Talk:Joseph Smith/GA1

Tentative GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

This article has been disputed heavily with regards to it's neutrality. Some of these are old, but some are relatively recent. What is the consensus, is this article stable and neutral enough to be a GA? I would appreciate it if someone could give an up-to-date statement regarding the neutrality debate. Obvious neutrality is a clear requirement for a GA. Reviewer: ~ Gosox ( 55 )( 55 ) 17:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gosox,

I'm a bit of a vocal outsider here so take my input for what it's worth.

From my position the article is quite inflammatory in overall tone (thus the frequent input by myself and others highly offended in the LDS community), long, over-sourced, and dependent on unstable sources. Many argue that Brodie is the most prominent on the subject, but as many would gladly source another researcher with less academic baggage (much speculation on her methods and bias). The other researcher cited frequently is touted by contributors as a faithful Mormon, yet this is a red herring as the majority of his research (in his book "A Rough Stone Rolling") was purposely aimed at finding the subject's flaws. This does not exclude his research but does beg the question about balance in the article. I know there are many who would like to see this article GAed as recognition of their efforts, but I think we need to remember this is not an article about pomegranates, it is about an important religious figure to a large faith community, and prudence and sensitivity should be considered before expediting this article's approval prematurely.

Thanks.

173.180.112.66 (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy


 * Surely you all agree that both sides should be presented, correct? I mean, if there's a debate, we can't just show one side. We need to include all opinions (at least all mainstream ones). I plan to ask for a second opinion, as I don't know much about the subject and am new to the GAN process, as this is clearly contested. The article does seem to use multiple sources. GA promotion is not for anyone, it is for the article.~ Gosox ( 55 )( 55 ) 18:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe the article remarkably neutral. Most criticism of the article's neutrality has come from, on one side, arch-conservative Mormons (like my friend Canadiandy above, who doesn't trust the scholarship of Richard Bushman, the best-known historian among members of the LDS Church) and a few vocal anti-Mormons on the other.--John Foxe (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll give my perspective as a major contributor. This article has been quite stable for several months, prior to which there was a major effort by several editors to improve the article and document it with sources. To my knowledge, there have been no real edit wars, and I think the article is remarkably stable given its controversial subject matter. This may be due to the fact that the article is so heavily documented with well-regarded sources and citations, and it is hard to argue with the sources.


 * As to neutrality, because of the highly-controversial subject matter, there will always be some editors who think the article is biased either for or against Mormonism. I think the article strikes a good balance.  The two most heavily-cited sources are to Smith's two most prominent biographers: Bushman, a Mormon apologist whose work is well regarded by both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars, and Brodie, a "cultural" Mormon who was skeptical of Smith's prophetic claim, but whose work was the predominant Smith biography for a generation. Though the most heavy reliance is on Bushman and Brodie, other prominent views and sources of information about Smith have not been ignored, including the views of Mormon apologetic scholars other than Bushman, and non-Mormon sources.


 * From time to time, a Mormon editor arises on the talk page with a passionate complaint that the article is "anti-Mormon." However, I think this is to be expected and does not affect the article's merit as a good article. Mormons have an acute interest in this subject because Smith is their revered prophet. Some Mormons have ingrained within their soul an idealized and simplified view of Smith based on what is taught in LDS Church publications and at the pulpit. This image of Smith does not necessarily correspond to the more complex and human image of Smith that arises from the consensus of scholarly sources. To many Mormons, any portrayal of Smith other than the idealized, simplified version, will be offensive. That's not to say, however, that all Mormons will find this article offensive. I happen to be a Mormon, and I think the article is a fair and academically-honest presentation of Smith. The most cited source, Bushman, is a Mormon apologist, and much of the material that is controversial to some Mormons is presented and acknowledged by Bushman himself. There is nothing in this article that would surprise any Mormon scholar who has studied the life of Joseph Smith. CO GDEN  18:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I was honestly quite surprised by the outrage on the talk page and figured as much. The article seemed relatively neutral to me. I am of the belief that perfect neutrality is impossible, but this article does pretty well. I would say that it meets the criteria for neutrality.  Reading through the peer reviews, one concern has been length.  There are certainly longer FAs, and this is just GA, so I don't think it's absolutely an issue.  I'm assuming that the issues raised in the recent peer review have been addressed? ~ Gosox ( 55 )( 55 ) 20:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw the nomination, reviewed comments here and in talk, then reviewed article. Generally I found it to be ok, but there were a few mild instances of bias (like calling Smith a prophet in lead, as if this is objective category, like 'lawyer'); or some tortured passages, scarred from past battles I suspect. Anyway, I made a few minor adjustments, carefully reviewing footnotes and citations, trying to find some better NPOV phrasing. User John Foxe reverted all of my multiple edits, three times at this count, to "his" earlier version without discussion in talk. So we clearly have some issues ongoing here.Tao2911 (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, and as an "arch-conservative" LDS member, I completely and wholeheartedly disagree, but I'm clearly outnumbered. Given the fact the majority view disregards most LDS perspectives (except those critical of their own faith) as NPOV I see GA of the article as now a foregone conclusion. But I am glad that Wikipedia maintains an article history as I suspect future contributors with a greater sensitivity and courtesy will look back at this treatment of Joseph Smith as merely a reflection of our present society's cynicism toward the LDS faith. In fact it might be a perfect case study. But again, that is my minority view in a world where majority rules. But don't worry, most of us LDS are used to criticism so we'll shrug it off as we always have. So damn the torpedoes (and the Mormons?), full steam ahead. I'm not bitter, disappointed, sure. Surprised, a little. But when I think of the fact that a self-professed Mormon cynic who thinks Joseph Smith was an evil man has been given the greatest latitude in defining our most revered prophet of this dispensation I just remind myself that time, as always, is on the side of truth. And as the Christian hymn states, "God is his own interpreter / And he will make it plain." (I suspect the word 'plain' was used in the hymn because they couldn't find anything that rhymed with 'using fewer than 430 notations'). While I would ask that you reconsider your position, I thank you for at least considering my input with respect, Gosox. I remain, that much-maligned, Mormon meliorist, 173.180.112.66 (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
 * The neutrality of this article is adequately demonstrated by the comments of the last two editors, the first of whom believes the article too pro-Mormon, the second, too anti-Mormon.--John Foxe (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As an active editor (most active I'd warrant) with some possible "ownership" issues, I think John Foxe should not be making assessments, or commenting at allTao2911 (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC) here...

I see no outstanding issues with the article that would prevent it from attaining Good Article status. It is neutral in tone, and appears to properly report history and beliefs without endorsement or forcing the reader to conclusions. I slightly prefer this lead revision over this lead revision, but both are of acceptable quality and the current quibbles over wording appear to be minor and in no danger of affecting the page's stability. Be aware, however, that I have not checked the page images for image policy compliance, nor reviewed any of the page references, and the final word on the matter of course goes to Gosox. --erachima talk 07:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Second Opinion. Per request at WP:GAN, I am here to assist User:Gosox5555's GA review by giving my own views as to the article's quality, and specifically, its neutrality.


 * Update Thank you erachima for your second opinion. I have checked the images and they are all set. I just have to check out a few of the books from the library and make sure that a random sampling are accurate (and make sure that they are reliable).  Sorry for the delays. ~ Gosox ( 55 )( 55 ) 14:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delays are really not an issue, the article has been up for review for a while and we appreciate that you are taking the time to review it. No rush. ...comments? ~B F izz 17:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I do not disagree with any of the conclusions of the reviewer(s), but would like to point out that the article has quite a bit of WP:OVERLINKing. Examples include: Book of Mormon, golden plates, polygamy, Carthage, and many others. Also, links like "116 pages of manuscript", "taken it to heaven", "married her" and others are not intuitive. It is up to the main reviewer if this should affect the nomination, but I believe the article would be improved if these issues were addressed. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll give a few more days if anyone wants to address this, and I'll make my final call next Sunday or Monday if this has been addressed. I'm not sure that it affects the nomination, but it's still worth doing. ~ Gosox ( 55 )( 55 ) 00:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if it's already a "good" article, reducing any extra or unintuitive links would make it even better. I can start with a conservative removal of links and address some of the specific issues above, but I imagine this will be a continuing process involving discussions on the talk page, because linking is to some extent a matter of taste, balance, and style. CO GDEN  00:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just one afterthought regarding the comments above: I think that 116 pages of manuscript is a reasonably intuitive piped link. It would be a bit unclear, for example, to refer to them as "lost 116 pages" prior to their loss. However, there's a chance we can even avoid this issue by only linking to the sub-article after the pages are actually lost. CO GDEN  01:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We will indeed address issues with overlinking and easter eggs, but please remember that these are minor issues compared to the main points of WP:Good article criteria. Thanks. ...comments? ~B F izz 00:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Tentative Weaponbb7's GA Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Prose is good for the most part bu euphemisms like "sectarian fervor of their day" needs clean up. I see a lot of "Some say" failing WP:WEASEL particularly the way " Some secular scholars argue that the witnesses thought they saw the plates with their "spiritual eyes," Who are these Scholars? How many hold the View? Does it matter if they are secular? also "The old Jackson Countians resented the Mormon newcomers for various political and religious reasons." makes me uneasy.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * An article on a important historical figure should include more books from Academic presses but the Biographers all look reliable. So while i have reservations about it meets the letter of the law on sourcing
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * l would consider incorporating more of the Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy as this seems to be minimized. Incorporate Criticism of Joseph Smith, Jr. into the prose. As these seem to have been minimized or left out entirely. Also include a Bibiolography of his works. He was a prolific writer portions of Works relating to Joseph Smith, Jr. should be listed here.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * I am concerned here with the Bias as this seems to overly praiseful. Critical Commentary seems to been left out or minimized
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Seems stable no major edit wars recently
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Looks good here.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Articles on New religious movement are always contentious topics and their founders often bear the brunt of such contention. This article has some severe flaws with bias as it lacks critical commentary of this figure. Sourcing seems to meet criteria for WP:GA but will likely not completely pass muster at FA. It fails mostly on the Bias as there is legitimate criticisms and expansion on the more controversial aspects of his theology especially the plural marriage aspect. Though excellently sourced the bias shows. The overall prose is flowery and full of euphemisms making it encyclopedic though an artful in its use. This article is good but needs improvement.Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

responses
For what it's worth, I'm a non-Mormon (in fact, a "never-been-a-Mormon") who believes this encyclopedia article is about as unbiased and nicely balanced as any piece about Joseph Smith can be. I wish to be respectful here, but I think what Weaponbb7 interprets as pro-Mormon bias stems from his own lack of familiarity with the literature.--John Foxe (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've started a few sections on the article's talk page regarding 1) a bibliography and 2) the coverage of criticism/polygamy. I agree with Foxe that the article is balanced, and know that several editors feel the article is too critical. I'd like to see some examples from the text which Weaponbb7 considers "overly praiseful". ...comments? ~B F izz 21:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My questions and comments on Weaponbb7's comments:


 * What is "sectarian ferver of their day" a euphemism for? Do you have any other examples of euphemisms?
 * "Some secular scholars argue" is not a "weasel word" situation, because the identity of the actual secular scholars who say that are set forth in the cited references.
 * As to wishing that there were more works from academic presses, this is not a situation where there books from academic presses exist but are not cited. You can be assured that the most prominent, respected sources are cited for this article, and their frequency of citation is roughly in proportion to their prominence in the field.
 * You argue that to enhance the "breadth of coverage", we should include more depth on the subject of polygamy. I think you are confusing breadth with depth. This is a very broad overview article, and there are numerous topics that could be covered in a lot of detail. I don't think you can say that this article minimizes Smith's polygamy, given the limited amount of space we have available.
 * As to being "overly praisful": I'm not aware of any part of the article that either praises or trashes Smith. ::There is a passage that says that Mormons revere him, but that's just stating the obvious. I also think we need some specific examples of where you think critical commentary has been minimized or left out. My sense is that critical sources and perspectives are well represented, and some would say that they predominate the article.


 * CO GDEN  22:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok I knew i have some flack from people who worked so hard on it and have done a pretty desecent job. this is normal type of reaction is normal

"sectarian ferver of their day" its not the type of language that is not good in a Encyclopedia its very flowery language. There is a fair bit of flowery language here which could be reduced to more simple and precise words. "well-to-do neighbor"

Below the Infobox in there is Template that says says "This article is part of the series Joseph Smith, Jr." Than list the subjects "the polygammy" and "Criticism" Among other things sections that were left out of the article. I do not know why these two were left out but they were so i have to question why? leaving those two out seemed odd to leave out I had to question why?

"Legacy" seems an odd choice of words for a section it makes it sound like the page is memorial.

Classic example of language I am concerned about "Historians regard Joseph Smith as one of the most imaginative, charismatic, and controversial leaders in American religious history." Its stated but this needs to be expanded as it is not clear to me reading it what is "imaginative" about what he has done? and again why is he "controversial leaders." this could substatially expanded by a few paragraphs.

"On matters of public policy, Smith favored a strong central bank and high tariffs to protect American business and agriculture. Smith disfavored imprisonment of convicts except for murder, preferring efforts to reform criminals through labor; he also opposed courts-martial for military deserters. " is complexly uncited could use citation. critical Commentary might involve some scholarly Analysis of his action Stephen A. Kent wrote a good one a few years ago that might be useful as an example or as a useful reference

I would argue that "Some Scholars" is weaselly... just name the scholars who say so!

Over all I think this article is pretty good. The Actual Biography portion of his life is so well done I can't find anything wrong with it. I think I will give this the thumbs up once the flowery language is cleared up and the legacy section is rewritten to include the scholarly analysis of him. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

An example of the type of commentary I would look for: http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/pdfplus/10.1525/nr.2010.13.3.34





 This is the kind of stuff i might be looking for Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not intend my comments to be interpreted as "flak". In fact, I welcome your review and thank you for your interest. I mostly just want to understand your thoughts and begin a dialogue, because although everybody seems to agree this is a "good" article, these issues will come up if and when the article is nominated for "featured" status.


 * I think I understand what you are saying about "flowery" language. I read a lot of language of this style, and this might be more a matter of opinion and taste, than correctness, but if any editor thinks the language is too flowery, this is easily changed.


 * I also think I understand your concerns about the "legacy" and non-biographic sections. (But as to the naming of the "legacy" section, I think that is in line with many other biographical articles on Wikipedia which have "legacy" sections. For example, see John Calvin, Walter Huber, John Knox, Gregory of Nazianzus, and many other featured articles.) I think what you'd like to see is a mini-history of Joseph Smith-related criticism, and I don't disagree. But I would not use the "criticism" sub-article as a model. I'm not at all happy with the "criticism" sub-article, which is not even really about Joseph Smith-related criticism. It's more a simple repository for factoids about Joseph Smith that some authors think are more or less embarrassing. To the extent these facts and trivia are treated extensively in the literature, they are indeed included in the article. What I think you are looking for is something quite different: a brief history of Joseph Smith-related criticism through the ages, from Eber Dudley Howe to the Tanners.


 * The challenge in creating a brief Joseph Smith-related criticism section, though, is to make it sufficiently brief. We would have to cover the most notable critics of Smith, such as Howe, the Tanners, and a few others, without spending too much precious space. You included a few links as examples of what you would like to see included. The first one is Lawrence Foster's book, which is already cited in this article. I don't really see Foster's work as a criticism, though, as much as a simple historical analysis. Lawrence was just interpreting the historical record in a neutral, dispassionate way like any good historian. You also cite Woodbridge Riley's biography, which I don't think is cited here, but I also don't see Riley's biography as a criticism: it was more a psychohistory. In the case of Riley, I consider it to be somewhat obsolete, now far surpassed by Brodie's psychohistory which is cited extensively in the article. I've never seen Ainsworth's 1972 essay before, but it also appears to be a simple brief overview history, rather than a criticism. Or maybe I don't understand the use of these articles that you envision.


 * Pierce's 1899 article is also new to me, but his topic, the Spaulding Manuscript--is well known. The Spaulding theory was discredited and is no longer an extant Smith criticism among mainstream scholars, but if we include a brief history of Smith-related criticism, we will indeed have to include the Spaulding theory, which originated with Howe and lasted to the mid-20th century. There are probably better sources than Pierce for this, though. Brodie contains a really good history of the Spaulding theory.


 * On the issue of the complex sentence, I agree it should be better cited. I'll see what can be done.


 * CO GDEN  02:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've changed both examples of what Weaponbb7 considered "flowery language" above. Are there any other specific problems in matters of style?--John Foxe (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Update
There's a Second Opinion request and two reviews, and there appears to have been no activity on the GA Review for over a month. Who is actually doing the review? And is a Second Opinion still requested? Speed is not the priority in a GA Review, and if the review is still in progress that is fine, though an update comment would be useful at this point.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The current status of the review is somewhat up in the air. As the submitter, I will contact the interested parties (particularly, the reviewers) and try to get some closure on this review in the next couple days. ...comments? ~B F izz 17:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean any offense, but when Weaponbb wrote,

"This article has some severe flaws with bias as it lacks critical commentary of this figure."

I was left wondering if he had read the right article. This whole article is nothing but a critical commentary.

Polygamist? treasure-hunter? Exorcist? Tried as disorderly? Power-grabbing? Military leader in retreat? "Dirty"? "Nasty"? Poor financial oversight? Intimidating? Pillaging? Media suppressor?

And that's all in the first half of the article! You can believe all that tripe, but surely you can't suggest the article lacks critical commentary. If that's praise, I'd hate to see what criticism is.

Is there anyone here that would argue that the majority of the references sources are not critics of Joseph? The only one I can find who is not cynically critical in their research is Bushman, and his writings were purposely aimed at finding Joseph's flaws. So Brodie gets to write, fair. And LDS Church Historians are excluded based on a sensitivity to POV, arguably fair. But for anyone to then suggest the article is not critical enough after all that?

My input is that this article has a strong structurally negative bias. I don't lay the fault so much with the contributors, as much as the framework of sources on which Joseph Smith's life has been myopically defined. Until the 1970s, the only academics who seemed to be writing (the consensus here is often that, unfortunately, Brodie is the best we have) about Joseph Smith had strong negative biases. And when you then take out the acceptance of LDS sources it is not surprising the article reads more like an expose'.

So my two bits. This article may be on hold for a few years until it can be fundamentally reworked. No, I do not expect it to look like a Mormon pamphlet. But, yes, I expect it to go back to the drawing board until there are more reliable historians (not merely anti-Mormon or even pro-Mormon cynics) who are not writing because they have an axe to grind. The problem is not the contributors, the problem is not the good will to balance this based on the evidence. The problem, I think, is with the very limited availability of reliable AND unbiased research.

Fawn Brodie was actually right when she wrote, "No man knows my history." And as Nibley referred to her research, "No, Ma'am, that's not history."

Feel free to slag a great religious leader, just take a little time before you do to notice the dove on top of the discussion page.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 06:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy


 * Canadiandy, just because a writer is non-Mormon, that doesn't mean they have an "axe to grind" against Mormons. There's an "us versus them" mentality that many Mormons share, that is a hangover from persecutions in the 1800s. Many Mormons tend to suspect the motives of anyone writing about Mormonism who isn't a firm believer.
 * I don't know what "reliable historians" you have in mind that would surpass Bushman, Brodie, Quinn, Compton, Hill and Hill, Bloom, Brooke, Hullinger, Marquardt, Morgan, Widmer, Vogel, Van Wagoner, Walker, George Smith, Shipps, Remini, and Prince. These scholars all cite each other, and everybody cites them. They are all mainstream, and none of them is a polemical writer out to bash Mormons. In fact, many of them are devout Mormons, and a few others are what you might call "lapsed" Mormons who still identify with the religion. Several of them have no religious ties to Mormonism at all, but how can we hold that against them? We don't expect that only the Amish can can write neutral academic books about the Amish, or that only Jehovah's Witnesses can write neutral academic books about Jehovah's Witnesses. CO GDEN  20:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

COgden,

Unfair. I never said that all non-Mormon writers have an axe to grind. But I do think that the majority of evidence written about Joseph Smith before the 1970s was inherently based in a 'love him/hate him' paradigm. Neither do I "...suspect the motives of anyone writing about Mormonism who isn't a firm believer." Your words, not mine. It was Charles Dickens who wrote,

"But I went on board their ship to bear testimony against them if they deserved it, as I fully believed they would; to my great astonishment, they did not deserve it; and my predispositions and tendencies must not affect me as an honest witness, I went over the Amazon's side, feeling it impossible to deny that, so far, some remarkable influence had produced a remarkable result, which better-known influences have often missed."

Last I checked Dickens was not a Mormon.

But forgive me a fair academic skepticism when I ask individuals writing on Joseph Smith the following;

1. What is your motivation in writing on Joseph Smith? 2. What will you use as your evidences and sources? 3. When you come across unproven or speculative evidences, how will you address them?

As an example, my non-Mormon father is in the process of writing a book on the history of Louis Riel. I asked him why, as there is no family/religious/historical connection whatsoever, he would write on such a topic. His reason is that since Riel was a polarizing figure, most of the histories he has read are founded in a positive or negative bias. As he is not on either side of the history he feels he would make a better writer on the topic for that very reason.

I think this is a perfect parallel to the problem with this article. Joseph Smith researchers may attempt neutrality, but their sources are largely drawn from wildly biased sources (those who loved him enough to write, or those who hated him enough to write). And no, I don't even blame the Mormon haters for this paradox. It's not a question of who's right and wrong, it's a question of when are we going to look for better sources that the 'poisoned tree' we've been eating from for so long.

One of the discussions we (I, sorry) debated for a long time related to the number of wives Joseph Smith was purported to have had. While DNA testing has yet to prove a single offspring from Joseph (except through Emma) the old records are given preferred treatment. I don't expect people to agree with my religious beliefs, I do expect the historians and contributors here to have the courage to admit that not enough is truly 'known' about Joseph to fly this article as an accurate depiction (Good Article) of who Joseph Smith was. It seems amazingly Quixotic to do so.

You make the point that several "scholars all cite each other, and everybody cites them." I suspect if we sat them down and asked them if they were happy with the quality of evidence available to them they would say pretty much what I'm saying here, It's too bad Joseph Smith was such a polarizing figure, because it's hard to know which, of any of the early chroniclers can be trusted. And those that are worth their salt would be saying something like, we're just scratching the surface of Joseph Smith, the only thing Brodie got right is when she quoted Smith's own words, "No man knows [his] history."

Hey, look. A windmill.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy


 * Never known the GA review process of an article to take this long. I think they should hurry up and make the decision. Although personally, I think there's still work to be done for it can be passed, its best if they make their judgement on this and what needs to be done sooner rather than later. Any activity on the page is dead, possibly because certain individuals have scared people off from editing it. Routerone (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Canadiandy, you are going to have to be specific about what primary source factual information about Joseph Smith you think is "biased" against him. We actually shouldn't really care much about the primary sources when we have such comprehensive and well-regarded recent secondary sources. We can't go "over the heads" of secondary sources to provide our own spin on the primary sources. The recent secondary sources like Bushman, Brodie, and all the other scholars have already made determinations on primary source reliability and we can't substitute our judgment for theirs.
 * Frankly, though, the majority of the information that these recent scholars based their writings on was written by Joseph Smith's closest and greatest admirers, including his scribes and historians, close friends, his wife and family, the three witnesses of the golden plates, etc., who had the greatest first-hand access to Smith and thus were in the best position to know the facts. The secondary sources have recognized the reliability of a very small number of hostile primary sources (e.g., Willard Chase, Isaac Hale), in part because they agree with other sources or have other indicia of reliability. But we'll leave such primary source reliability issues to the peer-reviewed scholars.
 * I totally disagree with you that historians are basically ignorant about Smith's life. We know an incredible amount of information about Smith. Smith made sure of that. From early-on, he was very interested in preserving his history. We know far more about him than most historical figures of his era. When Brodie noted Smith's statement that "[n]o man knows my history", it was 1945. It was not because knowing Smith's history is impossible--it was because in 1945 the existing histories of Joseph Smith written by both Mormons and anti-Mormons had only a very loose connection to what historians consider to be reliable history. In 1945, there was no such thing as neutral academic Mormon studies. Brodie saw her job as an attempt to rectify that by producing the first modern academic Smith biography. CO GDEN  03:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since neither reviewer promoted the article to GA status (and both seem to have retired...) I've marked this as a failed nomination. ...comments? ~B F izz 01:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not only that, it seems that Weaponbb7's account was taken over by a Nazi meat puppet (I'm not joking). I hope that never happens to my account. Now he's User:ResidentAnthropologist.


 * The article could probably just be re-nominated right away. We've made a lot of edits addressing all the above issues, and even before those edits, Gosox seemed to be inclined to pass it. I think Weaponbb7's primary concern that the article is too pro-Mormon is unreasonable, and baffling to anyone familiar with the mainstream secular academic sources on which this article is based, or anyone who has read the decidedly apologetic Brittanica article on Joseph Smith written by Richard Bushman. It's unfortunate that Weaponbb7 didn't provide us with more information on his views, because I'm sure there are other editors like him. He may have a unique perspective as (apparently) an anthropologist with an interest in the "anti-cult" movement. I'd like to know if he envisions this article reading more like the Raëlian beliefs and practices article for example, which has been promoted to good article status. I think the Raëlism article is reasonably neutral under the circumstances, but I don't see how it is more neutral than this article.


 * But still, is there anything we could do to further improve neutrality? We're already far more neutral than Brittanica, but how do we get to the point where no angry Mormon or anti-cultist has a rational leg to stand on to attack the article's neutrality? CO GDEN  01:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)