Talk:Fawn M. Brodie/Archive 1

message: I have nominated this page for "Good" status.  However, I have some issues with the author of the article with regard to some phrases that I believe violate WP:NPOV.  I have had an on-going discussion on these matters and John Foxe feels that if something is "True" then it cannot be POV.  I have tried to explain the concept of NPOV as I understand it but have failed.  John feels strong enough about these phrases to consider them worthy of an edit war.  I request reviewers' judgements.
I consider the following phrases in the article to be POV such that wikipedia is taking a stand vs reporting information:
Well researched and smartly written  found in the fifth paragraph of the No Man Knows My History Section
Gary Wills, savaged Brodie's work found in the Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History Section
There may be other POV phrases as well. --Blue Tie 02:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no interest in an edit war and hope Blue Tie and I can reach consensus about these details.  I've added three more citations for the "well researched and smartly written" phrase and moved the Gary Willis comment to the footnotes, where it belongs anyway.  So what do you think?--John Foxe 13:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on POV Tags

message: You ask for citations.  I can find citations that say that OTHER books are "The Difinitive" biography.  But aren't these all opinions?  The current version gives an opinion.  An opinion that is not neutral.  It is too sweeping, as I said, for a book that is over 60 years old and has been surpassed by additional information and many othe biographies.
So what sort of citation do you need?  Do you need a citation that opines directly that "No Man Knows My History" is NOT difinitive or do you need an opinion that some other book is THE difinitive book?
And isnt this whole thing ridiculous?  I am trying to make the article LESS dependant upon opinion.  Why would you argue for more opinion and claim that doing so is NPOV?
05:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet it is quite easy to find references to the book as being the definitive biography of Smith, which is why that text should remain. Al 07:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from my Talk page. 

message: Richard E. Ellis, The Jeffersonian Crisis: Courts and Politics in the Young Republic (Norton, 1971) calls James Callender "perhaps the most scurrilous newspaperman America has ever known." (78)  One reason why so few people--including Malone and Peterson--took the Jefferson-Hemings connection seriously is that Callender was the first to publish the local gossip about Jefferson.  Callender may have been right about Jefferson and Hemings, but Callender's vitriolic political partisanship--not to mention his alcoholism and suicide--severely impaired his credibility. --John Foxe 18:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Callender was the problem 

message: how did this article get so sanitized? no mention is made of her subsequent biographies - her claimed "new" original sources not being quoted correctly - not identifying that there were different versions of "factual" representations of meetings with JS reported by her - the lack of respect Brodie had as a historian later in life because of the less controversial scrutiny given her other works which were also found lacking - and on - and on - and on.  --Trödel 02:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brodie's other biographies certainly need more commentary--and will get some in coming weeks as I have the opportunity.  But there's no doubt that NMKMH was her best work, written before she became enamored of pyschohistory.  Don't take Nibley too seriously.  In doing the best he could for the Church, he beats Brodie hands down for distortion and taking things out of context.  And his whole attitude, typified by the title of his critique, was flippant. --John Foxe 10:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think flippant is too non-specific a word.  His critique was dismissive and disrepectful (unsurprising since she had developed a reputation for personal dishonesty among the LDS and the RLDS) but, relative to other reviews it was probably the least shallow.--Blue Tie 22:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: ok thx --Trödel 17:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just FYI, I've read through some more of this material including more of brodie's book, and while disrespectful and obviously written with disdain, it seems that many of Nibleys substantive criticisms are valid. --Trödel 16:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the sanitization of brodie 

message: I think that Foxe has done such a good job that this should be reviewed as a "Good" article. --Blue Tie 22:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article