![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 |
I have written elsewhere more thoroughly about B. H. Roberts, ed., The History of the Church published from 1909 to 1912. The abbreviated version is that I am interested in trimming History of the Church references from the notes of this Joseph Smith page for the following reasons:
First, History of the Church is not a secondary source; it is a compilation of primary sources and does not even regularly include scholarly commentary (which would qualify as a secondary source) accompanying the sources the way papers projects (like The Joseph Smith Papers) or documentary histories (like Bringhurst & Harris, ed., The Mormon Church and Blacks) do.
Second, even as a primary source, History of the Church does not have good source integrity. The compilers sometimes excised material they considered embarrassing or out of harmony with their own theology, and many documents were altered to seem as if they were written from Joseph Smith's perspective even though they were not. Even where using a primary source would be appropriate, a different primary source would be strongly preferred, such as found in The Joseph Smith Papers which compiles many of the same documents, includes scholarly commentary and contextualization, and does not alter the sources.
Therefore, I suggest trimming History of the Church references from the notes. A control+F search for "Roberts (19" yields fourteen results, so I think it would be possible.
I raise the question here since there has been previous sensitivity surrounding the trimming of sources. Shall we go ahead and do this? I hope I have been persuasive, but I remain open to hearing from editors who might think differently. P-Makoto ( talk) 20:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@ John Foxe: Am I correct in assuming that you had JosephSmithTranslating.jpg commissioned as a work for hire?
I think this 14 year old issue can be resolved. According to this article from the government, if you commissioned the work then, for legal purposes, you are the author and copyright owner of the work.
There are a few other details (looks like technically it should have been in writing, primarily), but if this applies, I think it’s entirely appropriate for you to alter the copyright notice to claim yourself as the copyright holder and author of the work. Do you agree?
If so, it would be a good point to clarify before we put this back up for FAC again.
- Trevdna ( talk) 04:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Short version: Based on reliable sources published within the last 30 years (and mostly the last 10 years), I have revised the page to state that historians have debated how early Smith conceived of God as embodied and to include a mix of content, weighted to favor widely accepted university presses.
In the version just preceding the edit made at the time of writing, the second paragraph of the "Cosmology and theology" subsection under "Views and teachings" states the following:
Though Smith initially viewed
God the Father as a spirit, he eventually began teaching that God was an advanced and glorified man, embodied within time and space.
The reference note appended to the first comma adds,
prior to 1835, Smith viewed God the Father as "an absolute personage of spirit"
(emphasis added)
This is based on the following references:
this statement does not mean that in 1830 Mormons were teaching that the Father has a body like the Son's—this concept was not introduced until much later(24).
I focus on the period 1830–35... The Book of Mormon tended to define God as an absolute personage of spirit.
However, pace Vogel and Alexander, more recent scholarship published by reliable presses suggests that Smith conceived of an embodied God much earlier, as early as the Book of Moses dictation in 1830 or even the Book of Mormon dictation prior. See the following:
Take, for example, a revelation he had in 1830... a new version of the story of Moses meeting God face to face. God addresses Moses as 'my son” and tells him that “thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior.' Several features of Smith's theology are on display in this text. Smith has a fully embodied understanding of how we are created in the image of God. We are all the Father's sons because we are all not just like God but actually similar to him. We resemble him.(254, bolding added, italics original).
His [Smith's] first clarification comes with the creation itself, where he inserted a crucial addition to Genesis 5:1–2: 'in the day that God created man (in the likeness of God made he him) in the image of his own body... Based on occasional intrusions of Trinitarian language into Smith's discourse, it is sometimes alleged that he came late to the idea of an embodied God. The historical record is fairly clear in attesting the contrary, however(73, bolding added, italics original to Givens).
Smith and others were telling of the [first] vision in the 1830s, and its implications for the trinity and materiality of God were asserted that early(55).
Clues to Joseph Smith’s thinking about the Trinity and divine materiality, or at least divine embodiment, emerge even prior to 1830. If his first vision did plant the seeds of God and Christ’s corporeal distinctness, the Book of Mormon may have confirmed the view. The climactic event in that scripture occurs when a physically embodied, post-ascension Christ appears to vast multitudes among the ancient Americans. More strikingly, in his translation of the Book of Mormon, Smith depicts a visitation of the pre-mortal Christ to the prophet Ether. In that scene, Christ emphasizes the corporeal nature of his pre-mortal self(93–94, bolding added).
At the very least, these sources complicate the idea of a "late" development of embodied deity for Smith. I decided to make this post on the talk page in case there was any confusion (since changing the page from "he didn't think of God as embodied yet" to "there's a good chance he did" could seem like a significant change to some. So I have included relevant quotations here for other editors' and readers' convenience while the edit is fresh. I will add that I have been able to access all four Oxford University Press titles through Wikipedia Library. P-Makoto ( talk) 02:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Nikkimaria's comments on the references needing to be cleaned up and standardized are right, of course. But many editors have come and gone over the years, making it hard to standardize everything. (It also probably doesn't help that I have access to a small fraction of the referenced works.) I've listed some thoughts and issues below. I'd like to seek some guidance and consensus before I just jump in and start changing things.
Issue 1: The first thing I notice is that many of the cited works have extensive explanations included with them. Although @ P-Makoto made a good point that the article's current style ("Footnotes mixed with explanatory notes") is one of the acceptable styles shown at H:NOTES, it is less elegant, and makes it hard to make everything feel consistent. After spending some time reviewing other Featured Articles, I will say it generally seems to be rare for a Featured Article to have this style.
But at the same time, I understand why it was done this way: during edit wars of yesteryear, it seems it was done to head off any possible criticism of the references from the "other side", by explaining exactly what was said on the page. So my question is: do we think we have moved on sufficiently from edit wars - built enough mutual trust amongst ourselves - that the flavor text surrounding these references can be peeled back quite aggressively?
As an example: the current reference 19 refers to the following sentence: "Smith said he recounted the experience to a Methodist minister, who dismissed the story 'with great contempt'." The current reference shows as follows: "Vogel (2004, p. 30); Remini (2002, p. 40) ('The clergyman, Joseph later reported, was aghast at what he was told and treated the story with contempt. He said that there were no such things as visions or revelations ... that they ended with the Apostles'); Harper (2019, p. 9)." Instead of all that, could I prune it back as follows: "Vogel (2004, p. 30); Remini (2002, p. 40); Harper (2019, p. 9)." And likewise throughout the article.
Although all of these could be each given their own efn (see below), I think many of them would be excessive. Many of them simply amount to slightly wordier restatements of what the main body of the article already states. Therefore I'd like to prune quite a few of them.
Issue 2: I don't think it makes sense to remove all the explanatory footnotes, as many of them typically give needed context and explain disagreements among scholars that should be included - even though the average reader really will not be interested in them for the most part. Therefore, I recommend these go to a new section of Explanatory Footnotes: from there, additional subreferences should be handled easily. (Also this was directly suggested by Nikkimaria: "You might also want to consider splitting explanatory footnotes into a separate section from citations.") The style I'm proposing is called "Shortened footnotes with separate explanatory notes" at H:NOTES. (Edit: or even "Shortened footnotes with separate explanatory notes with references" where needed - see next paragraph.)
There will still be additional footnotes to tease out that still don't fit neatly into either of the two categories. For instance, I'm thinking of the current Reference 300, which starts with a reference; then does a sentence of explanation; then does a "see also" reference; then does another sentence; then does a final "see also" reference. But, for instance, I think the best way to handle this one would be with a reference (the first reference), then an efn, which in turn has two separate references within it.
Issue 3: As discussed by Nikkimaria: "Right now there's a mix of handwritten, {{cite}}-family, and {{citation}} templates." Will just need to jump in and start standardizing these. Does anyone have any thoughts on which of these formats is preferred? If not, I'll probably just come up with the one that seems most common and make the others conform to it.
Issue 4: As discussed by Nikkimaria: "Some books include publication locations and others don't, and of those that do the formatting varies." Again, I should probably just jump in and start fixing this: finding locations where possible and standardizing formatting between them - unless anyone has any objections or issues with it. It looks like P-Makoto found and fixed the one of these that Nikkimaria specifically mentioned, but it seems likely there will be more. Trevdna ( talk) 04:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Hey all: last time I proposed to put this article up for FA status, some people brought up a few final finishing touches. I just want to do that one more time: do we all have a complete consensus on nominating this article - or are there any other final issues that should be addressed beforehand?
@ P-Makoto: can I ask you to be a co-nominator with me? Your extensive and very well-researched edits in the last two months have made this article even beyond what I was expecting. Your knowledge of the very latest research has been, well, encyclopedic; your resources and deep knowledge would be very helpful in rapidly responding to any source controversies that may arise.
Thanks to everyone for your help and hard work up until this point. Trevdna ( talk) 05:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Re: what does nominator / co-nominator status entail: 1) we would set up the FAC by posting on the page that we’d like it to be considered for FA status, etc. Then 2) when reviewers have comments / requested improvements, it’s (primarily) up to us to respond to them in a timely manner. Failure to respond to those comments could lead to a failure of the article’s FA candidacy.
If that sounds interesting, your dedicated help in getting timely responses would be greatly appreciated. But if you’re not, that’s fine too, no pressure.
Re: your other three comments: 1) thanks for your edits to Impact and Assessment. I couldn’t find anything to challenge on them at this time. 2) I suppose I would disagree. I think any reader who is interested and savvy enough to dig into the footnotes that deeply, should be savvy enough to make their own decision about whether they think Brodie’s explanation is out of step with the others or not. We’ve already done a good job de-emphasizing it by stating it as “sepculat[ion]” while the others have stronger verbs attached to them.
But as ever, I don’t want to monopolize the discussion. And truthfully I don’t feel that strongly about it either way. So if you feel that strongly about it, feel free to strike it unilaterally and I wouldn’t revert.
3) I think one of the strengths of this article is it effectively balances the relative contributions of many different secondary sources. Brodie’s work has her contribution here - but doesn’t overpower the article - which I feel is entirely appropriate, given her massive contribution to scholarly research on Smith. Granted, much of it has now been superseded by additional research - but in the cases where a Brodie reference reinforces other references, I think it’s appropriate to leave her in. Trevdna ( talk) 15:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
We’re talking more like a day. Trevdna ( talk) 21:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Great! Thanks! Of course!
I’ll draft a nomination statement and put it on your talk page in the next few days. Then if you’re OK with it, I’ll post it and sign both our names to it.
These nominations run until there is either a consensus to promote, a consensus not to promote, or until it becomes clear there will be no consensus (which means not promoted). Typically that’s 2-3 weeks, although that time can vary depending on how it goes. If you’re interested in seeing how these go, I recommend you browse WP:FAC for an idea.
For background, I nominated this article, twice, unsuccessfully both times, about a decade ago. It’s come an awful long ways in that time, though, so here’s hoping third time is the charm! Trevdna ( talk) 03:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Umm… you know what? I’ve been looking through the nominations at WP:FAC aand… I’m actually somewhat intimidated. They absolutely shred these things. Not that Ido t think this article wouldn’t *probably* pass. But I’m not sure it would *definitely* pass. And I’d like to make it as sure as I can.
One resource they strongly recommend for first time nominators (and those who haven’t yet had a successful nom) is to get a “mentor” to guide them through the process.
To boost our chances of a successful nom, I have put out a request for a mentor to review this article and suggest changes. Hopefully another set of eyes never hurts - and if nothing else, I hope it will signal to the reviewers that we are serious about doing our diligence here. Trevdna ( talk) 05:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
It would be someone who has extensive experience in the Featured Article process. Most (all?) of them have several successful FA nominations under their belt. Trevdna ( talk) 14:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Hey guys, before nominating this I'd suggest figuring out a consistent citation style. Right now there's a mix of handwritten, {{ cite}}-family, and {{ citation}} templates; some books include publication locations and others don't, and of those that do the formatting varies; some refs are missing required pieces (eg Harris & Bringhurst has no publisher listed); and some of the harvlinks are non-functional. You might also want to consider splitting explanatory footnotes into a separate section from citations. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm grateful to you for going through the minutiae, @ Trevdna, but I thought that Nikkimaria specifically instructed that "postal abbreviations... typically shouldn't" be used? That is why I did my best to change all postal abbreviations of state names in the publication locations to the full names of the states. P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk) 18:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
The saga continues…
Per discussion here with experienced editors (2 of the 4 FA coordinators): before this article is ready for FA status, we’ll need to mostly eliminate the Notes section, as well as trim the main article’s prose by about a third.
I intend to 1) move the affected text to the sub articles, and 2) improve the sub articles so it doesn’t feel like we’re “banishing” the detailed text that leaves the main article. (Some of them are looking a little rough right now.)
So, to everyone involved, 3 questions:
1 - Any objections with this plan? 2 - If not, does anyone want to help out with it? And 3 - Even though no one WP:OWNs the article, we all know there are parts that we each like more than others (usually because we remember which parts we wrote!). Are there any sections in specific that anyone here feels *very* strongly need to remain *exactly* as they are and should not be trimmed or summarized or moved to sub articles at all?
Thanks all. Trevdna ( talk) 03:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Any objections with this plan?I admit I have mixed feelings, partly because there's mixed messaging. Is it possible whether to have notes is just personal preference? Nikkimaria, the earlier FA mentor, actively recommended having a notes section. And is it possible that length is also just personal preference? One of the FA coordinators pointed to the Armenian Genocide as a model Featured Article, but according to the DYK readable-prose tool, the Armenian Genocide page is ~7,000 words, only ~3,000 words shorter than the body text of the Joseph Smith page (~10,000). I am of the mind that Wikipedia is not paper, so as long as the page is well organized with sufficient subsections that help orient the reader (and the current Joseph Smith page does helpfully have plenty of sensible subsection headings), a page can manage this kind of length. My impression was that the "too long" problem is leveled against pages twice as long, like the Reconstruction era page (~20,000 words).
If not, does anyone want to help out with it?Perhaps another part of my resistance to the proposed course of action is that I am not as optimistic about my capacity to assist. I felt like I could squeeze time in to respond to reviewer feedback (things like "could you clarify this" or "could you reword that" or "this sentence is missing a reference") for when an FA review rolled around. But creating or overhauling several more pages is a much bigger commitment of time and energy, and I am less certain of helping contributing to so many pages in my current circumstances, as much as I would want to try, especially when I realize some of the additions to the page (which I had thought were helping the page, but which these two FA coordinators evidently think is more of a hindrance) are from me.
Are there any sections in specific that anyone here feels *very* strongly need to remainI would hope that at least "Impact and asssessment" sticks around (I grant that a lot of its current text is from me). I consider it a very concise summary of how Smith and his legacy have been received over time, and that's useful in the biography of a figure whose legacy has been as contested as his. Other featured biographies have similar legacy sections, like Andrew Jackson (another ~10,000 word FA). I don't really think excising this and instead having a "Reception of Joseph Smith" page would be all that purposeful, and it might come across as a fork.
Hi, @ Trevdna. Noticing your good work and have a moment. Hope it's alright to say something about first: the deletion of the "Life of Joseph Smith" page; and second: the "Legacy" and "Teachings" pages.
First: You'll almost surely notice this yourself since you probably had the page on your watchlist, but the "Life of Joseph Smith" article was deleted. Is there content there that you think should be un-trimmed? Or how else could it be put to use?
Second: I think the "Legacy of Joseph Smith" page makes a lot of sense. I wonder about the title (alternatively, "Reception of Joseph Smith"? "Perceptions of Joseph Smith"? "Joseph Smith in memory"?), but I think the subject makes sense as something that can stand as an article, given scholarship available on the topic.
Moving content to the "Teachings" page is another move that makes sense, now that I see you do it. When sub-articles were first proposed, I over-thought in thinking they'd be broken down per topic. Now that I'm looking, I realize there's a genre of Wikipedia pages for "teachings of X" that cover various subjects, so this makes sense.
To say it all more briefly: at first impression, I'm supportive of the recent efforts and hope to contribute in ways that are helpful. P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk) 21:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 |
I have written elsewhere more thoroughly about B. H. Roberts, ed., The History of the Church published from 1909 to 1912. The abbreviated version is that I am interested in trimming History of the Church references from the notes of this Joseph Smith page for the following reasons:
First, History of the Church is not a secondary source; it is a compilation of primary sources and does not even regularly include scholarly commentary (which would qualify as a secondary source) accompanying the sources the way papers projects (like The Joseph Smith Papers) or documentary histories (like Bringhurst & Harris, ed., The Mormon Church and Blacks) do.
Second, even as a primary source, History of the Church does not have good source integrity. The compilers sometimes excised material they considered embarrassing or out of harmony with their own theology, and many documents were altered to seem as if they were written from Joseph Smith's perspective even though they were not. Even where using a primary source would be appropriate, a different primary source would be strongly preferred, such as found in The Joseph Smith Papers which compiles many of the same documents, includes scholarly commentary and contextualization, and does not alter the sources.
Therefore, I suggest trimming History of the Church references from the notes. A control+F search for "Roberts (19" yields fourteen results, so I think it would be possible.
I raise the question here since there has been previous sensitivity surrounding the trimming of sources. Shall we go ahead and do this? I hope I have been persuasive, but I remain open to hearing from editors who might think differently. P-Makoto ( talk) 20:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@ John Foxe: Am I correct in assuming that you had JosephSmithTranslating.jpg commissioned as a work for hire?
I think this 14 year old issue can be resolved. According to this article from the government, if you commissioned the work then, for legal purposes, you are the author and copyright owner of the work.
There are a few other details (looks like technically it should have been in writing, primarily), but if this applies, I think it’s entirely appropriate for you to alter the copyright notice to claim yourself as the copyright holder and author of the work. Do you agree?
If so, it would be a good point to clarify before we put this back up for FAC again.
- Trevdna ( talk) 04:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Short version: Based on reliable sources published within the last 30 years (and mostly the last 10 years), I have revised the page to state that historians have debated how early Smith conceived of God as embodied and to include a mix of content, weighted to favor widely accepted university presses.
In the version just preceding the edit made at the time of writing, the second paragraph of the "Cosmology and theology" subsection under "Views and teachings" states the following:
Though Smith initially viewed
God the Father as a spirit, he eventually began teaching that God was an advanced and glorified man, embodied within time and space.
The reference note appended to the first comma adds,
prior to 1835, Smith viewed God the Father as "an absolute personage of spirit"
(emphasis added)
This is based on the following references:
this statement does not mean that in 1830 Mormons were teaching that the Father has a body like the Son's—this concept was not introduced until much later(24).
I focus on the period 1830–35... The Book of Mormon tended to define God as an absolute personage of spirit.
However, pace Vogel and Alexander, more recent scholarship published by reliable presses suggests that Smith conceived of an embodied God much earlier, as early as the Book of Moses dictation in 1830 or even the Book of Mormon dictation prior. See the following:
Take, for example, a revelation he had in 1830... a new version of the story of Moses meeting God face to face. God addresses Moses as 'my son” and tells him that “thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior.' Several features of Smith's theology are on display in this text. Smith has a fully embodied understanding of how we are created in the image of God. We are all the Father's sons because we are all not just like God but actually similar to him. We resemble him.(254, bolding added, italics original).
His [Smith's] first clarification comes with the creation itself, where he inserted a crucial addition to Genesis 5:1–2: 'in the day that God created man (in the likeness of God made he him) in the image of his own body... Based on occasional intrusions of Trinitarian language into Smith's discourse, it is sometimes alleged that he came late to the idea of an embodied God. The historical record is fairly clear in attesting the contrary, however(73, bolding added, italics original to Givens).
Smith and others were telling of the [first] vision in the 1830s, and its implications for the trinity and materiality of God were asserted that early(55).
Clues to Joseph Smith’s thinking about the Trinity and divine materiality, or at least divine embodiment, emerge even prior to 1830. If his first vision did plant the seeds of God and Christ’s corporeal distinctness, the Book of Mormon may have confirmed the view. The climactic event in that scripture occurs when a physically embodied, post-ascension Christ appears to vast multitudes among the ancient Americans. More strikingly, in his translation of the Book of Mormon, Smith depicts a visitation of the pre-mortal Christ to the prophet Ether. In that scene, Christ emphasizes the corporeal nature of his pre-mortal self(93–94, bolding added).
At the very least, these sources complicate the idea of a "late" development of embodied deity for Smith. I decided to make this post on the talk page in case there was any confusion (since changing the page from "he didn't think of God as embodied yet" to "there's a good chance he did" could seem like a significant change to some. So I have included relevant quotations here for other editors' and readers' convenience while the edit is fresh. I will add that I have been able to access all four Oxford University Press titles through Wikipedia Library. P-Makoto ( talk) 02:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Nikkimaria's comments on the references needing to be cleaned up and standardized are right, of course. But many editors have come and gone over the years, making it hard to standardize everything. (It also probably doesn't help that I have access to a small fraction of the referenced works.) I've listed some thoughts and issues below. I'd like to seek some guidance and consensus before I just jump in and start changing things.
Issue 1: The first thing I notice is that many of the cited works have extensive explanations included with them. Although @ P-Makoto made a good point that the article's current style ("Footnotes mixed with explanatory notes") is one of the acceptable styles shown at H:NOTES, it is less elegant, and makes it hard to make everything feel consistent. After spending some time reviewing other Featured Articles, I will say it generally seems to be rare for a Featured Article to have this style.
But at the same time, I understand why it was done this way: during edit wars of yesteryear, it seems it was done to head off any possible criticism of the references from the "other side", by explaining exactly what was said on the page. So my question is: do we think we have moved on sufficiently from edit wars - built enough mutual trust amongst ourselves - that the flavor text surrounding these references can be peeled back quite aggressively?
As an example: the current reference 19 refers to the following sentence: "Smith said he recounted the experience to a Methodist minister, who dismissed the story 'with great contempt'." The current reference shows as follows: "Vogel (2004, p. 30); Remini (2002, p. 40) ('The clergyman, Joseph later reported, was aghast at what he was told and treated the story with contempt. He said that there were no such things as visions or revelations ... that they ended with the Apostles'); Harper (2019, p. 9)." Instead of all that, could I prune it back as follows: "Vogel (2004, p. 30); Remini (2002, p. 40); Harper (2019, p. 9)." And likewise throughout the article.
Although all of these could be each given their own efn (see below), I think many of them would be excessive. Many of them simply amount to slightly wordier restatements of what the main body of the article already states. Therefore I'd like to prune quite a few of them.
Issue 2: I don't think it makes sense to remove all the explanatory footnotes, as many of them typically give needed context and explain disagreements among scholars that should be included - even though the average reader really will not be interested in them for the most part. Therefore, I recommend these go to a new section of Explanatory Footnotes: from there, additional subreferences should be handled easily. (Also this was directly suggested by Nikkimaria: "You might also want to consider splitting explanatory footnotes into a separate section from citations.") The style I'm proposing is called "Shortened footnotes with separate explanatory notes" at H:NOTES. (Edit: or even "Shortened footnotes with separate explanatory notes with references" where needed - see next paragraph.)
There will still be additional footnotes to tease out that still don't fit neatly into either of the two categories. For instance, I'm thinking of the current Reference 300, which starts with a reference; then does a sentence of explanation; then does a "see also" reference; then does another sentence; then does a final "see also" reference. But, for instance, I think the best way to handle this one would be with a reference (the first reference), then an efn, which in turn has two separate references within it.
Issue 3: As discussed by Nikkimaria: "Right now there's a mix of handwritten, {{cite}}-family, and {{citation}} templates." Will just need to jump in and start standardizing these. Does anyone have any thoughts on which of these formats is preferred? If not, I'll probably just come up with the one that seems most common and make the others conform to it.
Issue 4: As discussed by Nikkimaria: "Some books include publication locations and others don't, and of those that do the formatting varies." Again, I should probably just jump in and start fixing this: finding locations where possible and standardizing formatting between them - unless anyone has any objections or issues with it. It looks like P-Makoto found and fixed the one of these that Nikkimaria specifically mentioned, but it seems likely there will be more. Trevdna ( talk) 04:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Hey all: last time I proposed to put this article up for FA status, some people brought up a few final finishing touches. I just want to do that one more time: do we all have a complete consensus on nominating this article - or are there any other final issues that should be addressed beforehand?
@ P-Makoto: can I ask you to be a co-nominator with me? Your extensive and very well-researched edits in the last two months have made this article even beyond what I was expecting. Your knowledge of the very latest research has been, well, encyclopedic; your resources and deep knowledge would be very helpful in rapidly responding to any source controversies that may arise.
Thanks to everyone for your help and hard work up until this point. Trevdna ( talk) 05:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Re: what does nominator / co-nominator status entail: 1) we would set up the FAC by posting on the page that we’d like it to be considered for FA status, etc. Then 2) when reviewers have comments / requested improvements, it’s (primarily) up to us to respond to them in a timely manner. Failure to respond to those comments could lead to a failure of the article’s FA candidacy.
If that sounds interesting, your dedicated help in getting timely responses would be greatly appreciated. But if you’re not, that’s fine too, no pressure.
Re: your other three comments: 1) thanks for your edits to Impact and Assessment. I couldn’t find anything to challenge on them at this time. 2) I suppose I would disagree. I think any reader who is interested and savvy enough to dig into the footnotes that deeply, should be savvy enough to make their own decision about whether they think Brodie’s explanation is out of step with the others or not. We’ve already done a good job de-emphasizing it by stating it as “sepculat[ion]” while the others have stronger verbs attached to them.
But as ever, I don’t want to monopolize the discussion. And truthfully I don’t feel that strongly about it either way. So if you feel that strongly about it, feel free to strike it unilaterally and I wouldn’t revert.
3) I think one of the strengths of this article is it effectively balances the relative contributions of many different secondary sources. Brodie’s work has her contribution here - but doesn’t overpower the article - which I feel is entirely appropriate, given her massive contribution to scholarly research on Smith. Granted, much of it has now been superseded by additional research - but in the cases where a Brodie reference reinforces other references, I think it’s appropriate to leave her in. Trevdna ( talk) 15:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
We’re talking more like a day. Trevdna ( talk) 21:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Great! Thanks! Of course!
I’ll draft a nomination statement and put it on your talk page in the next few days. Then if you’re OK with it, I’ll post it and sign both our names to it.
These nominations run until there is either a consensus to promote, a consensus not to promote, or until it becomes clear there will be no consensus (which means not promoted). Typically that’s 2-3 weeks, although that time can vary depending on how it goes. If you’re interested in seeing how these go, I recommend you browse WP:FAC for an idea.
For background, I nominated this article, twice, unsuccessfully both times, about a decade ago. It’s come an awful long ways in that time, though, so here’s hoping third time is the charm! Trevdna ( talk) 03:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Umm… you know what? I’ve been looking through the nominations at WP:FAC aand… I’m actually somewhat intimidated. They absolutely shred these things. Not that Ido t think this article wouldn’t *probably* pass. But I’m not sure it would *definitely* pass. And I’d like to make it as sure as I can.
One resource they strongly recommend for first time nominators (and those who haven’t yet had a successful nom) is to get a “mentor” to guide them through the process.
To boost our chances of a successful nom, I have put out a request for a mentor to review this article and suggest changes. Hopefully another set of eyes never hurts - and if nothing else, I hope it will signal to the reviewers that we are serious about doing our diligence here. Trevdna ( talk) 05:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
It would be someone who has extensive experience in the Featured Article process. Most (all?) of them have several successful FA nominations under their belt. Trevdna ( talk) 14:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Hey guys, before nominating this I'd suggest figuring out a consistent citation style. Right now there's a mix of handwritten, {{ cite}}-family, and {{ citation}} templates; some books include publication locations and others don't, and of those that do the formatting varies; some refs are missing required pieces (eg Harris & Bringhurst has no publisher listed); and some of the harvlinks are non-functional. You might also want to consider splitting explanatory footnotes into a separate section from citations. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm grateful to you for going through the minutiae, @ Trevdna, but I thought that Nikkimaria specifically instructed that "postal abbreviations... typically shouldn't" be used? That is why I did my best to change all postal abbreviations of state names in the publication locations to the full names of the states. P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk) 18:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
The saga continues…
Per discussion here with experienced editors (2 of the 4 FA coordinators): before this article is ready for FA status, we’ll need to mostly eliminate the Notes section, as well as trim the main article’s prose by about a third.
I intend to 1) move the affected text to the sub articles, and 2) improve the sub articles so it doesn’t feel like we’re “banishing” the detailed text that leaves the main article. (Some of them are looking a little rough right now.)
So, to everyone involved, 3 questions:
1 - Any objections with this plan? 2 - If not, does anyone want to help out with it? And 3 - Even though no one WP:OWNs the article, we all know there are parts that we each like more than others (usually because we remember which parts we wrote!). Are there any sections in specific that anyone here feels *very* strongly need to remain *exactly* as they are and should not be trimmed or summarized or moved to sub articles at all?
Thanks all. Trevdna ( talk) 03:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Any objections with this plan?I admit I have mixed feelings, partly because there's mixed messaging. Is it possible whether to have notes is just personal preference? Nikkimaria, the earlier FA mentor, actively recommended having a notes section. And is it possible that length is also just personal preference? One of the FA coordinators pointed to the Armenian Genocide as a model Featured Article, but according to the DYK readable-prose tool, the Armenian Genocide page is ~7,000 words, only ~3,000 words shorter than the body text of the Joseph Smith page (~10,000). I am of the mind that Wikipedia is not paper, so as long as the page is well organized with sufficient subsections that help orient the reader (and the current Joseph Smith page does helpfully have plenty of sensible subsection headings), a page can manage this kind of length. My impression was that the "too long" problem is leveled against pages twice as long, like the Reconstruction era page (~20,000 words).
If not, does anyone want to help out with it?Perhaps another part of my resistance to the proposed course of action is that I am not as optimistic about my capacity to assist. I felt like I could squeeze time in to respond to reviewer feedback (things like "could you clarify this" or "could you reword that" or "this sentence is missing a reference") for when an FA review rolled around. But creating or overhauling several more pages is a much bigger commitment of time and energy, and I am less certain of helping contributing to so many pages in my current circumstances, as much as I would want to try, especially when I realize some of the additions to the page (which I had thought were helping the page, but which these two FA coordinators evidently think is more of a hindrance) are from me.
Are there any sections in specific that anyone here feels *very* strongly need to remainI would hope that at least "Impact and asssessment" sticks around (I grant that a lot of its current text is from me). I consider it a very concise summary of how Smith and his legacy have been received over time, and that's useful in the biography of a figure whose legacy has been as contested as his. Other featured biographies have similar legacy sections, like Andrew Jackson (another ~10,000 word FA). I don't really think excising this and instead having a "Reception of Joseph Smith" page would be all that purposeful, and it might come across as a fork.
Hi, @ Trevdna. Noticing your good work and have a moment. Hope it's alright to say something about first: the deletion of the "Life of Joseph Smith" page; and second: the "Legacy" and "Teachings" pages.
First: You'll almost surely notice this yourself since you probably had the page on your watchlist, but the "Life of Joseph Smith" article was deleted. Is there content there that you think should be un-trimmed? Or how else could it be put to use?
Second: I think the "Legacy of Joseph Smith" page makes a lot of sense. I wonder about the title (alternatively, "Reception of Joseph Smith"? "Perceptions of Joseph Smith"? "Joseph Smith in memory"?), but I think the subject makes sense as something that can stand as an article, given scholarship available on the topic.
Moving content to the "Teachings" page is another move that makes sense, now that I see you do it. When sub-articles were first proposed, I over-thought in thinking they'd be broken down per topic. Now that I'm looking, I realize there's a genre of Wikipedia pages for "teachings of X" that cover various subjects, so this makes sense.
To say it all more briefly: at first impression, I'm supportive of the recent efforts and hope to contribute in ways that are helpful. P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk) 21:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)