Anyhoo, surely better that I grumble here now about that, than I (or almost certainly someone else), do so after a FA nom.  Alai 03:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I hadn't thought of nominating the split article(s):  nice lateral!  I think this is an excellent idea.  There's after all tremendous logic on the featured article on his birthday being on his early life.  The only-briefest-summary in this article isn't ideal, but it's a very reasonable first step on the way to a completely-optimal summary-style split.  And measured pace is definitely good, a major structuring under a tight time deadline would be a potentially fraught affair.  Alai 04:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ... though "Life of..." might be a better title.  Alai 14:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. (1805 to 1827) is probably good. I'm trying to figure out if there is some kind of de facto standard for these things, but I haven't been able to find many articles about a person where a historical article is separated-out as a sub-article. The Jesus series of articles does it a little strangely, I think. There are also Shakespeare's life and Biography of Pope John Paul II. So I guess there really is no standard yet. COGDEN 03:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About featured status 

message: Nobody seems to oppose splitting off a new purely-historical article about Joseph Smith, so I did it, naming it Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. (1805 to 1827). That article, I think, as it now stands, is closer to being in shape for featured status than is the present. It's also about 43 kilobytes long, which is a size nobody can really complain about. So, what's the next step? Should we nominate and peer-review that article, or should we continue planning to nominate the present one? COGDEN 00:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote for the new article.  It contains much of the careful work done in the last few weeks, including references and documentation.  It needs a good copy edit and polish, (preferably by couple of people) but I think it is the better candidate for featured article.  I like this trend to divide the larger article into time periods.  Perhaps future articles could deal with Joseph's life in Ohio, Missouri, and then Illinois.  WBardwin 05:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Strongly concur.  Alai 04:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A minor point. The article suggests could be read as the Joseph Smith, Jr., who was born in 1805 and died in 1827. "Early Life of Joseph Smith, Jr." might be a better title.  Maybe the year can be mentioned. Nereocystis 14:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree "Early life..." more accurately describes the article and does not have the potential for confusion that using dates in the article title does. Trödel|talk 00:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea. Is there a similar change that can be made for Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. (1827 to 1831)? COGDEN 00:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tougher - lots of potential for POV.  This was JS's initial period of "theological development" and "church establishment and organization".  He "emerged" and became visible as the leader of a "new religious movement".  Or, maybe, more neutrally --  "Life of Joseph Smith: the New England period?" WBardwin 01:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New split-off article covering Smith's early history 

message: ::A minor point. The article suggests could be read as the Joseph Smith, Jr., who was born in 1805 and died in 1827. "Early Life of Joseph Smith, Jr." might be a better title.  Maybe the year can be mentioned. Nereocystis 14:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree "Early life..." more accurately describes the article and does not have the potential for confusion that using dates in the article title does. Trödel|talk 00:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea. Is there a similar change that can be made for Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. (1827 to 1831)? COGDEN 00:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tougher - lots of potential for POV.  This was JS's initial period of "theological development" and "church establishment and organization".  He "emerged" and became visible as the leader of a "new religious movement".  Or, maybe, more neutrally --  "Life of Joseph Smith: the New England period?" WBardwin 01:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles 

message: I deleted the following clause:
:Word of Smith's find soon spread rapidly throughout the region, and several of Smith's old treasure-seeking company wanted what they believed was their share.
It is an interesting statement, but needs to be further developed for it to enhance the article, otherwise it seems to only provide a negative distraction.  What share did they think was theirs?  Who were they?  Did they proceed legally against Smith?  Did they threaten him?  How did Joseph respond to them?  What was the outcome?  I know I am a broken record, but this is the type of historical "tidbit" that has no place in the article unless it is fleshed out and explained.  Storm Rider 00:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:   Company seeking their share 

message: I'm nominating Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. for peer review, with an eye toward getting featured status as soon as possible. Could everyone please take a look and try and get the article ready for possible featured status on Dec. 23? COGDEN 08:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After a couple of days, nobody seems to be biting. Is there just a lack of interest in this article and in Joseph Smith in general? Maybe that portends poorly for getting featured status. Does anybody have any ideas how we could speed this along? COGDEN 22:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominating ''Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.'' for peer review 

message: I've nominated the article Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. as a featured article candidate. If you think the article should be featured, please express your vote here. COGDEN 05:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard anyone complain that a Wikipedia article was too informative. That's a strange criticism. COGDEN 18:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, I think it is a fine example of splitting up a long article. -Visorstuff 19:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, this article is feature-worthy as well. It should be nominated. Cookiecaper 20:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I just shortened it up some more. Two sentences of it were taken almost verbatim from the article at Lightplanet.  This is copyright violation, unless the author added it, in which case clarification is requested. I'll see if I can write something better soon, but I've got a busy week ahead, I'm moving back to Kansas City. We'll see. Cookiecaper 07:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  Good luck with that;  might make the FAC objector questioning the significance of just the early life a happy customer!  Alai 08:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominating ''Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr'' as a Featured Article Candidate