Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Sources

Deseret News

@Epachamo: Church News is already rated separately from Deseret, but we could mention that on its entry. What gives you cause for concern about their Faith section though? That seems to be editorial independent from the Church, just like the rest of Deseret's news coverage. ––FormalDude talk 02:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The concern I have is that you frequently have articles like this one and this one and this one which are considered pseudoscience. That they are in the Faith section rather than the science section is telling. Epachamo (talk) 02:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Epachamo: Those are definetely not the best sources. But they are all by that same author, Daniel Peterson, writing in his "Mormon Times" column. Should it be restricted to just that, or are there other articles in the Faith section that are just as bad? ––FormalDude talk 02:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I do think it is more than just Peterson. I would be fine with, and think we should just link to the broader Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, or mirror what is said in that section exactly. Epachamo (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Well this is intended to be more in-depth and specific to the LDS WikiProject. Wouldn't do much good if it was just a copy of WP:RSP. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

As long as they are not contradictory I would agree with you. Epachamo (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

RSP can be outdated to the point that these pages might contradict slightly. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Contradictory guidance helps nobody. If there is something outdated on RSP it should be changed there. I firmly think that anything controversial related to the LDS Church should not use Deseret News as a secondary source. Epachamo (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I have gradually felt increasingly ill at ease about Deseret News as well, though for what different reasons. It seems to have a worsening political skew that takes it increasingly out of step with newspapers more widely agreed to be reliable. I'd be open to recategorizing Deseret News as Additional Consideration. It has seemed strange for it to have a "better" rating than a journal like BYU Studies even with its attendant considerations. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The reason for the better rating is because BYU Studies is clearly less independent than Deseret News. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

other possible sources to include

I think any source guide for Mormon studies should also include a discussion of when it is appropriate to quote scripture. I try to avoid it and quote a secondary source whenever possible, because it is extremely easy to include original research in the summarizing of a scripture. I use Ten Commandments in Catholic theology as an example of an FA-level article that does directly quote scripture.

I also think we should include the Encyclopedia of Mormonism and the Journal of Discourses. I think the Encyclopedia of Mormonism is fine to show a Mormon viewpoint on subjects, and is factually reliable, but it is not neutral. I would put it on the same level as BYU Studies. I'm honestly not sure what I would say about the Journal of Discourses, except that I know it has a lot of fringe doctrine kind of stuff, which is accurate, but is often used for its shock value without considering the greater theological context for those beliefs (although even with that context, I think there are still some surprising things in there).

I think we should include Dialogue and Sunstone. I don't consider either of these neutral sources necessarily; I associate Dialogue with more academic-style of articles and Sunstone with a more journalistic style. I know that Dialogue has peer review for its articles. I usually try to evaluate articles on a case-by-case basis. There was a special issue of Sunstone on Mormon comics that was incredibly useful for Portrayal of Mormons in comics. Conversely, there was an anonymous article in Sunstone that accused the BYU president of plagiarism (Scott Abbott revealed himself as the author), which at the time I wasn't sure how to use. I decided against citing it because it was an anonymous author. At the same time, the types of rumors circulated in the article seem important to bring attention to (one was that Claudia Bushman was going to speak at BYU but was cancelled, presumably because of her role as co-founder of Exponent II. I was working on the Claudia Bushman page when I found the article). Just maybe not on Wikipedia? I know you said to Be Bold and just add things to the list, but I would like to discuss some of the sources first. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): I think listing scripture would be a good idea too. I went ahead and added Encyclopedia of Mormonism, feel free to edit it. Dialogue seems to be independent and peer-reviewed, so I'd say it's probably reliable. I'm not super familiar with Sunstone, but if you have guidance about it, I'd say go ahead and add it. I'll make sure to review anything you add and I won't move forward with this proposal until we have a good consensus. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia treats journalistic newspapers and magazines as reliable sources, I'd be open to Sunstone being considered a Generally Reliable source, same as the Salt Lake Tribune. I've used Sunstone articles in the past on other pages having to do with Mormon studies/Latter Day Saint subjects.

Anonymous articles seem like they'd be a special case, independent of the periodical itself. I wonder how editors would respond to an anonymously written Atlantic or New York Times article, for instance. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I bet it would fall under WP:BLPGOSSIP for living people. That is, as a general rule, we shouldn't use anonymous sources about living people. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

FairMormon and MormonThink

One source that I've seen come up often, though not much recently, is MormonThink. It's essential a self-published group blog, which has about the same reliability for WP purposes as FairMormon. I think edits trying to use it pop up about once or twice a year so I don't know if that's frequent enough to qualify as "perennial" per se. Another source that I'd like to get others' feedback on is ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com. I've seen it be used a lot by some journalistic sources, for example here, and is maintained by independent demographer (SLTrib's description) Matt Martinich. Given that it is often referenced by newspapers, perhaps it might be a good alternative non-LDS Church citation for membership statistics. Thoughts? --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair and MormonThink should both be added to this list. My two cents are that neither are high quality sources to be used on Wikipedia except to portray a particular viewpoint. I would agree that Matt Martinich's blog is referenced enough to be considered journalistic and should be included as a good alternative. Epachamo (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Epachamo: (or anyone else) What are your thoughts on [cumorah.com the Cumorah Foundation]? It looks like it's a sister project by Matt with some others (he links to it in the blog posts) and might also be a good source for membership and ward/stake statistics. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, Cumorah might be a better source than Matt's blog. I do think that it needs to be understood that the data he uses in his demographic research is the data that the Church itself reports, so it is not an independent tally. His analysis of the statistics are independent though. Epachamo (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Added some items, not sure how to make source search for all of them

I added some items to the list that I think will be helpful for editors, and I also expanded on some of the descriptions. Two of the items I added are publishers rather than periodicals; is that appropriate for the list? I figure university presses are well known enough, but some editors newer to Mormon studies might be less familiar with other presses that do scholarly work. Open to hearing others' thoughts about how I categorized them.

I also don't know how to create the chain-shaped source-search link for all of these. I tried for some; sorry if I messed up anywhere.

I added the following (with the reliability symbol I initially categorized it with adjacent):

• Association for Mormon Letters (for its blog Dawning of a Brighter Day and its literary journal Irreantum)
• Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought
• Latter-day Saint Historical Studies
• FARMS Review
• Greg Kofford Books
• John Whitmer Historical Association
• Mormon Studies Review
• Signature Books
• Utah Historical Quarterly

Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@P-Makoto: I see that you didn't link any prior discussions for any of these. If none of them have been discussed, we need to do so here or at WP:RSN before they are added to this list. In the meantime I think they should be removed. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to discussing these, hence bringing it up on this talk page. I guess you now know my thoughts about the sources.

Is deleting the items necessary? I thought the statement "other good sources do exist, so please help to expand this list" was an invitation to help with a resource "intended to help in sourcing Latter Day Saint movement articles on Wikipedia". Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits)) 03:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@P-Makoto: If there's an existing consensus on the sources, it's okay to add it without discussing. Otherwise we need to discuss it. I can see how that wording is confusing and I've updated it accordingly. It's important for this list to only display sources that have been vetted by the community or at least the project, so yes, deleting the items is necessary. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

What did you want to discuss about the sources, FormalDude? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): Their reliability and independence and how that correlates to the rating we assign them. I think each source should have its own thread for easy linking to discussions too. Preferably whenever someone proposes a new source to add to this list, they will explain their assessment of the source's reliability and independence. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Query

@Epachamo Just a quick question about the recent edit. I thought FARMS was founded by lay Latter-day Saints? That doesn't make their publication a reliable source, obviously—one need only look at read enough of their articles to see—and I already categorized them as not. But I thought independence on this list was being determined by institutional affiliation? The LDS Church itself didn't found FARMS, did it? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

You can read about it here but in 2001 it became an official organ of BYU. Also, I don't know of any major contributor or board of directors who is not on the payroll of the LDS Church in some way. I also think they should be moved from yellow to red (generally unreliable). Epachamo (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah that's right, it was rolled into BYU. FARMS sort of evaporated as an institution after that, so I didn't think about that.

I strongly hesitate to bring individuals' livelihoods into the conversation. That could become invasive. Considering the livelihood of authors brings up the possibility of scrutinizing the authors themselves, and that's digging into their individual lives instead of the content of their writing and the editorial standards of their venues.

I'm a little out at sea on the matter, but if other editors also agree it's warranted, I'm open to adjusting the FARMS Review's categorization. Parsing between articles probably isn't feasible on a list like this. And it's probably the case that most FARMS articles cited on Wikipedia are for attempting to warrant claims to ancient Book of Mormon historicity, not for book reviews verifying different Book of Mormon editions. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you except when they are public figures. Most of the board of directors and contributors of FARMS are/were public figures. For example, John W. Welch, the creator of FARMS was and is a BYU professor as were most of the main contributors. Nothing wrong with this, but I don't think it can be said that FARMS was independent even before 2001. Epachamo (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

"Public figure" has a ring of reasonableness, but I still find it a slippery slope. We're talking professors and article writers, not presidents and celebrities. And since scrutinizing authors' livelihoods seems unnecessary for our purposes—we don't need to know whether or not an author meets some standard of independence to know that, for instance, an article alleging Mesoamerican concurrences with the Book of Mormon is not WP:RS—I remain strongly hesitant. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

If they have a Wikipedia page about them, and their employer is notable enough to go in their page, then I don't think we are breaching any privacy. WP:IIS states: "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication). Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic." It seems to be pretty clear that knowledge of an author's conflicts of interest is incredibly relevant, and that employer in particular is something that can help determine that. Epachamo (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I continue to disagree. Even whether or not there is a Wikipedia page does not seem to me a dependable standard. After all, how many academic biography Wikipedia pages are out there that have been built from university profiles and CVs?

I am not sure the reading you imply from that quotation is the best reading of it, but even if it is, I would add that the page you linked is an explanatory essay, per the box at the top, and "is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." I am also surprised by the suggested interpretation of independence; I don't see how absolute financial independence is a plausible standard for writers in general in a world where people write as part of a job working for a newspaper, or might expect a royalty on a book, or have applied for fellowships or postdocs, or have a job at a university, etc. Would it really be right to say, for example, that because Kristin Kobes Du Mez works for Calvin University, she can't be trusted to write an independent and reliable source about the history of American evangelicalism? Allowing reputed journals, university presses, and other respected presses (and periodicals where fitting) to make this judgment in their peer reviews and editor reviews seems more appropriate than us as Wikipedia editors trying to scrutinize authors' personal lives.

I'll be honest, the more I hear about this, the more ethically uncomfortable I feel. I'm not about to start digging into the personal lives of living people—maybe not even some dead people—even ones with just a couple paragraphs on Wikipedia, when the publication venues and published writing is there to be analyzed and engaged with instead (and I'd argue that looking at the institutions and publications is a more useful way to get at independence and reliability anyway). If your approach is normal for Wikipedia, I feel very troubled about this website's culture and attitude. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

We're not digging into people's personal lives. An article based on a university profile or CV should be immediately deleted as not notable so that is a moot point. Kristin Kobes Du Mez is not independent of Calvin University. We can still use sources that are dependent, they just can't be used to establish notability. For controversial topics they should should only be used to present a specific viewpoint and it should be explicitly stated in the article where that viewpoint is coming from. Epachamo (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

On the overall concept, seems we're at an impasse and will just have to cordially disagree. Since we're reacting so differently to ostensibly the same idea, I wonder if maybe I've misunderstood you, and if I have, I'm sorry. I'll leave it out there that my thoughts on this haven't changed, and my impression is yours haven't either. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

If we have a disagreement that will impact how we edit pages, we should always default to Wikipedia policy. If there is a disagreement on interpretation of policy, then we should seek clarification or change from the larger community. Is there a specific example where you feel I'm in error? I feel like we've been on the same page outside of this hypothetical scenario. Epachamo (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

We have been talking largely in hypotheticals, but one specific example would be the hypothetical we just discussed, Du Mez as a historian of evangelicalism. You said no, things written by Du Mez are not independent sources and "should only be used to present a specific viewpoint", on the basis of her employment at Calvin University.

My view is that we can better understand independence and reliability by looking at the texts themselves and their publication contexts. Du Mez's book Jesus and John Wayne was published in 2020 (so it's recent) by Liveright, an imprint of W. W. Norton, a mainstream press with a strong reputation for printing quality academic work and having an appropriate process. The book has received a positive reception in the academy from historians of gender and Christianity and from religious studies scholars. Norton/Liveright is not funded by evangelical organizations, and it retains editorial control, so it made the decision that the history of evangelicalism and toxic masculinity is notable enough and of sufficient interest to the public for them to print a book about it.

This is based on my interpretation of reading WP:Reliable sources, the content guideline page, which raises concerns about independence when a source "lack[s] independent editorial oversight and peer review", as in an industry-sponsored edition of a journal. Independent editorial oversight and peer review—qualities of the publisher—lend independence to a source.

Thinking otherwise—thinking in terms of individual authors instead of publication processes—seems unproductive. To use an example, in 2011, Oxford University Press published Parley P. Pratt: The Apostle Paul of Mormonism. I would look at that and say this is a relatively recent book; it's a publisher with a strong reputation for a quality review process; this press has editorial independence from denominations. This is an independent, reliable source.

My concern is that by your reasoning, one would instead zoom in on the human authors and say oh no, this was co-written by Matthew Grow, and Grow works for the Church History Department of the LDS Church. Is it really useful to say that everything Oxford University Press did to vet the book, to review the book, that all of its independence, all of its ability to say yes or no to a manuscript, all of its opportunity to turn down something that didn't meet scholarly standards, somehow all of that is not enough to make this book an independent source? Don't cite Matthew Grow's personal blog; that makes sense to me. Casting a cloud over anything written by him, no matter the press, as you've suggested with Du Mez? That does not make sense to me.

As for privacy, you're right that pages without reliable, independent sources establishing notability don't belong on Wikipedia. But I can't help but worry. Would editors see such a wiki page, delete it, and then ignore whatever they had learned in it? Or would they continue to use that information to assess a source as dependent, as unreliable, regardless of how privately the author normally keeps their livelihood? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

What I said, "Kristin Kobes Du Mez is not independent of Calvin University." Du Mez would not be independent source for an article on Calvin University regardless of where she published. Virtually every scientific paper or quality book has information on the author. This is not PII, or credit card info. Something published by Oxford University Press by Matthew Grow does much to lend credibility to a source, and I'd probably be ok with virtually all of that source. Source reliability is obviously a tricky thing, with many factors to take into account. I'm not arguing that authors should be blackballed based on their employer, but it should be a factor. Epachamo (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm a little confused now. I brought up Du Mez to speak by way of analogy about John Welch and FARMS Review. I thought you were saying that because John Welch worked for BYU while running the FARMS Review, the Review isn't independent of or reliable for Latter Day Saint movement subjects. But did you mean that the Review wouldn't be independent of or reliable for pages specifically about BYU? The same way that works by Du Mez can be reliable for evangelicalism while she works for a university run by a major evangelical denomination, but not considered independent and reliable for Calvin University itself?

I'm not saying that if FARMS Review is independent, therefore it's reliable; one need only look at when the results wildly diverge from the consensus to conclude its unreliability. I had thought though that you were saying instead that the Review was not reliable for Latter Day Saint movement subjects because its editor worked for BYU; and that's why I made the comparison to Du Mez, to try to explain why that didn't feel in principle like as good a measure as attending to the publisher and what its results are. (and it's only a comparison in principle; for transparency, I do think Du Mez's work is miles more reliable) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Assessment: Association for Mormon Letters

I see this source has been added as independent and generally reliable. However, the AML states that their content is "by, for, and about Mormons" which suggests it is not independent. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The AML is independent of denominations; it's not paid for or run by the LDS Church or any other Latter Day Saint denomination. Its stated aim is to "foster scholarly and creative work in Mormon letters" (as in literature). The "by, for, and about Mormons" has to do with how they define "Mormon literature". They seem comparable to organizations like the Historical Novel Society (and its Historical Novels Review periodical), Science Fiction Writers of America, and Jewish Book Council, groups that are about specific genres of and audiences for literature. While occasionally authors are allowed to write guest posts posts on Dawning of a Brighter Day, most of the content is book reviews that are overseen by editors and is independent of the authors and texts they are writing about. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the AML is an independent organization. They will be biased towards the promotion of Mormon literature, since that is their purpose :-). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Note that Rachel Helps (BYU) has a disqualifying COI, their opinion is to be disregarded and should not have been offered in this context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

No, she does not have a disqualifying COI. She is a Wikipedian in residence with a noted reputation for neutrality and balance. Take it to WP:COI/N is you have examples where her WiR COI may have negatively influenced her edits. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

She is a board member of the Association for Mormon Letters, that is separate from her residency. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended discussion of adherence to WP:COI. Further concerns should be taken up at Rachel Helps (BYU)'s talk page or at WP:COI/N.

All she did in this discussion was say the AML is independent of denominations (which I'd already stated anyway), and she agreed it is biased toward the promotion of Mormon literature (which was also something acknowledged in the comparison to SFWA and JBC). Her COI disclosure statements for both the library and the AML board are available on her user page for us to see, and I don't think anything untoward has been done here, certainly nothing to outweigh an existing reputation for balanced contributions to Wikipedia. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC) COI does not mean she cannot participate in talk page discussions. This is actually encouraged for editors with potential COI. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC) It does mean that she can not contribute to a discussion about AML's reliability without at least acknowledging the COI. You do now acknowledge that the COI here is unrelated to their residency, correct? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Yes, her COI as a board member is outside her WiR. Since she acknowledges the COI on her userpage (option 3 under WP:DCOI), she has satisfied WP policy for participating in this discussion. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Unless someone went to her user page how would they know that she was a board member? There's no way to know that from her statement, she appears to be an uninvolved party just offering her opinion. That's a problem. Also note that DCOI is only satisfied when the notification is made "If you become involved in an article where you have any COI, you should always let other editors know about it, whenever and wherever you discuss the topic. " and the edit summary here made no mention of the COI. The COI has to be disclosed each and every time it comes up, it can't just be disclosed once and that's it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC) No it doesn't. Her user page is one of the acceptable venues where editors can declare COI. She has done this. You are inventing restrictions beyond what WP policy requires, bordering on harassment. Stop it. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC) "whenever and wherever" means that a COI disclosure had to be made on this page on November 15. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC) DCOI states the following: " you should always let other editors know about it, whenever and wherever you discuss the topic. There are three venues to do this." (emphasis added) One of the three venues is to "make a statement in the edit summary of any COI contribution", as you suggested. But the third of the offered venues is "If you want to note the COI on your user page, you can use the {{UserboxCOI}} template" (emphasis added). Noting the COI on a user page is, according to DCOI, one of the ways to "always let other editors know about it". Helps therefore has disclosed COI in accordance with DCOI. We've discussed your concern, Horse Eye's Back, but you're pushing this a lot farther than really seems necessary. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Yes, "whenever and wherever" not "just once on your userpage and then never again" Its a process which must occur each and every time that the person with the COI interacts with the topic. If the discussion is on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement then there has to be a COI disclosure made on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC) As FyzixFighter stated, you are reading DCOI as more restrictive than it actually is. "There are three venues" for "let[ting] other editors know about" COI. That is what DCOI plainly states. The user has fulfilled that in good faith and it's evidently been effective, since all three of us are aware that she made this disclosure. Please stop. I agree with FyzixFighter that this is becoming harassment of a user. "Wikipedia's policy against harassment... takes precedence over this guideline". Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Agreed (after EC) - this is going beyond what DCOI says - the declaration on her userpage existed on (and prior to) November 15, therefore DCOI is satisfied per option 3 for acceptable venue. She has met DCOI. Take it up on WP:COI/N if you have an issue with it, but this sub-discussion is pretty much done. I would recommend someone close and collapse this side discussion. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC) No disclosure has been made on this page, DCOI has not been satisfied. "whenever and wherever" is consensus, if it wasn't then it wouldn't literally be the opening line of COI. A disclosure on a userpage does not free up someone with a COI from disclosing it "wherever" it comes up besides their userpage (the specific wherever in this context being Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Sources). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC) I second FyzixFighter's suggestion to close and collapse the discussion. (I um, don't know how to do that sort of Wikistuff, sorry). Horse Eye's Back, as FyzixFighter and I have pointed out multiple times now, DCOI states "There are three venues" to "let other editors know about [COI], whenever and wherever you discuss the topic". The user page is one of those venues. It is consensus that "your user page" is a way to "let other editors know about it, whenever and wherever you discuss the topic". If it wasn't consensus, it wouldn't literally be in the DCOI section of the page. FyzixFighter and I have sufficiently responded and sufficiently warned you. Please do not harass users. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Journal of Discourses

@FormalDude To answer your question in the edit summary, I did deliberately add that reference note. It's the source for the quotation included in the explanation about Journal of Discourses. I thought it'd be useful to source that, since I'm not sure how well-known are Watt's major revisions of the JoD's alleged transcriptions, and the claim felt like it was of a different tenor than those made on other sources. For most of the descriptions of common sources, other editors could familiarize themselves, say by reading a bunch of articles from the Mormon Studies Review, and either agree with the assessment or give reasons for a change. Reliability is theoretically a judgment we can all individually make. But to say that the JoD does not actually accurately transcribe speeches and therefore isn't an accurate source of quotations is not very self-evident, and I only know it by the specialist knowledge from the source.

If it's not appropriate to include a reference note or quotation in the table, is there a different way to convey this information? Or should I remove the quote entirely? I worry that might make that particular information vulnerable to time, since it's not a sure thing if reviewers will remember or pass along that info about the JoD. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

History of the Church by BH Roberts

How do we feel about this as a source? I think I would prefer a more modern source, but I admittedly have not made a special study of it. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Definitely not independent, but probably reliable for uncontroversial content. It has been criticized for having pro-LDS bias but otherwise seems to be considered mostly accurate. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I was helping to prepare a manuscript for publication and noticed that the Journal of Mormon History style guide says "With few exceptions, scholars should use the Joseph Smith Papers (published volumes or website), rather than the History of the Church." I know that we have different standards than a scholarly journal, but I think this warrants further discussion. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Short version: History of the Church is a compilation of primary source, not a secondary source, and the primary sources it contains are moreover ones that have been altered with an inconsistent methodology. I think that while readers can learn much from reading the History, as Wikipedians we should strongly prefer secondary sources and more current secondary sources. For cases in which a primary source is warranted, for early Latter Day Saint movement history the Joseph Smith Papers should be consulted instead.

Expanded version: Rachel Helps is right to raise this question. If we are talking about B. H. Roberts's History of the Church published from 1909 to 1912, it is more properly understood as a compilation of primary sources written by Joseph Smith and others; it is not a secondary source. Early portions of the History resemble a memoir (as in Smith's first-person reminiscences of his early years). As Wikipedia seeks to achieve its encyclopedic purposes by summarizing the consensus of reliable secondary sources, History of the Church should not be used as a major reference.

Even for those cases in which citing a primary source is appropriate (such as for quotations or confirming minor details not quite of interest to secondary source authors), History of the Church is still poorly suited to Wikipedia's interest in reliability and verifiability. While Smith is the author of portions of History of the Church, other portions are actually transposed from the diaries of other people who were present with Smith. For circumstances in which Smith provides no first-person account, the compilers revised the primary sources so they would seem to be from Smith's perspective. When Roberts assembled the volumes, he also sometimes excised portions of documents he thought would be embarrassing. As such, these are not only primary sources; they are altered primary sources. There are precedents in nineteenth-to-early-twentieth-century record-keeping that make this practice understandable then, but it means the History is problematic to use in the present. For those occasions when citing a primary source is appropriate and called for, The Joseph Smith Papers transcribes and compiles the same and many more primary sources with much more accuracy and much more productive editorial contextualization, and it is a project endorsed by the National Historical Publications and Records Commission of the US National Archives.

(The History of the Church is sometimes confused with B. H. Roberts's similarly-titled Comprehensive History, published in 1930 as a reprint of an article series he wrote for Americana, the American Historical Society's magazine at the time. That series is a secondary source, as Roberts wrote it in the mode of a historian. Since it's not the main question here, I won't go into detail, but I would also hesitate to use it as a reference on Wikipedia. It was an important and monumental achievement in the field of Mormon history, but more recent scholarship is both more accessible and more representative contemporary interpretations, frameworks, and consensus.)

References

My statements about the History of the Church's qualities as a primary source are based on Dean C. Jessee, "The Reliability of Joseph Smith's History", Journal of Mormon History 3 (1976): 23–46, esp. 37–44.For more about the inconsistent methodology for revising documents published in the History, also see Dan Vogel, "General Introduction", History of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: A Source- and Text-Critical Edition, vol. 1 (Smith–Pettit Foundation, 2015), ix–xxiv, esp. xxii–xxiv (capitalization original to the publication).

For the Joseph Smith Paper's endorsement by the NHPRC, see Annotation 32, no. 2 (June 2004): 16; Amy Choate, "Joseph Smith Research Gets Top Endorsement", Deseret News, August 12, 2004.

For the Comprehensive History, see Ronald W. Walker, David J. Whittaker, and James B. Allen, chapter 2, Mormon History (University of Illinois Press, 2001). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

No Man Knows My History (Brodie)

I'm curious why this is "deprecated". Does anybody have links to the discussion? Brodie's work is probably the most groundbreaking biography of Smith ever written. Yes it's old and she got some things wrong, but if that's enough to be deprecated, why are we considering giving B.H. Roberts a green light above? I remember seeing Brodie cited everywhere, including by Bushman. She set the standard that other biographies are measured against.

At the end of his 2008 book Mormonism: a Very Short Introduction, Bushman gives a helpful list of books for "Further reading" on various topics. For the topic "Joseph Smith" he lists just 3 books: Brodie No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith the Mormon Prophet, Bushman Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, and Vogel Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet. ~Awilley (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Courtesy pings: @John Foxe: @Rachel Helps (BYU): @FormalDude:

This was added by @P-Makoto and they said this at the time:

I would like to suggest including the books No Man Knows My History and Under the Banner of Heaven on the list, which I have seen in citations all over Latter Day Saint topics. The former I would argue can be Deprecated or Generally Unreliable due to its age (published in 1945) and the way scholarly consensus on Latter Day Saint history has reversed many of Fawn Brodie's central claims (e.g. No Man Knows took Joseph Smith to be irreligious; today, virtually every scholar with subject-area expertise on Smith and Latter Day Saint history considers Smith to have been sincerely religious).

––FormalDude (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps this can be resolved with editing. I've made a bold edit here that changes the designation to "Additional considerations" and states:

Originally published in 1945, Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows My History was groundbreaking in its time and reigned for 60 years as the premier biography of Joseph Smith. However scholars have since moved away from many of Brodie's historical interpretations (such as the assumption that Smith was fundamentally irreligious) and the book contains factual inaccuracies and guesses that have been disproved in later works. When using Brodie as a source, editors should defer to modern works like Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling in the case of contradictions. Any speculation about Smith's inner thoughts or motivations should be directly attributed to Brodie.

This is, I think, basically how we have been using the book for most of the time I've been on Wikipedia. ~Awilley (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I would be more supportive of a "Generally Unreliable" categorization (rather than Deprecated, which in retrospect seems too strong). I have made a bold edit toward that end. I would also hope for, whatever the consensus categorization, more neutral descriptive language.

No Man Knows is indisputably historiographically significant, but I think the approach and conclusions are too outdated to be reliable for Wikipedia use. Scholars will likely keep reading all of them in order to think about different methodologies, but since this list is meant to be a guide to Wikipedia editors with varying skill levels and backgrounds, and for Wikipedia use where we don't have the benefit of doing original research to tweak the conclusions of scholars going before us, I think encouraging the use of more current research is wise. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

No Man Knows simply does not meet the description of what is "Generally unreliable" which is that "Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content". Brodie's work is not "questionable in most cases", and she got most of the facts right. The book better fits our description of "generally reliable" than "generally unreliable".

I'm quite comfortable with trusting Wikipedians to compare and weigh different and sometimes conflicting sources and craft an article that gives due weight to the best of them. That's what we do all the time. I'm much less comfortable trusting individual Wikipedians to declare well-known and respected scholarly works to be "generally unreliable" or "deprecated". What qualifications do we have to do that? That's something where we should follow how other scholars in a field treat a work. Is it still cited? Does it still show up in bibliographies? In Brodie's case, the answer is yes as far as I can see. Above I provided a 2008 citation to none other than Richard Bushman basically saying that No Man Knows is in the top 3 books recommended to anybody wanting to learn about Joseph Smith. What qualifications do we random Wikipedians have to contradict the most respected living scholarly authority on Smith? ~Awilley (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Awilley. I'd want to see some strong sources that provide evidence of the book being unreliable before we make that determination. And that seems unlikely to exist given what Bushman has said about the topic. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

My ambivalence about the book is not my own but is based on other historians' assessments, some that were contemporaneous and some that are retrospective. Here are a few excerpts and the articles that I have read:

"Despite the evidence of prodigious research, despite the charming imagery of its style and its stirring chronicle of an enigmatic career, the book has two methodological weaknesses… not only has little patience with the pretensions of Mormonism, but little appreciation of religious phenomena generally… concerned, or at least it would seem, with painting a pen portrait rather than with writing a work of history. The work reads as though she began by studying the historical background sufficiently to formulate what she regarded as a reasonable and believable approach to Joseph Smith and then proceeded to mobilize the evidence to illustrate and support her interpretation… colorful adjectives and sometimes damning inferences imply a finality of judgment that is not warranted by the contradictory character of the evidence she examined." In Leonard J. Arrington, "Scholarly Studies of Mormonism in the Twentieth Century", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 1, no. 1 (Spring 1966): 25.

"That Brodie's work has gone so long without effective challenge or criticism is peculiar. [This statement was written in the 1970s.] During the quarter century since her book appeared the factual, 'scientific', external sort of history that characterized the Progressive period, and her book to a considerable extent, has been discarded. In its wake has come the rise of American intellectual and religious history, including the revitalization of social history through use of demographical and other methodological techniques". In Marvin S. Hill, "Secular or Sectarian History? A Critique of No Man Knows My History", Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture 43, no. 1 (March 1974): 79.

"Despite its strengths, No Man Knows My History seems particularly deficient and deserving of critical reevaluation in two aspects. One of these was noticed in 1946 by Ralph Gabriel of Yale, who observed that Brodie's work was largely external in its treatment of Smith and that it 'may be called appropriately secular history.' When it is recalled that Mormonism was a religious movement and Smith a religious leader this is no small deficiency. The other aspect is its sectarian tendencies—Brodie's inclination to dwell upon the truth or untruth of the prophet's claims and to evaluate his career from a highly moralistic perspective. This results in her bringing to her assessment of Smith some overly simple and rather inflexible standards by which to judge him." In Hill, "Secular or Sectarian", 80.

"During a graduate seminar at Yale early in 1974, I was asked to recommend a biography of Mormonism's founding prophet, Joseph Smith Jr. (1805–44). I replied: 'There has only been one scholarly biography in the past thirty years, but I don't like recommending it, because Fawn M. Brodie's 1945 No Man Knows My History is deeply flawed in its research, in its unrelenting distaste for Joseph Smith, and in its interpretive framework. But she demonstrated his complex personality, identified crucial issues, asked significant questions, gave previously unavailable information, and wrote with stellar prose.' …Of course, every student in the seminar read Brodie to learn about pre-Utah Mormonism. Although unfortunate, this was inevitable for non-LDS scholars and general readers." In D. Michael Quinn, "Biographers and the Mormon 'Prophet Puzzle': 1974 to 2004", Journal of Mormon History 32, no. 2 (Summer 2006): 226.

"For twenty-five years, [Donna] Hill's book [Joseph Smith: The First Mormon, published by Doubleday in 1977] was my only recommendation to anyone interested in Smith's sojourn from birth to death." In Quinn, "Mormon 'Prophet Puzzle'", 227. (The "25 years" time span is because 2002 was the publication year of Robert Remini's Joseph Smith for the Penguin Lives series which Quinn also regarded positively; see page 241.)

Bushman's assessment of No Man Knows is not necessarily universal, and this is across a range of time and publications. For example, D. Michael Quinn (also an eminent and significant historian, I hope we might agree) was much more explicit about concerns and preferred to recommend other books.

I don't mean to understate Fawn Brodie's accomplishment. Even from Quinn's perspective, from 1945 to 1977 No Man Knows was the only book to recommend, not because it was the only one but because it was the only one that met standards of scholarship, in spite of what other historians recognized, looking back, as flaws. To write Mormon history in the midcentury was no easy task given the less convenient access to archival material and the controversy surrounding, and Brodie was an important historian, not just of Mormonism but of U. S. history as well. Still, as right as the assemblage of facts may be, for dates and events and words and places and so forth, the overarching framework and perspective they're woven into is the point of difficulty. As Quinn puts, the trouble is not the questions asked or information given (well, some of it apparently is the "deeply flawed research", but anyway); his criticism was of the book's "interpretive framework", the shape it places those facts in. As such, even info that in a narrow sense is not inaccurate can be difficult to apply because of the way it's cast in that framework, which could and seems like it would carry over into an editor's work on a page, since as editors we try not to interpret subjects for ourselves but to summarize what authors say about said subjects (at least, I was under such an impression).

Re:@Awilley: "I'm quite comfortable with trusting Wikipedians to compare and weigh different and sometimes conflicting sources and craft an article that gives due weight to the best of them. That's what we do all the time. I'm much less comfortable trusting individual Wikipedians to declare well-known and respected scholarly works to be 'generally unreliable' or 'deprecated'. What qualifications do we have to do that?"

I'm sorry you have the impression I made this an individual enterprise. I thought that our discussion and BRD was part of our collective effort to move toward a consensus. You draw a line between the work done on pages and the work done on this list, but they seem to operate by the same principles. While being individuals, we contribute to a public document. Whatever flaws beset our process here also beset the process of every Wikipedia page. If any given edit on this project page is the work of an individual Wikipedian of unclear credentials, so is any given edit on any page. I'm sorry for the way my boldness apparently went too far. I only meant to be honest and to contribute. You're right that when negatively assessing scholarship published through reputable channels we should be very careful. In light of that, I have been insufficiently clear about the sources informing my contributions, and I hope the above helps clear up the grounds of the expressed concerns.

I don't mean to claim any better qualifications than another editor; only that I've read the articles that I've mentioned I've read. Perhaps you have your reasons to assess No Man Knows differently than the article writers did, or to assess the articles differently, or to have a different reaction to the articles despite the same assessment. Maybe you think I should read less into Quinn's objections in his review essay and more into Bushman's inclusion of the title in his bibliography.

I have previously tried to change the rating, thinking (as I mentioned before) that "Deprecated" was putting it in too strong of terms, but my edit was reverted then, so I supposed that there was a consensus around it I should let be. I realize now I was evidently mistaken. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for that list! I think you and I are mostly on the same page about Brodie's book. When working on Wikipedia, I also try to take the POV of the best sources and write as if it were my own. So Quinn's reviews do carry a lot of weight for me. I think the telling thing for me in the reviews you posted above is that nearly all of them are double-edged. Each is a mix of praise and criticism. Bushman too wasn't uniformly praising Brody...I'm sure if you searched you could find paragraphs from him criticizing the work. He was more aware of its deficiencies than most, and I suspect he hoped that his Rough Stone Rolling would make it obsolete. Ultimately this mix of praise and criticism, in my opinion, makes a better case for a rating of "No consensus" or "Additional considerations" rather than a "Generally unreliable" or a "Generally reliable" rating. None of the criticisms come anywhere close to saying that Brodie is generally unreliable.

You do have a good point about Brodie's "interpretive framework" being problematic. I do think she comes down too hard on Smith (though that pales in comparison with how she treats the anti-Mormons in Missouri and Illinois, and rightly so). But similar criticisms could be made of most sources. In political articles, we frequently deal with news sources that are obviously "left-leaning" and "right-leaning". These sources arrange facts into their own "interpretative framework" that tends to advance their world view; but because they generally get the facts right, we still rate the sources as "generally reliable". We do the similarly here with The Encyclopedia of Mormonism which we rate as "Generally reliable" even though it is clearly written in an LDS (the church is true) framework that most scholars will never accept. B.H. Roberts's book (discussed briefly above) is another example of a book written from a "believing" framework but that generally gets the major facts right.

I've read Remini's 2002 book. It's pretty good, though very short and lacking the depth I was looking for. Remini used his own interesting framework when dealing with Joseph Smith's visions and revelations. Instead of treating the revelations as fabrications or inventions, he chose to simply present the religious experiences as Smith had in his own writings, as if they had actually happened, and then let readers decide for themselves whether to believe them or not. Such an approach definitely has its merits, though it certainly wouldn't fly here on Wikipedia where we have to carefully couch everything in terms of what Smith "claimed" or "said" or "wrote". Remini also recommends Brodie's "critical" biography in his bibliography (after Hill's 1977 book) saying No Man Knows "includes a great deal of useful information and documentation not found elsewhere". (Page 188)

I understand your concern that Brodie's critical framework will unwittingly be carried over by editors. That is a valid concern. But I think that in practice, a majority of the editors who put serious work into articles about Joseph Smith will have some kind of LDS background, and their own personal framework will be heavily influenced by what they learned in primary, Sunday school, and seminary. Intellectually they realize that most of the world doesn't agree with their perspective and personal beliefs, but many beginning editors may not have serious first-hand exposure to critical academic sources. I think that having exposure to something like Brodie and grappling with the rigorous, coherent, and yes critical way she deals with Smith, will improve their writing. You don't need to agree with Brodie or cite her or reproduce her conclusions, but it's healthy to know her point of view exists and to keep it in the back of your mind when you're writing. That's been my experience anyway. ~Awilley (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The conclusion of this discussion seems to be that it is generally reliable with a caveat for age as all older sources have. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

That does not seem to be the conclusion of this discussion. As @Awilley wrote, "Ultimately this mix of praise and criticism, in my opinion, makes a better case for a rating of 'No consensus' or 'Additional considerations' rather than a 'Generally unreliable' or a 'Generally reliable' rating."

The conclusion therefore would seem to be either "No consensus" or "Additional considerations". That's literally what the foregoing user wrote.

To be transparent, I remain uneasy about that. Descriptions by historians such as the "sort of history that characterized the... book to a considerable extent, has been discarded" (emphasis added), "I don't like recommending it" because "it is deeply flawed" seem to be a lot more serious than a "mix of praise and criticism". Reading the whole of Hill's and Quinn's review essays don't leave me thinking "this is a book with a lot of good and some bad" but more like "this is a book that was important in its time and was a real accomplishment but is not a reliable history for the subject now that the field has a different perspective".

Still I grant that I'm just one editor. And between myself and Awilley we definitely, at a minimum have "No consensus". With more editors weighing in perhaps a different rating would be clearly suitable. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't count votes we look at arguments. On the language I actually like "Editors should defer to more recent sources." on the end, I think that covers the questions of age well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I am uneasy with how we got to the current state of the project page. The current state is the result of Horse Eye's Back pushing an inaccurate categorization ("Generally Reliable") despite ongoing discussion. Horse Eye's Back made the edit, the edit was reverted because discussion was ongoing, and then Horse Eye's Back made that same edit (to "Generally Reliable") a second time. Only afterward was the page set to its current state, "Additional Considerations".

That double-edit does not seem like consensus. That seems more like pressing the acceptance of "Additional Considerations", despite ongoing discussion, on threat of the category instead being rendered as "Generally Reliable".

"Additional considerations" would have been more appropriate than "Generally reliable", given Awilley's post. Yet I still would have appreciated getting to talk further about some concerns (described two posts above and repeated at the end of this post) and how we read Hill's and Quinn's criticisms.

We didn't get to have that conversation because an inappropriate edit was pushed through, even if temporarily. Perhaps that was an accident on Horse Eye's Back's part and they meant all along to make the edit to "Additional Considerations". It is difficult however to escape the impression given by the double-edit to "Generally Reliable", an edit that did not reflect the discussion as it stood at the time. It does not seem right for the state of the page to be the product of editing pushed through, inadvertent or otherwise.

From my earlier post:

To be transparent, I remain uneasy about that [categorizing No Man Knows under "Additional Considerations"]. Descriptions by historians such as the "sort of history that characterized the... book to a considerable extent, has been discarded" (emphasis added), "I [D. Michael Quinn] don't like recommending it" because "it is deeply flawed" seem to be a lot more serious than a "mix of praise and criticism". Reading the whole of Hill's and Quinn's review essays [doesn't]* leave me thinking "this is a book with a lot of good and some bad" but more like "this is a book that was important in its time and was a real accomplishment but is not a reliable history for the subject now that the field has a different perspective".

*corrected tense from original Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, edit warring to a particular version is never helpful. That's why I left the "Generally unreliable" version up while the discussion was ongoing even though I believe that is the WP:WRONG version. But even though it feels wrong, it doesn't really matter what version is live while we discuss this because when the discussion is over we can update the page to whatever is the outcome of the discussion. If it makes you feel better I can change the page back to the WP:WRONG "generally unreliable" version, but I don't think that would actually help resolve anything here.

About Quinn's criticisms having an element of praise, I was just going off the what you quoted above: that Brodie "demonstrated his [Smith's] complex personality, identified crucial issues, asked significant questions, gave previously unavailable information, and wrote with stellar prose." That's praise.

For Hill, the first words of your quote are "Despite its strengths" which indicates a mix of praise and criticism. The first paragraph of that review provides another confirmation of the mix of praise and criticism ("The book has indeed been highly praised and highly condemned.")

For what it's worth, when this discussion started I pulled out my own copy of No Man Knows and opened it randomly to somewhere in the middle (bank failure in Kirkland). Over the last few days I've been reading it in my spare time, and I got to the end yesterday. I noticed the shortcomings and errors we've discussed, but overall the book remains reliable for basic facts. ~Awilley (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the reviews do in a literal sense contain a mix of praise and criticism; I wrote that the descriptions "seem to be a lot more serious" which I realize is not very clear on my part. What I mean is that while there is both praise and criticism, the criticism seems to significantly outweigh the praise. Hill compliments the accomplishment of No Man Knows on the first couple pages, but the rest of the essay is primarily critical, and he states that the style of and approach to history which No Man Knows was written with has been "discarded". Quinn recognizes what No Man Knows did well, but he nevertheless called it "deeply flawed" and stopped recommending the book as soon as a different scholarly biography was available. And Arrington does compliment the "prodigious research", but that seems like faint praise compared to his description of the book as a "pen portrait rather than... a work of history".

There is criticism and praise mixed together in these reviews, but this does not strike me as an even mix. According to these historians, the book has strengths, but its paradigm was "discarded"; it "identified crucial issues" but was "deeply flawed". As much as I respect the important role No Man Knows has in the historiography, for these historians criticism seems to outweigh praise, the flaws of the framework outweighing the benefits of accurate facts. So to call it a "mix" of praise and criticism seemed to me to understate their assessment of the work.

As for your offer to change the categorization back, that is very generous of you. However, I would not ask you to change the project page to reflect a category you do not agree with and which does not reflect a consensus that exists between us; that would be reproducing for you the uncomfortable situation I felt I was subjected to (albeit outside the "edit warring" context and so probably with a different feeling to it), and I'm not interested in doing that. I appreciate you hearing out these concerns.

As an aside, I don't know how you would like me to receive and understand the link you included twice. I realize the page it directs to is labeled as humorous, but I don't get what's funny. If you thought the GU category was biased, nationalist, libelous, incorrect and a disgrace to Wikipedia, I am sorry, though even taking the categorization to be incorrect I don't quite see how it would have been that catastrophically incorrect. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't read the target of that link in that link in a couple years, so sorry if it was confusing. Basically the point I wanted to convey is that no matter what version is live someone will think it's the wrong one, and ultimately that's ok. The "disgrace to Wikipedia" bit is sarcasm, thus the "humor" disclaimer. ~Awilley (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

You still haven't explained how you came to the conclusion that it was deprecated. Deprecation requires a community consensus which apparently never exited, did you believe it did or did you not understand what deprecated meant? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

From what I can see this page started as a collaboration with just a few editors and then attracted more attention later. That's often how things work on Wikipedia. See also: Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. @Horse Eye Back, I think it would be more helpful if you focused your arguments on the topic of this thread instead of other editors. ~Awilley (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The topic of this conversation is the reliability of No Man Knows My History, an editor has made the claim that No Man Knows My History is deprecated. They are either mistaken or that's the most important part of this conversation bar none and we need to respect that standing consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

If you read the thread above you will see that it already describes at some length how No Man Knows came to be listed as "deprecated". ~Awilley (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Awilley: The thread above appears to indicate that P-Makoto went rogue and declared a source to be deprecated without a discussion occurring at WP:RSN. Is that correct? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Would you please point out what contribution of mine leads you to state that I "went rogue"? I don't quite understand why you think I did or why you think such language is appropriate or necessary. My understanding is that I have been publicly contributing on a Wikipedia project page that others can also publicly contribute to.

I think Awilley's post a few replies up, which describes the situation and advises how we might conduct ourselves, remains relevant: this page started as a collaboration with just a few editors and then attracted more attention later. That's often how things work on Wikipedia. See also: Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. By the sound of that, this page's development and folks' contributions have been pretty normal for Wikipedia.

Let's, as Awilley suggested, focus our arguments on the subject (the sources themselves) instead of on editors. Your post makes a claim about me but does not tell us much about how we should think about the quality of the book No Man Knows My History. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You claimed that the source had been deprecated despite there being no such consensus, am I misunderstanding something? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

At the time I added No Man Knows to the table, the page was, as Awilley describes, "a collaboration with just a few editors". It was in user space and was described as an "essay". In that early version of the page, there was not a clear instruction about referencing discussions such as in RSN. As Awilley describes, we can understand what happened as a case of Wikipedia:Silence and consensus.

My understanding is that when the userpage was changed to a project page, the expectation changed to one in which referencing a discussion was expected. FormalDude apparently still copied over No Man Knows, inadvertently grandfathering it in without clarifying why. I was on an informal wikibreak at the time and didn't even know about FormalDude changing the userpage essay into a project page.

I hope this answers your questions. I confess I am not sure why you felt this necessary. The current version of this project page no longer even includes that old categorization. I have appreciated that others who disagreed with the old categorization have chosen to engage by conversation and discussion, rather than by accusation. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Please, let's try to stay on topic instead of attacking other editors. ~Awilley (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

From any scholarly perspective, No Man Knows My History would be considered "generally unreliable" as a secondary source on the life and thought of Joseph Smith (and "generally reliable" as a source on the life and thought of Fawn Brodie"). I have, in my capacity as a publication reviewer for various Mormon-themed journals, rejected two different articles for overusing this source--one critical article using Brodie's arguments to critique Smith, and one apologetic article using Brodie as a straw-man to defend him. In both cases, my review emphasized three factors: age, historical methodology, and point of view.

No Man Knows My History is not merely an old book—almost 80 years old in 2022—it is a book that was written before there was any real historiographic tradition within Mormonism. Brodie did not have access to most of the sources that more recent biographers have used, nor did she have a tradition of scholarly interpretation in which to situate her own work. This was also true of John Henry Evans' much more positive biography, Joseph Smith an American Prophet, which was published by Macmillan in 1933. Both books are old generally, but more importantly, both books were written before the scholarly community did the excavating and sifting of sources necessary to produce generally reliable books.

No Man Knows My History is also, by the author's own acknowledgment, an example of "psychohistory," or biography that tries to uncover the intentions and underlying psychology of the figures being studied. This methodology has been abandoned by historians across the board because its core assumption—that a trained interpreter can uncover the hidden motives of a historical figure through psychological analysis of that figures actions—is no longer considered viable. Books that take such an approach now are immediately dismissed as pseudo-scholarship and not taken seriously by academic historians. Brodie's books on Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Thaddeus Stevens, and others have survived primarily as examples of a kind of history that is no longer practiced.

And finally, No Man Knows My History is a book designed to prove a very specific set of assertions about Joseph Smith's intentions, roughly, that he was a con man who ended up believing his own lies and trying to make them true—kind of like Harold Hill in The Music Man. This thesis is the exact opposite of Evans' view of Smith as an actual prophet who actually saw God. Neither perspective can be proved by the kind of evidence that historians work with. Both require leaps of either faith or Freud. And neither can be taken seriously by contemporary historians.

This is not to say that there are no reliable facts in No Man Knows My History. It does get a lot of facts right. But it makes no fact claims that cannot be found in the much more reliable biographies by Donna Hill, Dan Vogel, Richard Bushman, Robert Remini, and others. And it makes many non-fact claims that cannot be supported anywhere else. I can imagine no situation in which it would be the best source to use or the only source for any reliable claim. But I can imagine many situations where it could be used to support arguments that are not held in any serious by contemporary scholars. This, it seems to me, is what "generally unreliable" means. BoyNamedTzu (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

BoyNamedTzu expresses, especially in the last paragraph, better than I have I think, much of my sense about No Man Knows My History and why I suggested rating it the way I have. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately BoyNamedTzu that is not what is asked of us... What "generally unreliable" means to *you* isn't relevant, the question is whether the source meets the established standard of "generally unreliable" as meant here on wikipedia. You appear to be describing what is described in wikispeak as "additional considerations apply" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but the problem is that the entries in question are not written in "Wikispeak." They are written in English., And, as long as that is the case, then the actual English words used to describe the source, "generally" and "unreliable" are not quite irrelevant. No Man Knows My History is a source that cannot be relied on for any information that is not already common knowledge. Any claim that is supported by citing it would immediately be judged as suspect by just about anyone who works in American History or Mormon Studies. That matters to me.

It clearly does not matter to you, which is fine. Your opinions are just as legitimate as mine are. But I take strong exception at your assertion that your opinions are *more relevant* than mine. Especially on a page whose entire purpose is to have an open discussion about things like this in which everybody gets the chance to express their views. That is how a general consensus get formed. Open discussion, it seems, is a good thing in a forum whose entire purpose is to foster open discussion. And yet, as I read through this whole page, you seem to be the only one who is not doing this. Every comment you have made here has been designed to close down arguments, attack the legitimacy of specific individuals, and restrict points of view other than your own. There is no other way to read your comment above, which attempts to refute four paragraphs of sincere, reasoned arguments about the unreliability of a source with, "your opinion doesn't matter because you ain't from around here." That is simply not how consensus decisions get made.

I get that there are "established standards," and I have actually read them very carefully. They are not unarguable decision rules that could be enforced by a few lines of computer codes. They are standards that contain subjective elements that are subject to discussion and debate. That is the purpose of this forum. So, rather than just saying "you suck" and moving on, try actually engaging with my arguments. Offer some reasons why No Man Knows My History should be considered reliable. Defend the psychohistory methodology by, maybe, pointing to one other work that uses the same methodology that is considered reliable by anybody. Show me where I am wrong or where I have misread the scholarly consensus. Actually engage in a way that places your own ideas into the public sphere and invites responses. BoyNamedTzu (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The entries in question are summaries of consensus, they have to conform with our consensus understanding of reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@BoyNamedTzu: Thank you for your thoughtful comments. What you say makes a lot of sense. I can see the case for Brodie's book being reliable for the thought of Fawn Brodie and redundant for regular facts. Out of curiosity I hopped over to the Thomas Jefferson and Thaddeus Stevens articles and did a Ctrl+F for "Brodie". The Jefferson article, with hundreds of citations, cites Brodie only 4 times for relatively mundane stuff. The Stevens article cites her much more...maybe about 40 times. That makes sense, as there probably aren't that many biographies about Stevens as Jefferson. I did notice that Brodie's opinions over there were attributed to her sometimes using phrases like "Brodie's controversial psychobiography..." or "Brodie suggested that...".
Over at the Joseph Smith article talk page I had made the suggestion that we confine Brodie's views to the footnotes and contrast them with the views of the views of other scholars. (See Talk:Joseph_Smith#Removed? second comment down.) What's your opinion on that? Do you think Brodie's views are notable simply for the sake of them being Brodie's views? I suspect a lot of common people (people who are not scholars or Mormons) subscribe to the "Harold Hill" idea of Joseph Smith, so I'd still like to see some kind of treatment of that in the article even if it is, as you say, mostly rejected in the scholarly community now. ~Awilley (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I would favor treating Brodie in an article about Joseph Smith the way that I would treat Jean Baptiste Lamarck in an article about evolution. Lamarck cannot be completely ignored. He was a notable figure in his own right, and he is part of the story. And, really, he got more right than he got wrong. But he incorrectly identified the driving force of natural selection, and his methodology has been thoroughly rejected. So I would present his ideas as 1) the ideas of a notable person who studied the issue; and 2) as an example of the way that evolution was understood at a particular time by a specific group of people. I would not cite his work for details that he actually got right when later figures—Darwin, Wallace, Mendel, Huxley—said the same things in a context that correctly identified the major mechanism at work in the process. About 90% of the facts cited in Philosophie zoologique are probably correct, but that does not mean that the volume should be considered reliable. The fact that the primary theory in which Lamarck situates those facts has been overwhelmingly rejected by experts in the field makes it problematic to reference in a general article unless Lamarck's theories are being discussed for their own notability. And the fact that any valid observation in the volume can be found and cited in more reliable works makes it unnecessary to use in any general context.

Substitute "Brodie for Lamarck," "Joseph Smith" for "evolution," "Hill, Bushman, Vogel, and Remini" for "Darwin, Wallace, Mendel and Huxley," and No Man Knows My History for Philosophie zoologique, and the same logic applies. BoyNamedTzu (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

BoyNamedTzu's comment that I can imagine no situation in which it would be the best source to use or the only source for any reliable claim. But I can imagine many situations where it could be used to support arguments that are not held... by contemporary scholars is, I think, unfortunately borne out by the Joseph Smith page (permalink). The following appears in a reference note appended to a paragraph about Emma Smith's denials of polygamy: Brodie speculates that this denial was 'her [Emma Smith's] revenge and solace for all her heartache and humiliation. ... This was her slap at all the sly young girls in the Mansion House who had looked first so worshipfully and then so knowingly at Joseph.' That is a sensationalist interpretation out of step with more current scholarship. Is it fact that Emma Smith denied Joseph Smith's involvement in polygamy? Yes. Does No Man Knows get that fact right? It does. Is the framework No Man Knows places the fact in reflective of contemporary academic consensus? No. Instead, the framework is sensationalist, reducing the women described, both Emma Smith and those who plurally married Joseph Smith, to sexist stereotypes of a vengeful woman scorned and "sly young girls".

Less severe but similarly inaccurate is this line in the body text: Fawn Brodie argued that the "book lives today because of the prophet, not he because of the book. More current work in Mormon studies places more importance on the Book of Mormon's influence on the movement as well as Smith's influence.

I go into these in more detail on the Joseph Smith talk page (permalink). I raise them briefly here because they embody BoyNamedTzu's point: No Man Knows can be "used to support arguments that are not held... by contemporary scholars" and at the time of writing is used on Wikipedia to support such arguments. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Popping over here from the the JS article talk page. Based on my reading of Brodie as a source and everyone’s discussion here, I believe “additional considerations” is an appropriate designation for Brodie as a source. I would never dream of uncritically basing an entire article on the what she wrote, and most article points should be established by other sources in conjunction with hers, because it’s clear she did miss some important points. Trevdna (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

"I would never dream of uncritically basing an entire article on the what she wrote" its good that you intend to follow our basic policies and guidelines, but what does that have to do with the specific question at hand? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, what’s the specific question at hand? It had seemed to me like the discussion was a little more general at this stage. Trevdna (talk) 04:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

FAIR, Book of Mormon Central, Pearl of Great Price Central, Doctrine and Covenants Central

I motion that FAIR (https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/), Book of Mormon Central, Peral of Great Price Central, Doctrine and Covenants Central be added to the list of non-reliable sources, as well as non-independent sources. I'm not anticipating any disagreement here, as the sites are essentially blogs. I also argue that they are not independent either which might be a bit more contentious. FAIR states where it gets https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2020/12/24/fairmormon-finances, which recaps the controversy. At the end of the day, if the LDS Church were to tell any of these organizations to take something down, or write an article about a particular subject, they would do it. Epachamo (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

At a minimum, anything from FAIR needs to be attributed to make it clear it's coming from an apologetic organization. ~Awilley (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree that FAIR is not reliable nor independent. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not looking to contest the categorization here, but the last bit of the notes added to the entry, suggesting that FAIR could be attributed to show the specific views of the LDS Church seems to attribute to FAIR more authority and representativeness than is warranted.

I would agree that FAIR's goal is to be orthodox with the institutional church and that the organization's members certainly believe their content is orthodox. However, whether FAIR's views are the views of the church seems like a more complicated question than this entry makes out. FAIR certainly represents its own take on Mormonism. Whether that is the same take on Mormonism that "the LDS Church" espouses is a different question, especially since there are unanswered questions about what "the LDS Church" might mean in this context. The average Latter-day Saint? The official handbooks? The personal views of the church's apostles? Even setting that aside, to suggest that FAIR's views are equivalent to "the specific views of the LDS Church" is to attribute a lot more to FAIR than seems warranted. I'd rather look to reliable sources for documentation of what the LDS Church's views are and analysis thereof, such as scholarship by sociologists, anthropologists, historians, etc. and journalists reporting with reliable periodicals. (And, with restraint and where appropriate, perhaps to self-published sources produced by the institutional LDS Church for uncontroversial information about the institutional LDS Church.)

As for the table entry about FAIR, keeping the description more focused on FAIR itself seems more accurate and within our ability to agree to. For example: FAIR Latter-day Saints (formerly The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research) is an apologetic organization dedicated to answering criticisms of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Its content is not peer-reviewed by the wider academic community. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 10:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

FAIR enough (hehe). What if we added the tag, "Its content is not peer-reviewed by the wider academic community and should not be considered reliable, except when attributed to show the specific viewpoint within the LDS Church." Epachamo (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I think I see how that formulation is intended differs, but would a reader unfamiliar with this discussion catch the difference between the specific viewpoint within the LDS Church and the specific viewpoint of the LDS Church? They seem a bit too near enough I think either of the following three options would be appropriate:

• FAIR Latter-day Saints (formerly The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research) is an apologetic organization dedicated to answering criticisms of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Its content is not peer-reviewed by the wider academic community.
• FAIR Latter-day Saints (formerly The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research) is an apologetic organization dedicated to answering criticisms of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Its content is not peer-reviewed by the wider academic community and should not be considered reliable, except when attributed to show its own viewpoint.
• FAIR Latter-day Saints (formerly The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research) is an apologetic organization dedicated to answering criticisms of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Its content is not peer-reviewed by the wider academic community and should not be considered reliable, except when attributed to show a specific viewpoint within the LDS Church.

My preference personally is for the first (concise) or second (a source without a good review process can talk about itself but not necessarily about others), but I think the third would also improve the formulation; "the" versus "a" may be a slight difference, but moving from the definite to the indefinite would help clarify that FAIR represents an element within the LDS Church but not the church writ large. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we should go with the 3rd option. I think there are instances when FAIR is appropriate, and the 3rd option is clearer to editors when those times are. The first option makes it seem as though it is never appropriate at any time. Epachamo (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Functionally yeah, besides for ABOUTSELF at FAIR (Mormon apologetics organization) there don't appear to be appropriate uses of FAIR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back:I completely agree. Epachamo (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Mormonr

Mormonr is an apologetic organization like FAIR is, but they have a more rigorous approach to footnotes. Can we add them to the list? Would you rate it similarly to FAIR? I personally think Mormonr tries for more of a nuanced approach, but in-text attribution should be required. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): Looks generally unreliable, but I agree it'd be okay with in-text attribution. Let's add it. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@FormalDude: I think I would go for "additional considerations," since, unlike FARMS or FAIR, their claims are all cited in-line. Their sources are from other scholars outside of the LDS tradition when appropriate. What do other people think? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

That works for me, it does appear that they have good sourcing. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

If that works for the two of you, I'd also consider it reasonable. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I've since had a change of mind about the suitability of the source for citation on Wikipedia. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Mormonr is essentially a blog and should be treated as such. Mormon Think also does really good sourcing, but is similarly inappropriate for Wikipedia, except with the usual caveats. I do think we should add it to the list, but it should be treated no differently than FAIR or Mormon Think. Because these sites have good sourcing, they are valuable because the sources they link to CAN be used. Epachamo (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point. I also see they state at https://mormonr.org/about_us that "we have a faithful bias towards the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel." And I haven't been able to find any secondary commentary about MormonR as a source. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I also don't know if we can mark them as independent. Mormonr is a project funded by the B.H. Roberts Foundation. Their B.H. Roberts funding source is restricted. They state independence and this might be the case, but it is impossible to verify. Epachamo (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we don't even need to evaluate this source. It doesn't appear to be used in any references. Special:Search/insource:"mormonr", Special:Search/insource:"bhroberts". ––FormalDude (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Attributing apologetic sources in-text

Hi, I started a discussion over on WikiProject Christianity about using apologetic sources but being careful to attribute them in-text. It seems relevant to some issues we have discussed here, so please contribute to the discussion there if you have an opinion. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Studia Antiqua

Studia Antiqua is a student ancient studies journal published by BYU and reviewed by BYU professors. It sometimes includes articles on the Book of Mormon. I'm planning to tell my students not to cite it (because research in a journal for student publications may not be held to the same standard as regular scholarly journals), but do you have other opinions? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I would concur with the recommendation on not to cite it for reason's given. Also, Winter 2005 edition used Papyrus font on its cover which is frankly unforgivable. Epachamo (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Haha, Papyrus. In all seriousness though, I agree that it shouldn't be used as student publications are not the WP:BESTSOURCES. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Papyrus was the height of fashion in 2005! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the student nature a reliable source on ancient studies would not be publishing articles on the Book of Mormon which has nothing to do with anything ancient. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Association of Mormon Letters deprecation

I have tried to deprecate the AML sources on this page due to the ongoing WP:COI investigation that seems to have caught many in its net. I hope that y'all recognize the need for this.

jps (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@jps: Sorry but I'm just getting caught up on all this. Was there a consensus reached on the usability of AML? I've gone ahead and removed it from the list for now. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is clear consensus on what to do. Surely some things from AML are usable, but it's not clear to me which exactly those things are. jps (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I just restored it and I updated the wording if that's okay with you. I also added a link to the Village Pump discussion. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about deprecation... I think thats too far, but it isn't generally reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)