Talk:Lester E. Bush Jr.

Notability of Lester E. Bush and "Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview

User:Utopes commented that the references I've provided are "not enough to demonstrate notability." He correctly states that "The first two references are primary sources," but is incorrect when he says that "the second two are passing mentions."

I believe by "second two references" he means (1) the "Juvenile Instructor" piece by G., David and Stephen J. Fleming, and (2) the article by Edward L. Kimball about the "revelation" received by his father, Spencer W. Kimball. It's fair to say that Kimball's article is a "passing mention," but the "Juvenile Instructor" piece is entirely about Lester Bush and his paper on Mormonism's Negro Doctrine. Indeed, the title of "Juvenile Instructor" piece consists of the word "Revisited," followed by the title of Bush's 1973 paper. The fact that they revisited Bush's work 37 years later indicates the importance they accord it, as does the substance of what they say about his work. If you're wondering about the bona fides of the authors of the "Juvenile Instructor" piece, here's the biography of Stephen J. Fleming, a scholar and author in religious studies at Brigham Young University: https://rsc.byu.edu/author/fleming-stephen-j

If you do a Google search for "Lester E. Bush" and "Negro doctrine," you will find numerous citations of his work and numerous attestations of its importance. I added another paragraph to the Wikipedia entry. The paragraph quotes Leonard J. Arrington (who served as official historian of the Mormon church for 15 years and is considered the "dean of Mormon history," describes OD2 as the "most exciting single event of the years I was church historian." And I quote a paper describing Bush's research as the "single most important article on the history of the priesthood ban."

I don't think it would improve the article to pile up additional references attesting to the importance of Bush's work, but here are a few more for your consideration:

The Deseret News (the largest Mormon-affiliated newspaper in Utah) published this piece in which Bush is shown autographing his "landmark 1973 history" after giving the keynote address at a conference on "Black, White and Mormon." https://www.deseret.com/2015/10/9/20574015/positive-developments-for-lds-blacks-weighed-against-troubled-history-by-lester-bush-at-mcmurrin-lec

Here's a program from a recent conference of the Mormon History Association which includes a panel session titled, "A Tribute to Lester Bush on the 50th Anniversary of the Article that Changed the Church." https://mormonhistoryassociation.org/files/MHA-2023-Program.pdf

Newell G. Bringhurst, a prominent Mormon historian, says that Bush's work on the Negro doctrine was "the classic—the first real legitimately scholarly examination of the issue, the path-breaking article that we all, those of us that came after him, owe him a lot for: myself, Armand Mauss, and all those who came after me." https://gospeltangents.com/2018/02/how-lester-bush-debunked-missouri-thesis/

Gregory Prince, another Mormon historian, says that Bush's article "played a pivotal role in the process by which Spencer W. Kimball ultimately received the revelation that one of his predecessors, David O. McKay, had sought, without success, for many years. Only last year we learned from a grandson that President Kimball had underlined and annotated virtually the entire article in his own copy of Dialogue." https://bycommonconsent.com/2010/06/08/the-long-awaited-day/

You'll note that Wikipedia already has entries about Newell Bringhurst, Gregory Prince and Armand Mauss (who co-authored a book with Lester Bush about Mormon scholarship on race). In a Salt Lake Tribune article in which "LDS scholars mourn" the recent death of Armand Mauss, another history professor says, "Along with Lester Bush and Newell Bringhurst, Armand Mauss is one of the pioneers in Mormon racial history." https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/08/04/lds-scholars-mourn-death/

If the work of Armand Mauss and Newell Bringhurst makes them noteworthy enough to merit a Wikipedia entry, so does the work of Lester Bush.

If you think some of these references should be added to the article, let me know.

--Sheldon Rampton (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello. To explain my previous comment, the "second two references" were #3: the Juvenile Instructor reference, and #4: the BYU studies reference.

In lieu of the Juvenile Instructor reference (#3), I was searching for mentions of the subject's name, and there was only one mention of "Lester" (which was at the beginning). To me, the reference seemed like a deep-dive into Lester Bush's work, and was not so much about Lester Bush himself. It felt like it would be a better fit to talk about Bush's work than it would Bush. However, this was likely a mis-interpretation of the reference on my end, as there is significant coverage of Bush here (apart from the rest of the revisitation of Mormonism's Negro Doctrine) as well.

As for the rest of the articles you have suggested here, I would go ahead and add them, if they attest to the notability of the subject (which you say they do, and I concur that these seem to be quality coverage from reliable outlets). The status quo of 6 references is quite small comparatively with other similar articles, especially for a Biography of a Living Person, which Wikipedia gives special scrutiny for. To that end, a few more references from independent sources would definitely go a long way. I do think the article would benefit from these sources, so feel free to add them at your discretion; their existence does help the argument for the subject's notability. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Reorganized

@Sheldon Rampton Hi. I have reorganized the article to group the '73 article content, which is the bulk of the prose, and to make his basic biographical info flow more naturally. This led to some of the statements lacking a citation at the end of the sentence/paragraph. As you already familiar with the sources, and have better access to them, could you please check if "Writing "Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview" (1973): Context and Reflections, 1998" can be used to fully verify those statements (all of which were grouped in the same paragraph). Ultimately if you don't like my change you may revert it, but I believe that it's a better layout at this stage in the article's life. Sincerely —Alalch E. 11:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Alalch E. I like the way you reorganized it. Bush's '73 article is the most notable thing he published, so your changes make it more prominent, which I think is appropriate. One of the unfortunate consequences for him personally was that members of his congregation shunned him after he wrote it to the point that his family eventually stopped attending church. This has been mentioned by a fellow historian, but I wasn't sure it was worth including in the article. I'll review your changes more closely in the next few days and see if I want to make any edits and may incorporate one or two of additional references. Sheldon Rampton (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)