Talk:John Whitmer Historical Association

Justification for another JWHA article
I suppose I should justify my new lengthy article on JWHA, since there used to be a JWHA article that was deleted in February. I wasn't aware of the AfD back then, even though it lasted for 3 weeks. Having read through the log, there were 5 votes for delete and 4 votes for keep. I've tried to reconstruct the delete arguments from the thread (numbered), along with relevant keep responses (dotted):


 * Concerns with how the article was written
 * 1) Solely based on primary sources, with no third party sources
 * 2) * Article is not overtly self-promotional
 * 3) No citations for some parts
 * 4) Did not establish notability (most just lists of awards, lectures, meetings, publications)
 * 5) * It's asserted influence was not absent, just lacking RS
 * 6) * It was long established (10 years old, linked by numerous other WP articles)
 * 7) Too lengthy for a minor subject
 * 8) * Article may be improved (remove lists)


 * Concerns with notability
 * 1) It's a minor organization (400 members, mostly in Utah and the Midwest, low dollar awards)
 * 2) * It may be large enough to be significant in its subfield
 * 3) * Notable organizations have low dollar awards
 * 4) * Its regional membership is appropriate for its field (Mormon regions), but the LDS movement is even larger
 * 5) * It's an established organization (40+ years of existence, 34 years of annual meetings, and frequent president rotation)
 * 6) Publications aren't held in many libraries or selective databases
 * 7) * But they are credible research in the Mormon studies subfield
 * 8) Publications aren't cited much (via Google Scholar)
 * 9) * Google Scholar isn't reliable for notability (humanities journal, mostly pre-2000, not online)
 * 10) Subject lacks substantial secondary coverage (fails WP:GNG)

Now here are some of my thoughts on the notability points above: I struggled with the article going on too long, but I had a lot to summarize from the sources. I had already trimmed quite a bit, and I'm hoping give it some time and revisit this with fresh eyes later on. ——Rich jj (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) In Mormon studies, JWHA is well known and is the only organization focused on the Community of Christ and other midwestern LDS groups.  This is an important part of the story of the larger Latter Day Saint movement.  JWHA isn't a local chapter or a regional history group.  Their membership may hail from places of Latter Day Saint concentration, but they study Mormonism as a whole, which is a national and international subject.
 * 2) I don't know why their journal isn't widely carried in libraries, but they acknowledge this.  Even the best Mormon studies journals weren't indexed in selective databases until JSTOR picked up the Journal of Mormon History just last year (after 39 years of publication).  The other notable journals in Mormon studies still aren't included: Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (48 years old), BYU Studies (55 years old), and Utah Historical Quarterly (86 years old).  These all have many more GS citations than JWHA or JMH.  GS and JSTOR aren't always reliable indicators of notability.
 * 3) Google Scholar finds 323 citations, which is about 1/4 of the citations for the Journal of Mormon History.  But JMH has been free online for years, and JWHA Journal is not.
 * 4) I found significant secondary coverage from academic publishers (University of Illinois Press, Scarecrow Press, BRILL) and Mormon studies publishers (Signature Books, Greg Kofford Books, Journal of Mormon History, Dialogue, Sunstone, Deseret Book).  I also used a variety of scattered reliable sources that mentioned JWHA by name within some context (Associated Press, Deseret News, Religious Studies Center, Indiana University Press, HarperCollins, BYU Studies, ABC-CLIO).  This seems to satisfy WP:GNG.
 * I randomly checked a few references and none actually supported the statements that it was supposed to support (I tagged one of them), or are not independent. Besides that, whole sections (history, for example) seems to be almost completely made up of OR/SYNTH. I respect the effort that was made here, but perhaps you should try to publish this in a scholarly journal and then we can use it as a source. The numbers of citations for the journal (323!!) are unbelievably low, even for a journal in the humanities. Neither GS nor JSTOR qualify as selective databases. However, I really don't feel like going through 61 references to show for each one of them why it doesn't belong here and then go again into a long battle to show that this minor society, studying the history of a small church, is not notable. --Randykitty (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I've tried to say too much in this article. I'll look at your notes and try to trim away some of the material that may be OR/SYNTH.  Give me some time here, but I believe its notability will be clearer once we strip away some of the distraction.
 * Regarding the 323 citations, what is the amount of GS citations recommended for journal notability? I don't disagree that this is low, but it isn't absent.  And it's in the ballpark for other specialized Mormon studies journals.  ——Rich jj (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Randykitty, I should have said earlier that I really appreciate that you are giving your perspective on this. Your critique gave some really good points that I should have considered.  I may need to overhaul the article, which is a little hard for me to confess.  I'm trying to learn as I go without being aggravating, and I appreciate your patience.  I will try in good faith to bring the article up to the standard you specified.


 * Here's my plan for how I might make improvements.
 * Many statements are not supported by their references
 * Verify all statements are supported by their citations: 61 references, cited 155 times
 * Remove weaker sources (to reduce distraction)
 * Include quotes
 * Break up sources that support separate points (to reduce distraction) (?)
 * Some references are not independent
 * Remove all references published by JWHA: 4 sources, cited 11 times (WP:PRIMARY sources are allowed, but I'll avoid the distraction for now.)
 * Whole sections are made up of OR/SYNTH (especially history)
 * Verify analysis statements are found in the source (and include a quote?)
 * Move all paragraph-level references down to the sentence level
 * Remove references that could be contested as ambiguous
 * Remove references that are about the larger culture/community, but are not explicitly about the JWHA
 * Source sentences from fewer references (?)


 * Responses to a few points:
 * i.) Independent sources
 * Can a source be independent if the author has ever interacted with the JWHA in some way (published in the Journal, presented to conference, served as officer)?
 * ii.) Each of the 61 references may not belong
 * Some sources might turn out to be be weak, and should be removed, but I believe there are good sources here, especially Mauss 2007, Bitton/Alexander 2009, Walker/Whittaker/Allen 2000, Bringhurst 2010, Scherer 2004, Shipps 2000, Howard 1992, and the two encyclopedia references.
 * iii.) history of a small church
 * JWHA specializes in the RLDS/Community of Christ (250K members), but it actually studies the entire LDS movement, including the LDS Church (15M members) and all other churches (perhaps 60-70K more adherents). They all have a common history going back to Joseph Smith.
 * iv.) I'm just a guy who likes history, not an academic, so I couldn't try to publish in a scholarly journal (though it's a flattering thought).
 * v.) GS/Selective databases:
 * It may be that the Journal isn't significant enough to establish JWHA notability. I don't know enough about this topic yet.  Are selective databases the same thing as Bibliographic databases or Citation indices?  I just learned about WP:NJournals and am starting to think through it.  ——Rich jj (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Dead link
Missing live url here: http://www.jwha.website/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/issue79.pdf (Baugh w/rgd to JnWhitmer Book's founding, etc.)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)