Talk:James Strang

message: I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 21, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: Very well written article, easy to follow and comprehend.
:2. Factually accurate?: Copious use of in-line citations, moreso than most GA candidates actually.  References section is well formatted with good sources, external links looks like it provides reader with some interesting further reading on the topic.
:3. Broad in coverage?: Article is indeed thorough, covering a large time period and giving details in each section.
:4. Neutral point of view?: Article seems to be presented in a NPOV manner, both in its use of language and use of citations, as noted above.
:5. Article stability? From a perusal of the article history and the respective edit summaries going back a few months, the article appears to be stable.
:6. Images?: Only one image, which is public domain (needs to be updated on the Wikimedia Commons, but that's okay.  Could use perhaps two more public domain or fair use rationale images, but no biggie here.
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. 
— Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: I don't think this article meets GA standards. For example, the lead is brief - Wikipedia:Lead section- and the article footnotes use 'ibid' - Wikipedia:Footnotes#Citing a footnote more than once - extensively. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 12:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GAR now closed (keep!), but please check the archived discussion in case there are still useful suggestions for minor improvements. Geometry guy 21:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:GAR|Good article reassessment]]

message: I'm going through and working on the references. I came across the following:
*(May 23, 1997). "[http://www.strangite.org/Iowa.htm The Trail Ran East
from Council Bluffs: Mormons Who Made it So Far, Then Left for Wisconsin and Michigan]". Strangite.org. Slide 15.
The website reads "Preliminary Draft Version Not to Be Circulated, Cited or Quoted Without Written Permission of the Author"
I have hidden it for the time being. Perhaps another ref can be found to replace this one. Lara❤Love 05:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found one reference in the Times and Seasons regarding Strang's excommunication, together with Strang's own comments on having never been summoned for a trial, in the Gospel Herald (one of Strang's newspapers).  I will rewrite the sentence, using these citations.  If anyone finds any other references in the Times and Seasons or elsewhere, please feel free to insert them, with appropriate citation.  Thanks! - Ecjmartin 04:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Lara, thanks very much for helping with the references on this article.  Question: I notice that all references to the Book of the Law of the Lord were corrected to read "Strang: 1856," but there is no first reference naming this book.  I've been out of school for awhile, and I know that things on Wikipedia are different from what I was taught in English class there and in college (no "ibids," etc. on Wikipedia, for instance), but shouldn't we make the first reference to the Book of the Law a full reference, with Book title, etc.?  Thanks again for your work! - Ecjmartin 13:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. I meant to put the information in the references section, thought I had, actually, but I guess I overlooked it. It's there now. As for how it's cited, in school, that's probably right, how you had it. But WP has it's own style for things, like closing quote placement, for example. For more information on this see Wp:cite#Short footnotes with alphabetized full citations. Let me know if you see any other errors and I'll fix them. Lara❤Love 17:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I see it!  This is much different from how I learned it in school, but that's part of the overall wikipedia learning experience.  I really appreciate all your hard work on this.  I inserted a new footnote (moved the George Miller info from a citation to a footnote "b"), and created a "citations" header for that section.  Thanks again for all your work! - Ecjmartin 20:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference question 

message: These two photos (Bedford and the Voree Plates) were deleted from the article due to copyright issues.  I thought I had gotten permission from the proper person to use them, but it turns out that gentleman was not the original copyright owner.  Hence, in accordance with his instructions and Wikipedia policy, I have removed both photos. - Ecjmartin 22:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of Thomas Bedford and Voree Plates photos 

message: * At nominator's request, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Strang/archive2  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withdrawn FAC 

message: This is not the first time someone has questioned my use of Fitzpatrick's book, if I recall correctly.  Hence, as a continuation of the retort I gave to the objections listed above, I provide the following note-by-note defense of each use of Fitzpatrick's work in this arcticle (21, out of 89 total footnote/references):
*(1) Note 6: This fact is confirmed in so many different sources that it doesn't even merit elaboration, here.
*(2) Note 7: Indisputable fact; what's the issue, here??
*(3) Note 10: Is there a "subjective" issue here, with the fact that Strang read Volney, or that Volney apparently exercized some influence on him?
*(4) Note 13: Nothing "subjective" here, that I can see.
*(5) Note 14: Indisputable fact.  Nothing "subjective" here!
*(6) Note 23: Indisputable fact.  Nothing "subjective" here!
*(7) Note 24: Again, indisputable.  What's "subjective" about this?
*(8) Note 30: Fact.  Confirmed in other sources.  Where's the "subjectivity," here?
*(9) Note 31: Fact.  Confirmed in other sources.  Where's the "subjectivity" here?
*(10) Note 32: Fact.  Confirmed in other sources.  Where's the "subjectivity" here?
*(11) Note 35: This is Sholes' opinion, not Fitzpatricks or mine; Fitzpatrick is merely quoting it.  Where's the "subjectivity?"
*(12) Note 65: Are we saying this didn't happen?  Still not seeing any "subjectivity," though!
*(13) Note 66: Are we saying this didn't happen?  Still not seeing any "subjectivity," though!
*(14) Note 68: Indisputable fact.  Are we saying that Strang didn't face this challenge to his credentials, or that he didn't win the resulting vote?  Where's the "subjectivity?"
*(15) Note 69: Indisputable fact.  Are we saying that Strang didn't author ten bills, five of which passed?  Where's the "subjectivity?"
*(16) Note 72: Fact.  Confirmed by other sources.  How is this supposed to be "subjective?"
*(17) Note 73: Okay, here's the first possibly "subjective" statement I've found.  Now it's indisputable that Bedford was whipped, on Strang's orders.  Bedford himself testified to this, and to his own resulting determination to seek revenge on Strang, by killing him.  See The Man Who Shot Strang for the quote.  So, no "subjectivity" here, either.
*(18) Note 74: Another ptentially "subjective" statement, and given the fact that the only sources for this seem to be Strangite ones, I've changed the article to reflect this, and added the Strangite source to cooborate Fitzpatricks.  Okay--I'll grant this one, but only based upon the source issues involved, not on any "subjectivity".
*(18) Note 77: Another potentially "subjective" statement, but it's confirmed in other sources (one of which is contained in Note 75, which is not from the Fitzpatrick book!).  No dice.
*(19) Note 81: Fact.  The fact that some accused the captain of complicity is contained in an orginal source from that period, which is contained in Note 81.
*(20) Note 87: Again, an indisputable fact, confirmed in other sources, and certainly not requiring any elaboration, here.
I know this may seem petulant or childish to some, but I did it to make a point, namely that I just can't see anything that justifies an accusation of "subjective judgments" such as was made by User Iamknowledgable.  I mean no offense whatsoever to this person, but I just can't see it.  Other editors are invited to examine these references, and if anyone (Iamknowledgable included) can find any subjectivity, you are welcome to elaborate on it, and if it's justified, we'll change the article accordingly.  Otherwise, I don't see any legitimate reason to challenge my use of Fitzpatrick in this article, based on what I have presented, here.  Nor have I seen one valid reason to demote it from "GA" status. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fitzpatrick, vindicated 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on James Strang. 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/20070929122436/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1970/4/1970_4_4.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1970/4/1970_4_4.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013071439/http://mormonbeliefs.com/book_of_the_law.htm to http://www.mormonbeliefs.com/book_of_the_law.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021190040/http://www.mormonbeliefs.com/Strang%2C%20The%20Martyred%20Prophet.htm to http://www.mormonbeliefs.com/Strang%2C%20The%20Martyred%20Prophet.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021190040/http://www.mormonbeliefs.com/Strang%2C%20The%20Martyred%20Prophet.htm to http://www.mormonbeliefs.com/Strang%2C%20The%20Martyred%20Prophet.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021190040/http://www.mormonbeliefs.com/Strang%2C%20The%20Martyred%20Prophet.htm to http://www.mormonbeliefs.com/Strang%2C%20The%20Martyred%20Prophet.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013071439/http://mormonbeliefs.com/book_of_the_law.htm to http://www.mormonbeliefs.com/book_of_the_law.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013071439/http://mormonbeliefs.com/book_of_the_law.htm to http://www.mormonbeliefs.com/book_of_the_law.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on James Strang. 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  tag to http://www.strangite.org/Photo.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704055509/http://www.leelanaupost.com/2006/01/ to http://www.leelanaupost.com/leelanau_history/
*Added archive https://archive.is/20060323034655/http://www.signaturebooks.com/strang.htm to http://www.signaturebooks.com/strang.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071124113011/http://www.mormonbeliefs.com/diamond.htm to http://www.mormonbeliefs.com/diamond.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.strangite.org/Photo.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Reviewing the sources, nearly all of them come from official Mormon church websites. While the citations refer to excerpts from otherwise uncited newspaper articles, etc. that are mentioned on these website, few independent citations for these sources are given. Since the websites in question are OFFICIAL Mormon website run by the Mormon church (see "mormonbeliefs.com", a frequent source for this page), the neutrality (and accuracy) of these newspaper excerpts, etc. is called into question. Can anyone provide a third-party source for some of these newspaper excerpts, etc.?
Of particular concern is the "Assassination" section, which claims that Strang was ambushed, shot in the back, and "not one person on board the ship made any effort to warn or to aid the intended victim". Such a claim really should have a better source than an Apologetics website belonging to Strang's church.
Hyperglyph (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: if you can improve the page, Be Bold and do so! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

text: I added two additional reliable sources to the section. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 15:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral POV Concern 

message: I am a descendant of "nonbeliever" who encountered King Strang's violent reign on Beaver Island, This article paints him as a gentle leader with he worst about hi being polygamy. An obvious whitewash. I am currently editing my great great grandmothers manuscript which include a chapter that not only relays the family's fears when they sailed to this island to fish for the summer but of her encounter with a bloody man whom Strang had ordered beaten and sought help at her doorstep. Here is an excerpt of the manuscript:
"They had not been home long when a knock was heard at the front door. Father went to the door and opened it, even though it was late for callers and none too many came calling. There before the door stood a man covered with blood, his hand in a sling made of a bloody handkerchief. Father invited him in and gave him a chair.
 
“What does this mean?” Father asked, motioning to the man’s blood covered clothing.
 
“It means that I swear vengeance on Strang the Mormon,” the stranger replied. “And that I shall have his heart's blood for the day's work.”  
 
The man told how Strang had tied him to a tree and whipped him and nearly killed him because he tried to liberate his brother , whom they had tied to another tree and cut his heart out and hung it on a stick where he could see it." 73.161.66.184 (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  King Strang's violent history not told here 

message: The delisting above was very due. This article is in very unfortunately shabby shape for a figure of such interest and influence in American religious history, and with several serious biographies written about him. Often while reading I had the sense the page is so preoccuppied with seemingly burnishing Strang's reputation against assault that it completely leaves out material of actual interest that historians have studied. Elvira Fields, whose theological articles made her a major player in Strangism and whose intriguing ambiguity with gender make her very interesting to historians, almost wholly disappears from Strang's life. Meanwhile, the page is crowded with irrelevant remarks like how Strang was better than Smith because . I am sure that contributors over the years have acted in good faith; however, there has been too much willingness to go straight to WP:PRIMARY sources or to negatively reviewed secondary sources and too little awareness of the serious scholarship on Strang that is available to be cited.
Sourcing is a serious issue. The secondary source cited most often is Doyle Fitzpatrick's The King Strang Story: A Vindication of James J, Strang, the Beaver Island Mormon King (National Heritage, 1970). I'm not sure if National Heritage has published any other book besides this one. More to the point, a review in an academic journal for Mormon history called the book .Klaus Hansen, "James J. Strang and the Amateur Historian", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 6, no. 1 (Spring 1971): 73–76, here 73, .
The only author cited on the page more often than Fitzpatrick is James Strang himself, whose writings are WP:PRIMARY and whose citation may constitute WP:OR.
Far better sources are available and should be consulted. Vickie Cleverly Speek appears in the sources list but is cited only once; Roger van Noord is similarly cited only once; and Miles Harvey, Don Faber, and several others aren't in the sources at all. Any quality article that summarizes what reliable secondary sources have to say about James Strang should cite the following (non-exhaustive). I have added these to the main article as "Further references".
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* Silitto, John and Staker, Susan (eds.). (2002). Mormon Mavericks: Essays on Dissenters. Signature Books. .
* 
* 
* 
Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steps for improving the article: replace Fitzpatrick; cite Speek, Harvey,