Talk:Joseph Smith

Lead should be informative, not opinion filled

The lead to an article should inform people about the topic it discusses, in this case Joseph Smith. Saying he is "controversial" does not inform people. Say what he did, not what people think of him in the lead. There is no religion founder who is not controversial. There are multiple religions that posit that their teachings are correct and all other religions are false, thus Mohammad, Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Confucius and other religion founders will all be seen as setting up false systems by some people. The same could be said for Mary Baker Eddy and most modern religion founders, saying they are controversial says nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The lead section shows obvious bias, as does a lot of this article. I, for one, am interested in presenting the factual history here, but as many of the citations of this article are from authors who were openly biased towards the Latter Day Saint movement and Joseph Smith in particular, I seriously question the POV of this article. In any case, I will try to reword some of the most obvious POV problems in this article.W7jkt (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

With a subject like Joseph Smith, the sources simply are not going to be as neutral as they might be elsewhere. The best thing to do is what's largely been done: use the most reputable scholarly sources available, notably Brodie (from a skeptical viewpoint) and Bushman (from a believer's perspective). Despite their particular slant, their facts generally agree. Scholarship virtually always trumps material produced by non-scholars or the LDS Church.

If you review even a small portion of the archived discussions, you'll notice how often believers claim that the article's too anti-Mormon and non-believers claim it's too pro-Mormon. That kind of criticism makes me proud of what's been done here.--John Foxe (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

While I understand the need for both biased points of view in order to bring the article into neutrality, I do not agree that your main two sources stated above are sufficient for this article. I understand that there are numerous other sources, but there can be more substance to this article. Another POV slant that this article contains are the notations that include a quotation from the text where there is obvious bias. There are far more quotations with anti-Mormon slant than others as far as I can tell. In many instances, a direct quote from Joseph Smith himself can be applicable, and should be. Let the man speak for himself. I don't want to get into a large disputation over this article, but I do, however, want to point out the difference between what is purported and what is factual. Regards, w7jkt ^talk 21:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Odd as it usually sounds to newcomers, Wikipedia privileges secondary sources over primary sources. Therefore, to challenge the stated position of a scholar such as Bushman or Brodie, you have to bring into evidence the work of another scholar, not a quotation of Joseph Smith or material produced by the LDS Church. If I were writing a scholarly biography of Joseph Smith for print publication, I would frequently quote Joseph Smith in my work (although you might not like the quotations that I'd choose). But here at Wikipedia, quotations of Joseph Smith are largely POV unless they back the argument of some secondary scholarly work. At Wikipedia, Joseph Smith is not permitted to speak for himself—or rather, his statements are not permitted to be manipulated by either a Mormon or a non-Mormon editor.--John Foxe (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The introduction of the article should simply summarize what the article contains. It is not a place for opinion or new information. Good catch on the controversial. -^StormRider 05:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about Joseph Smith's statements being very POV, John, and I would reword my previous statement to say that quotes from him would sometimes be appropriate. Do you not agree, however, that the amount of notes and quotations from a skeptical POV outweigh that of the POV in the other direction? Also, what about including some of Hugh Nibley's responses to some of these claims from? As I said before, I do not wish to argue, but I would like to put forth a few ideas of changes to be made on an article that is, in my view, not as NPOV as it could be. Thanks, w7jkt ^talk 16:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the article's nicely balanced, although from my non-Mormon point of view, it's too favorable to LDS positions. (Making concessions is part of the price of reaching consensus at an article where most interested folks are Mormons.)

Despite his great learning, Hugh Nibley is not a "reliable source" in the Wikipedia-sense of that phrase. His writings were were published by the LDS Church and not peer-reviewed. He is a classic example of a religious apologist rather than a scholar.

Again, let me repeat what I've said above: Wikipedia privileges scholarly secondary sources over primary sources. Unless Joseph Smith's quotations buttress some scholarly secondary source, they should not generally be included here.--John Foxe (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

We do not make concessions to interested parties in order to achieve consensus. We publish what reliable secondary sources say and give only due weight, i.e. not much, to opinions that are not supported by evidence.

In theory perhaps, but not in the real world of editing controversial articles like this one.--John Foxe (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Name

All of the Mormons I have ever known or met (including some Mormon missionaries) calle him "Joseph Smith"; no one calls him "Joseph Smith, Jr." This really should be in the introduction. Shocking Blue (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. However, since his Father was a person of influence within the early church (First Church Patriarch), and since there were two other Joseph Smiths (Joseph Fielding Smith and Joseph F. Smith) who served as Church Presidents it might be important to identify him this way initially in the article.

173.180.103.183 (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Not to mention Joseph Smith III!  ;) Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This artcle is long and detailed and will require a substantial amount of time. Editors please be patient. If it is determined that a hold is appropriate, it will begin once this reviewer has completed work.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In order to pass a GA nomination the article must meet the following standards:

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

1. B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

1. C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: *NOTE = The article is to broad and speaks of the church too much. In just the few references I have checked I see a gold mine of information about the man himself but even what is being used has been written with OR and bias.

   B. Focused:

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

2. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

2. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Reviewer notes:

Images must comply with Manual of Style guidlines Wikipedia:Images and Wikipedia:Image use policy: Each image has a corresponding description page. On that page, one should document the source, author and copyright status of the image, using one of the pre-defined image copyright tags. It is important to add both descriptive (who, what, when, where, why) and technical (equipment, software, etc.) information at the time of creating the page, which will be useful and highly informative to later editors and readers.

Whenever you upload an image, you should meet the following minimal requirements.

1. Always tag your image with one of the image copyright tags. When in doubt, do not upload copyrighted images.
2. Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Examples include scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer. For screenshots this means what the image is a screenshot of (the more detail the better). Do not put credits in images themselves.

Description: The subject of the image

Source: The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from

Date: Date the image was created. The more exact, the better

Location: Where the image was created. The more exact the better

Author: The image creator, especially if different from the copyright holder

Permission: Who or what law or policy gives permission to post on Wikipedia with the selected image copyright tag

Other versions of this file: Directs users to derivatives of the image if they exist on Wikipedia

While many of the images are Public domain, their use on wikipedia in a GA article must have the proper information for consideration.

The following images have issues that need to be addressed to meet GA criteria:

• Joseph Smith, Jr. portrait owned by Joseph Smith III.jpg (infobox image)= This image is missing both author and source information. While the artist is historicly unkown, the photographer of the 2 dimensional work is not. This may or may not be the same as the source. The source is where the image came from and a link to the website should be provided. Without this information it fails GA standards for complying with MoS.
• Joseph_Smith_receiving_golden_plates.jpg = This image has the proper attrubution to the original artist (author), date and book title it was originaly published in, however it does not provide the source or author of the digitised file which is found here:http://newhampshireprimary.blogspot.com/2011/02/mitt-romney-jon-huntsman-mormon.html
• Book of Mormon English Missionary Edition Soft Cover.jpg (infobox "Book of Mormon") = The image is missing the date information
• Josephsmithtarandfeatherharpers.jpg = This image is missing everything but a souce link...which is odd since the source has the pertinent information.
• KirtlandTemple_Ohio_USA.jpg = This image has only photographer information and nothing else. It also has been tagged to "check the image description page on the English Wikipedia (or, if it has been deleted, ask an English Wikipedia administrator". This must be rectified or not used on this article to Pass GA review.
• NauvooLegion.jpg = This image is missing proper source information. The provided link is not correct. It does not contain author or date. "Apparently" is not acceptable source information.

*Joseph_Smith_first_vision_stained_glass.jpg = This image is owned by the Public Broadcasting sytem and it still retains the rights to this image. As stated in the terms of service: The Information available on PBS ONLINE® may include intellectual property that is protected under the copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws of the United States and/or other countries ("Intellectual Property Laws"). Such Intellectual Property Laws generally prohibit the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of all text, photographic and graphic (art and electronic) images, music, sound samplings and other protected materials. The violation of applicable Intellectual Property Laws may give rise to civil and/or criminal penalties.

While some two dimensional images are faithful reproductions Wikimedia commons states: When a photograph demonstrates originality (typically, through the choice of framing, lighting, point of view and so on), it qualifies for copyright even if the photographed subject is itself uncopyrighted. This is typically the case for photographs of three-dimensional objects, hence the rule of thumb that "2D is OK, 3D is not". The work presented in the image is NOT a mere 2 dimensional work. Stained glass requires "choice of framing, lighting, and point of view" as using a simple flash at anytime of day or night would NOT produce the image you see as well as the fact that the work is meant to be viewed from multiple angles in the same way as a sculpture, which by definition stained glass is.

In short, the license is incorrect and the original source STILL claims copyright. This image cannot be used for GA (or Wiki at all for that matter).

Photograph of an old stained glass window or tapestry found on the Internet or in a book

Y. Although many materials such as stained glass and fabric possess some three-dimensional texture, at ordinary viewing distances this texture is essentially invisible. As long as the surface is not noticeably curved or tattered/broken, and the original work is old enough to have entered the public domain, it is considered a faithful reproduction of the original with no original contribution.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Replies to the review

I'll take a look at addressing the image copyright issues. If anyone else gets to it before me, then all the better. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• File:Joseph Smith, Jr. portrait owned by Joseph Smith III.jpg

  Contacted uploader, requested source information. Commons:User_talk:Colejohnson66#JS_Jr_image_source. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  He got it from a website. But doesn't remember which one. I guess we just leave the source as "unknown", or perhaps we can download it from some website, and then re-upload it to the commons so we can put that website as a source. ;) ...comments? ~BFizz 04:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• File:Joseph_Smith_receiving_golden_plates.jpg Fixed

  [todo - COgden please look into this one that you uploaded]

• File:Book of Mormon English Missionary Edition Soft Cover.jpg

  I'm not sure what "date" is supposed to be here. 1982? (the year the subtitle was added) ...comments? ~BFizz 04:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• File:Josephsmithtarandfeatherharpers.jpg Fixed

  Added information as found in source. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• File:KirtlandTemple_Ohio_USA.jpg Fixed

  Modified presentation of information. Informed uploader. User_talk:John_Hamer#Kirtland_temple_pic ...comments? ~BFizz 21:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  Uploader says the changes are OK. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• File:NauvooLegion.jpg Fixed

  Modified information presentation. Corrected source link. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• File:Joseph_Smith_first_vision_stained_glass.jpg Issue dismissed

  This one will be tricky. See below.

Stained glass image

I emailed the Church History Museum, asking a few questions about the image. I might just take a trip to Salt Lake and photograph it myself. I've found various versions of this image online, but none under a permissible license:

• http://mormonmatters.org/2008/05/27/the-first-vision-or-the-first-visit/
• http://sacredsymbolic.com/joseph-smith-jesus-christ-parrallel-lives/
• https://lds.org/ensign/print/2005/01/the-first-vision-searching-for-the-truth?lang=eng (very bottom of article)
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/49009209@N08/4485320584/
• http://deseretbook.com/First-Vision-23-x-31-Stained-Glass-Zions-Mercantile/i/5045742

I also found a similar work of art that we might consider photographing and uploading, if the original work is not copyrighted.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7156208@N02/412617797/in/photostream/

...comments? ~BFizz 22:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

BFizz, I believe I have a handle on the infobox painting. I found the original source and author of the first image before upload. If all that was done was photoshop work to improve the image, than the information can be used.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC) It's not the same image. I will continue to research this one out. It would be a shame to lose it. Nice image.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Image suggestions from reviewer

The infobox image is easily replaced but I do intend to see if I can find the nicer version even after the review is closed. It's just a really nice image and if we can't find the original source we will have to replace with the original upload as that is from the Church archives online while the other one is not. I have found two sites that use this image but they are both message boards that mat well have taken the image from wiki. The others can simply be deleted from the article if they cannot be fixed with no loss of quality to the article itself, but work is underway to correct them by another editor.

Stability

Work this out guys. Seriously. The article just came off protection and when I began the review it seemed to be holding stable. It has lost that stability which endangers the review. One criteria for "Quick Fail" is stablity. At this point I am NOT giving up with a quick fail but if this can't be smoothed out, GA standards that might be worked out may simply be lost within hours or days if it passes GA nomination.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that this article is a vandal magnet means it is unstable. The same could be said for such featured articles as Evolution, Harvey Milk, and Ronald Reagan--articles which always get opinionated edits, but which are stable because they are well-patrolled. There will always be opinionated casual editors who (often with good intentions) come in and try to impose a heartfelt but fringe view about Smith, but these are quickly reverted for violating WP:FRINGE or WP:NPOV. COGDEN 05:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. but that is simply incorrect. If the article is experiancing so many reverts that it is protected...it is unstable. The protection has been lifted and the constant reverts return. The review guidlines state "Edit warring, etc", so even though there are no real edit wars among the contributing editors, it is far from stable. I am talking about a single day. March 5th, were there was section blanking, vandalism, and simple disagreements on content and accuracy. The article is not stable. I am NOT quick failing over the issue for one reason...it wasn't so when I began. However, I am failing the stability portion of the review.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Evolution article is permanently semi-protected, and every time the protected status is experimentally removed, it gets hit with a lot of vandalism. Yet Evolution is not just a good article, it's a featured article. Nobody is clamoring to have the featured status of Evolution bumped down past "A" and "good" status to "B" status. Same with perpetually-protected FAs Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, Harvey Milk, Atheism, and Yasser Arafat, and even Angelina Jolie. Also, it can't be the rule that the Joseph Smith, Jr. article, and all other articles about the founders of controversial religious movements, are forever barred from GA status no matter how good they get. COGDEN 07:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Lede

The lede has one major problem.....it has little to do with Smith himself and skips a lot of the article to speak almost exclusively about the church. This need to be a tight summary of the overall article. which leads me to the next major problem...

Replies to lede review

Can you give us specifics on what major portions of Smith's life the lede is skipping? Or portions of the lede that are excessive detail and can be removed? ...comments? ~BFizz 02:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? You actualy can't see that the lede skips all the way up to adult life? OK...the lede needs to be a summary of the overall article. It skips all of "Early years (1805–1827)". I also think the article is over weighted with other information. There are several articles on Wikipedia about these subjects. This article is about the man himself. It should have much more information about his personal life, his wives, his children, his family etc.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The lede needs to mention his family life as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right, and I have revised the lede a bit to reflect your suggestions. COGDEN 06:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Article mixes subjects

A quick look at the article shows that there are really two subjects being discussed. The man and his church. While the church IS a part of the man's life, and a major part, the artcile needs focus. What is the article about. The man or his church or both. If both, then perhaps, simply renaming the article would be appropriate.

Replies regarding mixed subjects

He organized the church when he was 24, and died at 44, so nearly his entire adult life was deeply intertwined with the church. The article is about Smith, but it's virtually impossible to say anything about his adult life without talking about his church as well. The Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) and History of the Latter Day Saint movement are the main articles about his church. If you have any suggestions of information that we can leave out of this article and treat exclusively in those articles, please do tell. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't finished the review and the above is only a suggestion. Leaving out information may be a simple matter of copy edit, or may simply be a matter of adding context to the areas being discussed. It isn't such a stumbling block for the overall article...but the lede suggest the focus is the church right now.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing is obvious, the article has dropped his family all the way to the bottum. For an article about the man, this takes precedence over the rest on this article. This is a focus issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the article does contain more information about his family than is in the last section. It has info about his parents' family, and about his plural wives (in the Nauvoo section). I agree his family is an important subject, but I'm not sure I agree it is the most important subject in the article, compared to such subjects as his founding of a religion, his arrest and near execution in Missouri, his death, and his teachings. COGDEN 07:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not say it was "most" important. I said it takes precedence in a biography about the man. Again, this is a focus issue. It need not be placed at the top....but it does not belong at the bottum.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your suggestion. Right now, Smith's family is broken into several different topics. There's his parents' family, the story of how he met Emma during his treasure hunting in the 1820s, maybe a couple of stories here and there about his children with Emma, an then later on there are the stories about his polygamous relationships. Are you saying that this information should be deleted from its present locations and moved to a new section at the beginning? Or kept in its original location but just duplicated in a summary form in a new section? Are we talking about completely new information that isn't in the present article? Thanks. COGDEN 06:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Scope

The article lacks focus and is far too broad in scope. Seperating the man from the church is not impossible and simply using information from other wikipedia articles as the basis for this article, while appropriate, is not enough. There is a great deal of information available and can be referenced and cited. http://www.google.com/search?q=Joseph+Smith+Jr.+the+man&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 --Amadscientist (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Basically, while he was alive, Joseph Smith was the church. Everything he did was an official church act. The scope of this article is roughly the same as the scope of every biography ever written about Smith. Really, to ignore his religious acts is to ignore the heart and pith of Joseph Smith. He would be an empty shell. I don't think it's the job of Wikipedia to re-write the book on Joseph Smith. So respectfully, unless I misunderstand you, I'll have to agree to disagree on this particular point, but keep up the good work on your review. COGDEN 07:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

References, notes and sources

• Overlinking of Notes and references. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking) link only the first occurence unless the next is far away and only link the first reference.

There are some reference, note, source and citation problems. This will take some time to go through. Bare with me please as I write up specifics. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This is what I find in just the first 5 notes:

• Note 1 claims the church has nearly 14 million members worldwide and the first USA Today reference seems to support this claim alone. However the note: (LDS Church claims 13,508,509 members as of end of 2008); Is unsubstantiated. This needs to be referenced.

Updated and referenced. w7jkt ^talk 16:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The following note seems to be somewhat promotional and has no context to either the USA today reference or the unsubstantiated claim in notes. Community of Christ (2009), General Denominational Information, http://www.cofchrist.org/news/GeneralInfo.asp#membership, retrieved December 17, 2009 (second largest Latter Day Saint movement denomination claiming approximately 250,000 members). This is only one denomination. This simply does not relate to either claims.

Substantiate the LDS figure and lose the Community of Christ note.

• Note 2 does not substantiate the claim that the family was poor when Joseph was born. In fact it actually states that “..they soon knew ‘the embarrassment of poverty‘..“ (after paying $1800 in debt by selling the farm and using Lucy’s $1000 dowry) but that there circumstances had improved by his birth. It states “Joseph Taught school in Sharon in the winter and farmed in the summer and with him working two jobs, the family circumstances, as Lucy reported, “gradually improved.” She was feeling optimistic when another son, Joseph Smith Jr., arrived on December 23, 1805.” This is the reference and it is all found on a single page, 19. The note gives pages 9 through 30.

The claim must reflect the reference. It should say “The family knew poverty, but by the time of Joseph junior’s birth their circumstances had improved.” The reference needs to give the specific page which is 19.

I agree, and have removed the word poor. The Smith family fortunes fluctuated, and they would not always have been considered poor. COGDEN 22:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note 3 = The claim: “Crippled by a bone infection at age eight, the younger Smith hobbled on crutches as a child". Is not substantiated by Note 3 source: Biographical sketches of Joseph Smith the prophet: and his progenitors for ...By Lucy Smith. Pages 62-65. It’s only discusses the painful treatment he endured but says nothing about either being crippled or using crutches as a child. Either expand the claim or lose the reference entirely.

The reference from Bushman is on page 21. We do not need the rest. JUST page 21. Either fix the reference OR expand the claim to reflect the information found in the other pages.

Done. In addition, I've changed the current text which is incorrect. Smith hobbled on crutches after his surgery at age 8 until at least age 11 or 12, not before his surgery. COGDEN 22:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note 4 = The claim “ In 1816–17, the family moved to the western New York village of Palmyra and eventually took a mortgage on a 100-acre (40 ha) farm in nearby Manchester town.” is incorrect. The note only specifies page 30 of Bushman’s book, but is in fact 30-31 and is not the towns the claim makes. The books says the township of Farmington where they settled in Manchester village, which would become a township in 1822. This should reflect the facts as they are presented and as the timeline and chronology show. Adding that “this is what we know today as…“ and then placing the modern township and wikilink would work.

• Note 5 is misleading. There is nothing that states they were “Squatters”, but that they actually “raised” a log cabin on land nearby. To do such suggests not that they were squatters but simply allowed to do so by the land owner.

In reading the actual references against the prose I see clear OR and bias attempting to make the life sound worse than it really was.

Note 6 = I see no mention of the term "Second Great Awakening" in this reference. The use of the Peacock term "Hotbed" is unencyclopedic. The reference merely mentions "revivals" of such great regularity that the district became known as the "Burnt district". Yes, it is speaking of this period but did not do so outright. To use this as the reference to that statement is stretching. You would need the reference and source to say this in one way or another and it really doesnt.

References have a few problems as well:

• Dead link - pdf:Hill, Marvin S. (1976), "Joseph Smith and the 1826 Trial: New Evidence and New Difficulties" (PDF), BYU Studies 12 (2): 1–8, https://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/PDFSRC/12.2Hill.pdf .
• Dead link - pdf:Jessee, Dean (1976), "Joseph Knight's Recollection of Early Mormon History" (PDF), BYU Studies 17 (1): 35, https://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/PDFSRC/17.1Jessee.pdf .

In short

Notes have some big problems with bias and OR. They do not seem to be completely following the source and in some instances are showing they simply do not support claims at all. This is a serious problem for a Wikipedia article, let alone for GA. Formating is just not to standard with overlinking, dead links and unreferenced claims. Not every note has such problems but clearly need a good deal of attention by a disinterested editor to go through line by line and make much needed editing.

References on the other hand are not as bad but contain similar problems that must be corrected. I really think the overlinking is really bad. It confuses the reader and makes navigating the sources very difficult. If you have wikilinked the notes and the references as a means of guiding the reader to specifc articles it doesn't help with a list this long right next to external links to to e-books, many of which do not go to the specific page were the reference would be found. If the external link does not go directly to the reference, why bother? It's not a conveniance.

Non-collapsible tables

• Below the references and external links appear two tables that do not collapse and simply consist of either information that is also cointained in the nav bars or belong in "See Also" the need to be removed. If the information is relevent to the subject place the information in the body of the article. (unsigned by reviewer)

I've deleted these tables from the main article and moved them here for discussion:

Leaders of the Church of Christ, later called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Founding president	Leader Claiming Succession Position in the Church of Christ Title & denomination Years
Joseph Smith, Jr. (1830–1844)
	Brigham Young was President of the Quorum of the Twelve President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1844–1877
	Joseph Smith III was Direct Descendant of Joseph Smith, Jr. President of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints later called the Community of Christ 1860–1914
	James Strang was an Elder with aLetter of appointment President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) 1844–1856
	Sidney Rigdon was senior surviving member of the First Presidency Guardian of the Church of Christ later called the Church of Jesus Christ of the Children of Zion or Rigdonites 1844–1847

Personally, I don't think they add anything to the article. The succession information is better written as prose, and can be found in the "Succession Crisis" article. Also, there is no consistent series of boxes used by Nauvoo mayors, most of whom don't have Wikipedia pages. COGDEN 08:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Prose

OK, "Hotbed" is repeated now in the lede. I don't remember seeing it there before. Its a Peacock term. I am also seeing a repeated usage of terms and descriptions that make the article less reliable to the source. For the most part the writing is not bad. But the lede now contains the same phrase found in the "Early years" section. I had mentioned this only in the reference and note section as it pertained to the misuse of the reference...but now it needs to be addressed on it's own.

Another problem with the prose that I'll mention here intead of the reference and notes review section is the over abundence of notes breaking up the sentences throughout the article. It makes it very difficult to read. It is particularly bad from the sections, "Life in Ohio (1831–38))" up to the section "Death".

Example:

Mob attacks began in July 1833,[116] but Smith advised the Mormons to patiently bear them[117] until a fourth attack, which would permit vengeance to be taken.[118] This just does not seem necessary.

Regarding WP:PEACOCK: I disagree. We aren't using "hotbed" to make it sound any "better" or "worse", we're just using it to describe the significant religious activity. We are allowed to use interesting words in order to achieve the WP ideal of brilliant prose.

Regarding mid-sentence citations, for the example given, I agree that [117] could wait until the end of the sentence, but the sentence consists of two separate thoughts, and I believe [116] should stay where it is, to make it clear which reference applies to which statement. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Farming and treasure hunting

During the next four years, Smith made annual visits to Cumorah...Meanwhile, Smith continued traveling western New York and Pennsylvania, being paid to search for precious metals...During one of these treasure quests, he met Emma Hale and, on January 18, 1827, eloped with her because her parents disapproved of the match.

I have a few thoughts regarding this section. I referred to Rough Stone Rolling pages 51-53 (through the Google books preview). Bushman states that "Work on the Stowell and Knight farms was not the only magnet drawing Joseph Smith back. While at home, he told his mother about Miss Emma Hale..." Bushman correlates his farm work to meeting and seeing Emma, while we state that he met her "during one of these treasure quests". The way our article currently phrases it, it makes it sound like Smith's work during this period consisted exclusively of treasure hunting. From what I understand, the treasure hunting was more of a side-venture compared to his farm work during those years. Also, it would probably be good to at least mention the Stowells by name. Our article seems to suggest that Smith performed treasure hunting for various employers, while Bushman seems to suggest he was almost always working with/for the Stowells. I can't really find anywhere that Bushman says he was paid directly for his treasure seeking, rather than, for example, getting a cut of the findings. The only suggestion that he was compensated is when Bushman states that "In 1825, when the family needed money, Joseph Jr. agreed to help Stowell find the spanish gold..."

On a different note, Bushman says that when Joseph asked for Emma's hand in marriage, her father Isaac Hale objected because Joseph was "a stranger, and followed a business that I could not approve", apparently referring to his treasure hunting. It might be good to mention this as Emma's parents' reason for "disapproving the match".

tl;dr - this section needs a few modifications in order to fit with the sources cited. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think if we cite Brodie, Vogel, and Quinn, rather than Bushman, there's no problem with that sentence. On the pages mentioned, Bushman's trying to put an apologetic spin on a discreditable (but undeniable) episode in Smith's life.--John Foxe (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you'd object to an LDS editor suggesting we filter what that editor perceived to be skeptical spin from Brodie or Quinn's works. Bushman's take on this time period is as valid and citable as any other expert's, and neutrality is not served by ignoring the creditable (and undeniable) bits of Smith's life. alanyst ^/talk/ 05:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Bushman's speculation that Stovall hired Smith as a farm laborer has no citation in RSR.--John Foxe (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

False. Page 52: "Joseph had continued working for Stowell after the abortive mining operation in November 1825, and during that time, besides working on the farm and going to school, Joseph may have helped look for lost mines again." (Emphasis mine.) alanyst ^/talk/ 19:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that line. But I assume that Bushman's uncited statement here refers to working on his own family's farm.--John Foxe (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be no evidence that Smith ever worked as a farmhand outside his family's farm except in his mother's remembrances, and she was very sensitive to the charge that the Smiths spent all their time engaging in the practice of folk magic.--John Foxe (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Bushman says Joseph was employed by Stowell and Knight Sr. doing farm work, and quoted both Lucy Mack Smith and Joseph Knight Jr. to that effect. You are not qualified to speculate on the authenticity of LMS's claims; Bushman the expert has already evaluated it and accepted it as history. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Bushman does not say that Smith worked for Knight, Sr. as a farmhand. The only evidence cited by Bushman that Smith was ever hired as farmhand comes from Lucy Mack Smith's remembrances many years later and after Joseph's death. I've not speculated on the accuracy of LMS's claims in the article; I've just mentioned the source of the belief that Smith ever worked as a hired farmhand.--John Foxe (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

We're interested in what the sources say; so if Bushman's spinning at this point, we need to get beyond him. The same would be true if the shoe were on the other foot.--John Foxe (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

To me the issue is determining if Joseph Smith's life, at this time, was focused on treasure hunting or was it a something else. If it was not treasure hunting what was his main method of gainful employment. That should be stated and the treasure hunting put into context. One thing the article does not make clear is that people sought out Joseph Smith for his treasure hunting; it was not a situation where Smith advertised his abilities and interested parties contacted him. -^StormRider 12:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's my opinion that treasure hunting was Joseph Smith's chief method of employment during this period. (He even got others to do the physical labor.) As for advertising, it was by necessity word-of-mouth because at the time the occupation was considered disreputable if not illegal.--John Foxe (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have Brodie, Quinn, or Vogel quotes supporting the assertion that "treasure hunting was Smith's chief method of employment during this period", then by all means add them to the article. If we don't have a source to support this, then it is original research and the article should be modified. Bushman doesn't really come out and say that farm work was his chief method of employment either, so we likewise can't say that without a scholar backing it up. ...comments? ~BFizz 15:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that Smith's chief employment was treasure hunting, so I don't know why that would need to be proved—in fact, I don't know how it could be proved. There's certainly a lot of testimony that as a young man Smith was away from home for long periods treasure hunting, often with his father. Is there any testimony that he was working outside the home doing farm chores?--John Foxe (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we can produce references that he worked for others doing farm work, clearing land, etc. This was a first and foremost a farming family. If his treasure hunting was word of mouth and he was so unsuccessful at it, exactly what were people saying to encourage others to use him? Word of mouth references only work if one is successful. If he actually was working full time as a treasure hunter, being unsuccessful, exactly how was he providing for his family? This does not make sense, but I don't recall any historian that has stated this was his main employment or answered any of these questions. I have heard critics claim he was a notoriously unsuccessful treasure hunter, but this makes no sense if others always sought him out for his ability to find things. There are too many contradictions here. -^StormRider 05:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Bushman page 47 says "In October, 1825, Joseph and his father took jobs digging in Pennsylvania for Josiah Stowell Sr." - thus placing Joseph in the manual labor position in a "treasure hunt." Then page 48 says "[in 1826] Josiah Stowell Sr. employed him to do farm chores and perhaps work in the mills...Joseph's experience in clearing the Smith farm made him a useful hand..." On page 48, Bushman also explains that the Smiths were to receive 2/11 of the gold/ore discovered, making no other mention of repayment. Bushman narrates that JSJr convinced Stowell to stop digging; it seems doubtful that the Smiths were profiting from this particular failed excursion. ...comments? ~BFizz 08:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I still believe treasure hunting was Smith's main occupation and that he did little to no manual labor even on those digs. The Bushman statement about farm chores lacks primary source backing beyond Lucy Mack Smith, and on the same page, Bushman says (on much better primary source evidence) that Stowell brought "Joseph all the way from Palmyra" because Stowell believed "he had located the site of an ancient Spanish mine where coins had been minted and buried." That the Smiths made little money out of the treasure hunting seems reasonable enough; the treasures kept sliding away before the diggers could get to them. The treasure hunting episodes were important to Smith's later success because he discovered that people's willingness to believe in buried treasure rendered inconsequential his lack of ability to find any. Stowell continued to believe in Joseph's gift at Joseph's trial.--John Foxe (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty meaningless to try to ascribe to Smith some "main occupation". Of course, since the Smith family owned a little bit of land, he probably did chores around the farm. But everybody who owned land in those days did the same, but they also had outside businesses. Who knows (and who cares?) how much time they allocated to home chores compared to the outside business? Smith's father was a merchant, and in Joseph Jr.'s earliest days, before he really built up his magic business, his outside job was to work at his father's pastry/beer shop in Palmyra village. I don't see this issue as important. Of course he probably did farm chores, and he also sold pastry, but his career in magic is most relevant for purposes of this article. It's important because without magic, there would be no seer stones, and without seer stones, there would be no Book of Mormon. COGDEN 13:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Alas, we now come to the real head of the issue. Foxe and COgden seek to portray Smith as having a "magic business" at the same time procleaming he was worthless at the task. Now tell me boys and girls, if you sold beer and pastries for a living by charging two bits for every beer, but never gave any beer, exactly how long do you have a business? Now I may be wrong, it would not be the first time, but what you two gents are proposing is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. NO ONE, as in zero, zilch, personne, pays someone and never receives any goods. Bushman, in Foxe's words, the ultimate in references, clearly states Smith implored others not to pursue treasure hunting. Yet, you two are proposing for doing nothing, not even helping to dig (I assume you meant the lazy slob would not even lift a hand) people still felt the need to hire him for everything from farming to the heretofore unheard of "magic business". Excuse me, I have to puke; this is just too rich for my taste. -^StormRider 16:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Unearned riches are a powerful draw, not in the same league as beer and pastries. Heard of Bernie Madoff?--John Foxe (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Storm, Joseph Smith was a very good and very profitable magician. He was certainly not "worthless" at magic. Smith said, himself, that he was able to make $14/month on magic jobs, which was very good money for that era. Magic was certainly much more profitable for him than any other jobs he could have been doing. Smith certainly did not do "nothing" on these digs. He was the seer, and thus crucially important for each of these ventures. COGDEN 22:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You and Foxe need to get your story straight. On the one hand he is worthless, and could not find anything and then on the other he was very successful "magician" (which is a term I have not even heard anti-Mormons use). As a treasure hunter did he find treasure? If he did not, why was he paid as much as $15/month. I don't recall hearing that his family benefitted from this fruitful employement, rather they remained a relatively poor farming family. BTW, Madoff ran a ponzi skeme where he paid off the older investors with the monies from new investors; he then proceeded to just outright lie to his investors. None of this was possible in Smith's day; he either wsa immediately successful or he wasn't. Hear of reality lately? None of these references jibe and there is far more conflict than reality. -^StormRider 05:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Smith's techniques of deception have been used by scammers of every sort, ancient and modern. Smith found nothing with his seer stone (except maybe a pin or two) yet he was believed anyway. That same personal magnetism came into play when he approached women and told them that God had told him....If it had been me, I would have been instantly pegged by the men as a fraud and liar, and women would have laughed me to scorn.--John Foxe (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, Bushman says he did not have any "personal magnetism". Many first-time impressions was that he was a rather crude, uneducated person; not a good speaker; an ordinary fellow. On the other hand, you have others who were struck with the the presence of the Holy Spirit when they heard what he said when discussion spiritual matters.

Critics have tried to claim, without any evidence except personal deduction (i.e. they can't find another reason how he could have led so many educated people), that Smith was this overpowering personality. The truth was that he did not have such a personality.

Then we have the canard that somehow the whole state was employing him to find treasure, for which he never found anything, but "maybe a pin or two". This is what makes most thinking people stare with incredulity of critics. He was totally worthless at treasure hunting, but everyone threw money at him to help them find treasure. Can you say, "Some one is not telling the truth?" Either he was successful finding treasure or the story that he could make $15 a month is a farce, that Smith seldom was hired or at least few people chose to hire him. What is the right story? It seems like there is a lot of fish stories going on and none of it makes any sense; even a child can see someone is desperately trying to present a story that has no part in reality. -12:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that we vaguely imagine other people to be like ourselves, even though logically we realize that other folks have different abilities, some of which may be honed to spectacular proficiency. The fact that I couldn't play bassoon in a symphony orchestra, catch a game-winning pass in the NFL, or win fifty separate chess games blindfolded doesn't mean others couldn't. Like Mark Hofmann, Joseph Smith had unusual gifts and the ability to inspire confidence in others. I once worked for a fellow who was extremely persuasive and whose business went bankrupt while I was working for him. Yet I told my friends that if he came up with another proposition, I'd work for him again. He was that good.--John Foxe (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It's easy to fall victim to viewing history through the anachronistic eyes of a modern observer. If you put yourselves in the shoes of a middle-class New Englander in the 1820s, the measure of Joseph Smith's success as a magician is whether or not he was able--in the eyes of those who hired him--to at least temporarily remove the enchantments, or bypass the spirits, that protect buried treasure. By that standard, Smith was very successful. Smith was hired to show them where the treasure was buried and break the enchantment, and it was their fault that they failed to follow the proper magical protocols which resulted in the treasure slipping away from their grasp. Smith was providing a magical service, and was very good at providing that service, which is why he got repeat business. Saying that Smith was successful, despite no proof that would satisfy a rational modern mind, is no different from saying that a Catholic priest is successful in transmuting the wafer and wine into the body and blood of Christ, or saying that an exorcist is successful in casting out demons, or that a Wiccan is successful in casting a spell, or that an early Christian was successful in speaking in tongues, or in bringing a curse upon a city by casting the dust off their feet. You have to judge success through the eyes of those who believe the magic, and put aside the rational proof that would be required by jaded modern eyes. COGDEN 20:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that when discussing the Catholic priest no one places it in a context of magic. More importantly, no one on Wikipedia would allow you that liberty. Not even Foxe's university would allow such talk about their founder. Why is it acceptable when discussing Mormonism? -09:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Smith's employers

In the Bushman text I've read about Smith being employed by two men for treasure seeking

1. Josiah Stowell Sr.
2. Joseph Knight Sr (or Jr?)

Foxe insists that Smith performed treasure-seeking, hired by various employers. Can someone please quote some authoritative sources to back that up? ...comments? ~BFizz 01:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

A good place to start is Quinn, 53-59, which is already cited in the relevant note in the article. According to Quinn, Smith was treasure hunting in Harmony, PA in 1822, working with the diggers of Oliver Harper. After leaving Stowell, Smith continued treasure hunting in Chenango and Broome counties until arrested in 1826. A neighbor of Smith's, Samantha Payne, said that "for a period of about seven years," Smith "was more or less of the time engaged in digging for money—that he so dug upon many of the farms in the neighborhood," this recollection being supported by other neighbors. Apparently, two residents of Manchester, David and Abram Fish, provided financial support for Smith to dig in the Manchester area.--John Foxe (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See Vogel, Dan (1994), "The Locations of Joseph Smith's Early Treasure Quests" (PDF), Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 27 (3): 197–231 for the most detailed analysis of Smith's treasure quests. Also, see Quinn, 1998, pp. 58-59, listing Smith's treasure quest employers as including David and Abram Fish (Palmyra/Manchester area), Oliver Harper (Susquehanna area), Josiah Stowell (Susquehanna area), and Jacob Chamberlain (Junius/Waterloo area). COGDEN 12:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Emma Hale Smith caption

I feel that the information contained in the caption of Emma Hale Smith does not belong there. I'm not suggesting that we remove the text entirely, just that we move it into that section. As it stands, the image does not follow consistency with the rest of the article's images. What does everyone else think? Thanks, w7jkt ^talk 19:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This caption been extensively debated in the past, and it supplies important information to the reader. Having this information with the picture means that many more people will read and learn from it. Frankly, if consistency's the goal, it would be better if the other images in the article had such descriptive captions.--John Foxe (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the current caption, but I also believe that a simpler caption would be fine. The problem is, it's just odd to say "Emma Smith, wife of Joseph Smith" without also saying something about Joseph's polygamy. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Foxe. Some of us worked for awhile on that caption before the usual, respected editors of the time were happy all 'round. Best, User:A Sniper 02:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for bringing up a previously debated issue (which I couldn't find in the archives for some reason), but regardless I think that my previous statement still applies. I think that, as John said, if we won't change the text of that caption, we should at least adjust the others in the article for consistency. And this might have been asked already, but why is that particular statement of such importance that it needs to be in the caption? Isn't the section about Joseph's family, not his polygamy? Thanks, w7jkt ^talk 18:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Polygamy is certainly a family matter.--John Foxe (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Stating "Emma Smith, wife of Joseph Smith" is correct, but neglects to mention that he had other "wives", for some definition of "wives". ...comments? ~BFizz 01:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly OK with mentioning other "wives", but "Portrait of Emma Hale Smith, who like her husband, always publicly denied Smith's polygamy" seems somewhat disjointed to me. Could we not say something like, "Emma Hale Smith, first wife of Joseph Smith." or something to that extent? I don't particularly like it but it seems more focused than the other. Thanks, w7jkt ^talk 13:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

One problem with "first wife" is that it suggests that Emma Smith died. Besides, I think it important to mention that Emma always publicly denied that her husband had practiced polygamy, and that information gets read much more often in the image caption. If it's just the sentence structure you don't like, that could be reworded as. "Portrait of Emma Hale Smith. Like her husband, she always denied that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy."--John Foxe (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I have no doubt that you view that statement important. I contend, however, that "first wife" does not suggest that Emma died, it suggests more than one wife. It's blatantly obvious when taken in context. But it still remains that if the caption remains a statement contained within the section, then the other captions must be changed as well for consistency. Thanks, w7jkt ^talk 19:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you John. I recall that this was a lot of back & forth to get it the way it is now, what with competing voices and views. I know my own unique perspective as an editor was respected by editors as diverse as you and Storm Rider. In any case, I do hope that we can keep the caption as is, with the refs intact. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it has been previously discussed, it is not consistent and, I think, just does not flow. Why should it matter if editors have agreed upon it in the past? While I respect the contributions of editors much more experienced than myself, things change, articles evolve and there are changes that need to be made in order to make a better article. Thanks, w7jkt ^talk 13:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

So what's your suggestion as to how the caption should read?--John Foxe (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I made my suggestion earlier: "Emma Hale Smith, first wife of Joseph Smith." which I think is appropriate. If you strongly disagree can we meet in the middle somewhere? The caption's primary purpose is to describe the image depicted, is it not? w7jkt ^talk 16:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Did Joseph Smith have more than one wife?--John Foxe (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

What are you getting at? You're skirting the issue. w7jkt ^talk 18:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"Skirting" the issue? ;)--John Foxe (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah... What is your suggestion then? w7jkt ^talk 14:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Emma Smith, first of the many wives of the polygamist Joseph Smith. Works for me, short & sweet. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm with you, W7jkt. It seems in poor taste that the summation of Emma Smith's legacy is her stand on Polygamy. This is the lady who was the mother of all of Joseph's children (despite conflicting records no DNA evidence has ever proven otherwise). She stood by him through all of his persecutions, lost multiple children in childbirth, adopted and raised others with Joseph, endured Joseph's murder, stayed behind when the Saints left for the West; and all we see when scanning the article is about her position on polygamy. I'm sorry I wasn't involved in any previous discussion. No offense to those who debated this one previously but I agree with W7jkt that the caption read simply;

"Emma Hale Smith, first wife of Joseph Smith."

Even more dignified for the descendants of Joseph would be,

"Emma Hale Smith, wife of Joseph Smith."

But I'm sure we'd never get away with that one.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Thank you for your suggestion, Duke. One of the problems with that statement is that we need to qualify "many" in this instance. Since there has been many suppositions as to just how many wives Joseph did have and whether or not they were legitimately his wives, that creates an issue. We could remove the word many for a start. Regards, w7jkt ^talk 18:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Emma Smith, first of the many at least 33 wives of polygamist Joseph Smith. Still short & sweet. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now don't be cheeky. You know that even that number is disputed. There can be no definite number as we are lacking in documentation and reliable sources. How about: Emma Hale Smith, first of the wives of Joseph Smith. No need to mention "polygamist" at that point because it is implied. Regards, w7jkt ^talk 19:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

•"You know that even that number is disputed" That's why I added the qualifier 'at least'; I will use Todd Compton’s In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives Of Joseph Smith as my source, thank you very much. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

•p.s. Your snide comment about me being 'cheeky' isn't appreciated or helpful. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Lumping Emma with Smith's other polygamous wives is just as bad as ignoring the polygamous wives. Something along these lines would be more accurate: "Emma Hale married Joseph Smith in 1827. To Emma's dismay, Joseph later practiced polygamy in the 1840s." ...comments? ~BFizz 21:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If the image were to be found in a section on 'plural marriage' it might be seen as potentially appropriate. However the section is on 'Family and Descendants'. It is not reliably proven that Joseph had any children outside his marriage to Emma. So it simply looks like muckraking to highlight Emma's position on polygamy so prevalently while downplaying the amazingly challenging and compassionate work she performed in raising her several children through such challenging circumstances. You can argue this is a LDS sentiment, but I don't believe respect for the dignity of the role of mothers is exclusive to Mormonism. And as long as mindless academia trumps dignity, we're going to keep having problems with this article.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

...or we could simply allow what is there to stand. Do what you want to other photo captions but this one took a lot of tweaking and I've watched & waited until somebody would want to enter that arena again...and here we are. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I've dug up the old conversation in the archives for everyone's reference: Talk:Joseph_Smith,_Jr./Archive_14#Joseph_Smith.27s_wives-a_controversy_between_John_Foxe_and_A_Sniper ...comments? ~BFizz 23:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)\

Thanks for looking that up, Fizz. I did recall that what ended up there was after input from me, Foxe and COgden. At least it shows that the words were chosen carefully, and, actually, it was Foxe who came up with it and I inserted it. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoa. I have reviewed the past discussion on the subject. Nowhere in that discussion was W7jkt's point "...the information contained in the caption of the Emma Hale Smith does not belong there. I'm not suggesting that we remove the text entirely, just that we move it into that section. As it stands, the image does not follow."

raised significantly. His point is not about the text itself, but its location in the caption box. This is a new point which deserves to be discussed. What's the rush?

Canadiandy1 (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Despite lack of consensus, I've made an edit to the caption. There are two reasons I feel this version is better:

• References don't really belong in captions
• I've given years so the reader can quickly understand Emma was different than Joseph's other polygamous wives.

I've preserved the notion that Emma denied Smith's polygamy, though I've not used the phrase "always publicly denied", which I'm not sure any historian has asserted (we don't cite any). ...comments? ~BFizz 16:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Upon inspection, the Church History reference seems to be completely irrelevant to the point. Assuming "Church History" means "History of the Church", see History of the Church v. 3 pp 356-357. Perhaps a different edition was being cited? ...comments? ~BFizz 16:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

BFizz, thanks very much for that change. I feel that it is one that probably most of us will agree upon. I, for one, think it is brilliant. And as for Duke, I apologise if my remark came across as snide, and, upon reflection, I'm not sure if it could have come across as anything but. I am sorry, I didn't mean it. Regards, Firinne ^talk 17:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

BFizz, I greatly appreciate the improvements you have been able to make here thanks to your time and contributions. My concern is not that the wording is not a huge improvement, but whether it belongs there at all. The same information should be held within the text, so that Emma's entire life is not summed up according to her position on polygamy. What would be so horrible if the caption read something like;

"Married to Joseph in January 1827, Emma was the mother of seven natural and two adopted children."

The information on her position on polygamy could then be placed in the section's second paragraph where it seems to fit naturally.

This woman, love her or hate her, raised 9 children through incredibly trying circumstances. How is this trumped by her position on polygamy and the dispute that she did or didn't know Joseph was "married" again in a literal or dynastic way. Replacing a clear family reality with a speculative, debated, and critical item makes no sense.

I have no more to say on the wording, but I want to voice my opinion that the debate on the location of the caption's text is far from closed.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

It's important to state that Emma, as well as Joseph, denied that Joseph practiced plural marriage because that information helps draw the reader into this section of material. Emma's refusal to publicly admit the truth about her husband's polygamy provides significant insight into her moral and spiritual character.--John Foxe (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe,

I'm going to drop this one. It seems that there is too much appetite for branding Emma as a liar. Maybe we can deal with it later when things have cooled down a little. But I will repeat that it is not 'that' it is stated, but 'where' it is stated. And does it really matter whether the article calls her a liar first and then informs us she had several children, or instead refers to her as a mother and then calls her a liar? Either way your opinion is validated.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Most women have children, many have several. Few women have husbands who practice polygamy, know about the practice, and then deny it.--John Foxe (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, most women have children. And all people die. Just because it is common (and was inevitable) does that mean we stop putting up headstones? Judging from what I read on headstones we usually honor deceased individuals by recognizing their family connections as their primary accomplishment, regardless of what they are popular for.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

This is an encyclopedia article, not an obituary or a tombstone.--John Foxe (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have two questions about Foxe's modifications, and one objection:

• Why is it important to say Emma "publicly" denied Joseph's polygamy?
• Why is it important in the caption of Emma's portrait to say Joseph also denied his polygamy?
• By changing the sentence, it's unclear whether the polygamy or the denials were "during the 1840s".

...comments? ~BFizz 21:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Another objection I have is that Foxe's change makes it less clear that Smith did, in fact, practice polygamy. The version prior made it quite plain. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• It's important to say that Emma "publicly" denied Joseph's polygamy because we have pretty good evidence that she (mistakenly) thought she could control his sexual behavior by selecting appropriate partners for him.
• It's important to say that Joseph denied his polygamy because this article is about Joseph. (It wouldn't necessarily be appropriate in Emma Smith's article.)
• Both the polygamy and the denials largely occurred in the 1840s.
• An argument could be made that Joseph was not practicing polygamy but fornication.--John Foxe (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with, but can live with, #2 and #3. Regarding #1...what? First of all, that is a complete non sequeter, perhaps you left out a few logical steps in-between that would lead from one point to the other, but I don't see what "Emma controlling Smith" has to do with the addition of the word "publicly". Second of all...what "good evidence" do we have of that? That position is extremely speculative. Regarding #4, in most peoples' value systems, the two are equivalent. It is still a terrible reason for not asserting that Smith practiced polygamy in clear terms in this caption. The whole reason we agree that the caption "Emma Hale Smith, wife of Joseph Smith" is insufficient is because it fails to mention Smith's polygamy. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've dropped the "publicly" and tweaked the wording to get the date up front. I think Utah elders of the late nineteenth century would be horrified to have a religious descendant willing to equate plural marriage with serial infidelity.--John Foxe (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What I understand from your comments, John, is that your sole purpose in editing is to establish your particular (and that of most anti-Mormons) POV that Joseph Smith had gone off the deep end and was a sexual deviant. It's clear that you will use whatever "sources" necessary in order to establish that. You're grasping at straws here. Whether or not you think an argument could be made about Joseph Smith being a fornicator has no relevance to this caption. We are willing to meet halfway by keeping the polygamy statement in the caption because it draws readers into the section, but your interjection of irrelevant information into the caption is just illogical. Firinne ^talk 11:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed back to 'restorationist'

I believe it was COgden who made a change I never saw discussed in which the article now refers to the church Joseph Smith founded as a 'primitivist' church. While Joseph Smith did identify the church as a reflection of the 'primitive Christian church' his word usage in context referred to the original church organized by Christ and did not mean any discredit (why would he discredit the church he was patterning [his] work after?). The term 'primitivist' in our modern context however seems to reflect backwards thinking or even old-fashioned. Clearly, the term 'restorationist' is more reflective of his aim, more clear, and more courteous to those of the Latter Day Saint movements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Christian Restorationism has a completely irrelevant meaning. Also, there are many types of "restorationism," but the term Christian primitivism is a specific type of restorationism, and is most descriptive of the type shared by early Mormonism and related groups such as the Disciples of Christ. The term "primitivist" in this context has nothing to do with "backward thinking." It is a widely-used term used by both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars. (See, e.g., references to the term on Google Scholar, etc.) COGDEN 12:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"Restoration" is certainly a common thing for a Mormon to say when describing Smith's establishment of the Church of Christ. I suppose that "Christian Restorationism" shouldn't be used, though I often suggest "restorationist Christian", in this case I think we could simply replace the phrase "a Christian primitivist church" with a description of what that means. For example, "he organized a church named the Church of Christ, calling it a restoration of the church established by Jesus Christ." ...comments? ~BFizz 04:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Perfect, BFizz! COgden. I see your point in phrasing, and I don't like the idea of dumbing down the article, but I think it is important to point out that most readers of the article will not be familiar with the phraseology often used here. While the term 'primitivist' may be accurate, my vote is for terminology more common to the majority of readers.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

While Mormons use the term restoration, very few of them use the term restorationist or know what it means, any more than they know what Christian primitivism means. But the latter is a more specific term. Why use vegetable when you can use carrot? COGDEN 11:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The point isn't whether Mormons understand the term, but whether common readers do. Why use the term 'pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis' when 'lung disease' will do?

173.180.123.61 (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

The problem is, if you say restorationism, nobody knows what you are talking about. You could mean Christian Restorationism, the Restoration Movement, universal reconciliation, or Christian primitivism. The best way to make sure that the common reader understands which of these things you are talking about is to use the most specific term. COGDEN 05:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, COgden. The best solution is what BFizz suggests;

"He organized a church named the Church of Christ, calling it a restoration of the church established by Jesus Christ."

What problem do you have with his wording?

173.180.123.61 (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

The issue is that, independently of merely saying that Smith believed in a restoration, it's important to categorize early Mormonism as a form of Christian primitivism, which places it in the same category as the Disciples of Christ, and might prompt the reader to look at the Christian primitivism article. When given a choice between using the most specific, correct, and standard word for the purpose at hand, and an awkward and unnecessarily euphemistic phrasing, the former is always the best choice. COGDEN 19:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Are we wording this just so we can advertise for the "Disciples of Christ" page? Let's call this what it is, and not what it is like. I understand if there is a link from Christian primitivism back to this article if this fits that definition, but I don't see the need to try and jam this peg into a hole on another pegboard. The peg might even fit, but what's the need? Let's stop defining other people's religions by what we think they are or aren't like. You say, "...it's important to categorize early Mormonism as a form of Christian primitivism." I think it's important to stop categorizing religions, and to start respecting them for their individual beliefs and values.

But if it's simply about being wordy or increasing the mere number of links to other pages, then I have no further improvements to suggest.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

I was mildly irritated to find this nugget entirely edited out. But I'm tired of the heavy hitters overriding me, so I'm not going to debate it further. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Did Joseph Smith ever work as a hired farmhand?

I find this edit of John Foxe's to be argumentative and a misrepresentation of the sources; see Bushman pp. 47-53. Since he and I seem to be at an impasse, and I don't want to cross the line into edit warring, will other editors besides us please opine whether the edit is appropriate or not? Thanks, alanyst ^/talk/ 22:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll be happy to admit my error if anyone can find a citation (other than to Lucy Mack Smith) that says that Joseph Smith ever worked as a hired farmhand.--John Foxe (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

From Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith by Newell and Avery, page 17: "When Josiah Stowell abandoned the digging enterprise, Emma did not have to say good-bye to Joseph, for Stowell hired him as a farmhand and to cut timber." See endnote 29 of that source, citing a letter from Marietta Colwell to Wilford C. Wood. Also note that Googling for "best hand he ever hired" (the Joseph Knight Jr. phrase) gives a number of sources for that statement, the primary source for which is given in a 1978 Ensign article as follows: Joseph Knight, Jr., “Joseph Knight’s [Jr.] Incidents of History from 1827 to 1844,” compiled by Thomas Bullock from loose sheets in Joseph Knight’s possession, Church Archives, 16 Aug. 1862, p. 1. alanyst ^/talk/ 00:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Bushman says Smith "possibly labored in Joseph Knight Sr.'s carding mills," (52) not as a farmhand. And the letter from Marietta Colwell to Wilford C. Wood you've cited as evidence was written in 1946! I repeat, I'll be happy to admit my error if anyone can find a citation (other than to Lucy Mack Smith) that says that Joseph Smith ever worked as a hired farmhand.--John Foxe (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have given you citations to academically sound, widely respected secondary sources that are treating it as a fact that he did farm work outside his family. This is getting tiresome and you are in breach of 3RR. alanyst ^/talk/ 01:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Last I checked we were using Bushman extensively as an authoritative secondary source. Just because Bushman hasn't convinced you, Foxe, doesn't mean we should discount his statements. The edit in question inserts original research - what reliable source has stated that this is the only evidence? ...comments? ~BFizz 01:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't discount Bushman. I only noted that there's no primary source evidence that Joseph Smith ever worked as a hired farmhand beyond the late testimony of his mother, who was concerned that the Smith family not be portrayed as having wasted their time practicing magic. Wikipedia rules permit you to proceed as you've done. But I hold the high moral ground.--John Foxe (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Instead of debating over very obscure detail, why don't we change "farmhand" to "laborer" and just cite both Bushman and Newell/Avery? COGDEN 11:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That makes no sense Foxe; you have accused the whole family of playing with "magic" their entire lives. Now you want to accuse them of being concerned about their public image and playing with magic? Foxe, you are making me worry. Have you by chance ever studied logic or even undstood its definition? You are way out in your position and it is wholly lacking in any degree of logic. -^StormRider 12:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The explanation is a common one in understanding history: change over time. The magic world view of early Mormonism worked well during the first years of the Church. Eber Howe's Mormonism Unvailed (1834) published affidavits by Palmyra residents describing the activities of the Smith family in the occult and folk magic, and none of the Smiths ever denied their truth. But in 1854, after the deaths of her husband and son, Lucy Mack Smith wanted it understood that family's participation in folk magic did not mean her family had neglected its farm work.--John Foxe (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

COgden, you are the first person who claims to be neutral to cite Eber Howe's book as legitimate history rather than the preposterous screed all historians claim it to be. It is similar to asking the KKK about the positive traits of the black race. The Church never, ever claimed to have a magic world view. The only thing the Church ever claimed was that God was all-powerful and active in daily life. Further, Smith made it clear that all mankind might know God through the work of the Holy Spirit. There is such a thing as history and then there is twisting history to meet one's personal agenda. History may not be a field for you because it first demands neutrality and you have completely lost that ability when it comes to this topic. I suggest you seek Ed Decker's shop for employment. -^StormRider 09:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

(I'm sure you meant to condemn me rather than the long-suffering COGDEN)--John Foxe (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ouch, Stormrider. I agree it is poor form to cite Howe. But to accuse someone of work parallel to that of Ed Decker seems a little harsh. Brodie perhaps, but Decker? My favorite trivia about Decker is that "one of his associates offered to exorcise the Tanners' demons, and expressed great sadness when they refused" because of the Tanners' accusation that his writings weren't as subtle as theirs in leading LDS members from their religion. Such fun watching the dogs barking at the caravan turn on each other.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Stormrider, I never said that Howe's work was neutral or unbiased. It is what it is, which is an anti-Mormon esposé. However, it contains some primary source material which has objective indicia of historical reliability (such as corroborations, etc.), and is therefore considered by academia to be reasonably reliable. It is a fringe view, even among Mormon apologetic scholars now, to suggest that Joseph Smith never practiced magic. Not even Joseph Smith himself made that claim. COGDEN 18:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me the merits of COgden's position. I believe he is suggesting that even though the author of a history is clearly biased and therefore unreliable, his writing is relevant because it contains some accurate sources. My position would be to throw out the author's work. If there is an accurate reference or item in the writing source it independently. Otherwise the item itself can be seen as less reliable by association. It may take a little more work, but if the jobs worth doing, isn't it worth doing right? 173.180.123.61 (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

COgden, I know the history of Joseph Smith relatively well. He used stones to seek for treasure. However, how that topic is discussed is important. We do not discuss Catholic exorcisms as using magic; we do not discuss wearing metal crosses as wearing magical amulets of protection; we do not discuss faith-healers as mystical healers. The reason why we don't is first and foremost an effort to provide a neutral context tot he readers. This topic should be treated just as we treat all topics of religion.

I strongly reject any attempt to use a different standard for Joseph Smith or Mormonism in general. Why are you proposing it should be different? On what grounds does it merit this difference? -^StormRider 06:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point, Stormrider.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Canadiandy, it's irrelevant whether a particular source is biased. The standard is whether it is reliable. Stormrider, if what you are seeking is a euphemism for the word folk magic in this article, what is your proposed euphemism, and how do you suggest that using this euphemism passes the test of WP:NPOV? COGDEN 18:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The easiest way is not to label it; just state what he did. We don't label Catholic exorcism as a magical rite; it is just described for what it does. We say they wear a cross and not a magic amulet to ward off evil spirits. We don't describe Oral Roberts as a mystic shaman that traversed the US doing healings. Why the double standard? Treat this topic like we treat others; there is no need to use the language of anti-Mormonism just because it is sensational. Their terminology should just be ignored.-^StormRider 06:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Emma was "Doubly Troublesome?"

The article reads;

[Emma's]strong opposition to plural marriage "made her doubly troublesome."[426]

Was this a direct quote from a church member? The reference only links to Bushman. Is this Bushman's own interpretation or if he is quoting another individual? Can we have the original source please? As it reads now it seems to connect this quote to the Church leadership, where in reality it may actually be Emma's personal narrative.

Even with the source, the way this is presented is biased in at least two ways. It either suggests that the Church was disrespectful of Emma as an individual, or to the other extreme that Emma's opposition of polygamy was wrong. And I don't buy the argument that since it is biased in both extremes it is somehow balanced.

What's wrong with stating that Emma felt the leadership of the Church were disappointed/frustrated with her position. If this is actually the case according to a reliable source.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

I have no problem whatsoever with Bushman's quote, regardless if it is his own take on things or based on a primary source. Emma didn't fit conveniently into the Brigham Young world view, and this is something interesting to point out. If anything, it shows some respect for her to make sure the point is made, and Bushman's quote was a dynamic one to grab. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The "doubly troublesome" quotation is Bushman's, so it is indeed a "direct quote from a church member."--John Foxe (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

How's this? ...comments? ~BFizz 03:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Are we allowed to remove cited quotations because an editor has 'concerns' ? If so, let me know because I have more than a few 'concerns' about a few quotes. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I replaced the quote with a statement that said the same thing but in a way that fit the context better. The Bushman quote supports the wording that I used; do you disagree, Duke? If you have actual concerns about clarity or neutrality, feel free to bring them up. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the actual quote rather than your interpretation of what was said. If we are allowed to do what you just did, give me the word and I will make some changes to the quotes that 'concern' me. Cheers. 05:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

For many years post-Nauvoo, Emma was 'doubly troublesome' to the LDS leadership. Not only did she reject polygamy, with her public statements challenging the credibility of S.132, her rejection of Young and the Twelve didn't fit nicely into the narrative. Why is Bushman's quote not appropriate where it sits? Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Because where it sits it is confusing as to whether it is the words of Brigham Young, Emma Smith, some early church leader or the historian Bushman. Canadiandy1 (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

The wording "doubly troublesome" was clearer in its original context, where Bushman was talking about Emma's relationship with the church. I simply lifted the core idea of the quote into the context we were using it. I see no compelling reason to parrot Bushman's words here. ...comments? ~BFizz 06:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the history. I agree about not parroting Bushman, the article is not about him. I also wonder what evidence Bushman might have had that church leaders' opinions of Emma personally were negative. Without supporting evidence, better terminology would look like;

'Emma's actions caused them concern,' or, 'the leaders were frustrated by her actions.'

Perhaps Bushman finds Emma troublesome, but I see no evidence that the eternal companion of the Church's most revered prophet was ever considered personally without courtesy or dignity by the early leaders. Remember, there is a big difference in how one feels about an individual's actions, and how they might feel about the actual individual. Lets focus on what is known, not what is speculated. The article is already long enough.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

If you look at it in the context of Bushman's book, the phrase's meaning is quite clear, flowing logically from the previous sentences. It loses clarity when the snippet is copied verbatim into our article. ...comments? ~BFizz 15:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(responding to this edit summary) Duke, out any of my comments above, can you please tell me where I have given "personal reasons"? I'm pretty sure I gave editorial reasons for this. What you call "my interpretation" is a very obvious derivation of Bushman's words. Please stop wikilawyering under the false mantra of protecting sourced quotations. There's no policy that says we should prefer direct quotes over clearer wording. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• One of your edit summaries said that you were doing it because of another editor's 'concern's; now you've changed tack, but you are edit warring. It's tough to hit a moving target. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, one edit summary, coincidentally the first of mine relating to this issue. I was referring to Canadiandy's concerns at the beginning of this section, which are about the clarity of the wording chosen; Canadiandy noted that the wording may lead readers to incorrect interpretations of the facts we are trying to present. So I changed the quote into clearer wording. I don't know how to make my argument any more consistent than it is in this case. My edits and comments, every time in this conversation, have been about clearer wording. I won't attempt to impose this wording again, though. I'll rely on other editors to restore my proposed wording if they agree with me. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "clear wording. clear wording. clear wording. I've said or implied this every time, Duke.

• "Yes, one edit summary, coincidentally the first of mine relating to this issue". Every time, huh ? make up your mind: every time does NOT mean every time but the rather important 'first' one ... you've proved my point for me. Thank You. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"Said or implied." That first time was the "implied". I expected it to be an obvious and uncontroversial change. I've since made my thought process more explicit. Now can we get back to discussion of content, please? Perhaps you'd like to explain why you feel "my interpretation" is not an adequate derivation of Bushman's words. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If you examine Bushman's text, this is obviously a quantification based on a previous statement which is lacking in our prose here. The change is necessary and it makes sense. What is the argument here? Regards, Firinne ^talk 17:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The way it reads now (Her strong opposition to plural marriage further complicated her relationship with the church) is much, much better. Thanks, all. The facts remain in the text but are now written in a more neutral and clear manner.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Bushman is the historian and his book is the secondary source. I sincerely question why his characterization of Emma as being 'doubly troublesome' isn't clear & correct. It is. She was. Just as her two sons were who went on missions to Utah during the 1850s. If someone is going to edit out Bushman's appropriate term, then it must be clear she created a problem for the westward-trekking leadership for both reasons: rejection of their polygamy (not only her public denials of her husband's involvement) and rejection of them as church leaders. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

ASniper, I will give you that Emma's positions/rejections created problems for the leadership. But the term 'troublesome' is loaded and I disagree that Emma was 'troublesome.' Her actions created troubles for leadership, perhaps. But labeling Emma in such a way is like calling one's child 'bad.' The social standard recommends labeling the action and not the child.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy