Talk:The Joseph Smith Papers

First Major Revision

This is a major revision of The Joseph Smith Papers and the entry is no longer a stub. Clearly more information and references can be added than what I've done this evening. Much more can be built off this framework. Thank you Matthew R. Lee (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Deseret News is owned by the LDS Church

The Deseret News is not an unbiased source to use for this article. According to Wikipedia, Deseret News is owned by the LDS Church. Is there an alternative source to back up the statement that this project "research is conducted according to the highest scholarly standards"? If not, this statement should be removed. Cafe Nervosa (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're being a little too skeptical. I don't agree that DN is a biased source. It operates at arms length and has more than sufficient publishing autonomy to make it a reliable source. From my observations they have excellent journalistic integrity. Do you have an alternate reliable source that refutes the statement? If not, it should stay until an alternate reliable source can be found. I'm not sure whether their statement is a direct quote, or whether it used a little too much hyperbole, I'll grant that may be the case. If so, might I offer a simple solution, edit the quote to read, "research is conducted according to ... scholarly standards" or indirectly "Church representatives suggest research is conducted according to high scholarly standards" Canadiandy1 (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

That's good. Bounce my criticism right back into my court. You provide your opinion about my skepticism and your high regard for DN. I already proposed a simple solution. Provide an independent source for this statement about scholarly standards. Cafe Nervosa (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I provide a citation for the endorsement from the National Archives.Cafe Nervosa (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• The claims that the Deseret News cannot be used as a source because it is owned by the Church ignore the way the DN is run, as an independent entity. It is much more independent than most of our used sources related to people who hold many government offices.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

NYT mention

Today's NYT, in an article about what it terms "the Mormon studies boom." gvs mention to the fact that "The [LDS] church history department, which manages the archives, has hired increasing numbers of Ph.D.’s and begun publishing a scholarly edition of the Joseph Smith papers...."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Number of Volumes in the Print Edition

Hey, I was interested to know if the actual number of volumes is going to be 20 or 30, because the project says it's going to be 20 in one place, and then projects 30 in another.

Here it says 30:

http://deseretbook.com/Joseph-Smith-Papers-Journals-Vol-1-1832-1839-Dean-C-Jessee/i/4389351

And here it says 20:

http://josephsmithpapers.org/editorialMethod

Which one should we include in the article? Which is right? Sean 0000001 (talk) 06:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The Deseret Book announcement is connected with the release of the first volume, the other citation is more recent. From having looked into this a lot, it appears at some point it was decided that publishing 30 print volumes was too ambitious, and the planned scale was cut back.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment This October 3, 2012 Deseret News article [1] says "an anticipated two dozen or so volumes".John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)