Talk:Fawn M. Brodie/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Notes on POV Tags

I have nominated this page for "Good" status. However, I have some issues with the author of the article with regard to some phrases that I believe violate WP:NPOV. I have had an on-going discussion on these matters and John Foxe feels that if something is "True" then it cannot be POV. I have tried to explain the concept of NPOV as I understand it but have failed. John feels strong enough about these phrases to consider them worthy of an edit war. I request reviewers' judgements.

I consider the following phrases in the article to be POV such that wikipedia is taking a stand vs reporting information:

Well researched and smartly written found in the fifth paragraph of the No Man Knows My History Section

Gary Wills, savaged Brodie's work found in the Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History Section

There may be other POV phrases as well. --Blue Tie 02:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest in an edit war and hope Blue Tie and I can reach consensus about these details. I've added three more citations for the "well researched and smartly written" phrase and moved the Gary Willis comment to the footnotes, where it belongs anyway. So what do you think?--John Foxe 13:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that moving the Gary Wills quote to a footnote, all because you must have one word in the text is a shame, but otherwise the article is good. --Blue Tie 11:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I support this good article nomination, regardless of my quibbles in the talk archives on some of the wording --Trödel 15:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The move to footnote may lose more than interesting content

This is the current version, with what I think is one edit, to make a separate paragraph regarding the DNA justification and consequent historical studies:

Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History was published in February 1974, and it became the main spring selection of the Book-of-the-Month Club. Brodie did her best to ensure that the three foremost Jefferson scholars, Dumas Malone, Merrill Peterson, and Julian Boyd, would not be invited to review the book. But she scarcely needed to worry. Brodie was interviewed on NBC's Today Show, and the book quickly "became a topic of comment in elite social-literary circles." The biography was also an immediate commercial success and remained on the New York Times best-seller list for thirteen weeks. Jefferson sold 80,000 copies in hardback, 270,000 copies in paperback, and netted Brodie $350,000 in royalties--adjusted for inflation, more than a million dollars in the early twenty-first century.

Reviews were mixed. Most were generally positive with some lifting of eyebrows at Brodie's undue speculation.

Brodie was at least partially vindicated in 1998 when blind DNA tests concluded that a male carrying the Jefferson Y chromosome had fathered Eston Hemings, Sally Hemings' youngest child. In January 2000, a research committee commissioned by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation also asserted that there was a high probability that Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemmings and possibly the father of all Hemings children listed in the Monticello records. Nevertheless, a similar study in 2001, organized by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, reached opposite conclusions, namely that it was unlikely that Jefferson had fathered any of Hemings' children.

Note that the way this article reads the book had "generally positive" reviews. I remember the storm at the time it was released and perhaps over the next 5 years (At some point, I even think it made the cover of Time Magazine). The reviews were not "generally positive". They were greatly mixed and from my memory of it, they were more critical than supportive (except, again, people did generally find her writing to be compelling). But her approach was widely condemned, if not by literary reviewers, at least by historians. The Gary Willis quote is probably the most extreme but it is also the best worded example. I think that excluding it, slants a bit one way. I think it is a shame to exclude it because of its wording. ON the other hand, including it, it is so strong that at least one positive quote would be appropriate and would balance it.

One other note: I rechecked because I remember this being "Gary Wills" not "Gary Willis" and I think it is Wills. I have read "Willis" many places so that it almost seems right, but I think it is wrong. --Blue Tie 12:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally heard Dumas Malone go after Brodie's thesis. "I've lived with Jefferson for most of my life," he said. "And Jefferson would never have done such a thing."--John Foxe 14:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a certain undeniable persuasiveness to that sort of certainty. I find it hard to believe that it was MORE likely to be his brother than him. There are no compelling arguments on that matter. But this is an interesting problem with probability. If we say there is a 50% probability Jefferson was the father of slave children, we are certainly dead wrong at least 50%. We just do not know which way. --Blue Tie 03:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

From the latest change, my first thought was "without exception" is pretty strong - and probably not verifiable, since we don't have records for the newspapers of that era (or at least I don't and I doubt nexis or dialog has them going back that far). It would probably be better to say "Non-mormon reviewers..." since that doesn't have the superlative. --Trödel 15:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

John you make me laugh, I saw the summary "OK hows that?" and then when I go to the page - it is exactly what I proposed - so how can I object --Trödel 15:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard."--John Foxe 18:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"...that went down to the skirts of his garments;" --Trödel 18:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

GAC

I judged this article on 7 criteria:

1. Well-written: Pass
2. Factually accurate: Pass
3. Broad: Pass
4. Neutrally written: Pass
5. Stable: Pass
6. Well-referenced: Pass
7. Images: Pass

Congratulations, it passes! Do please continue to improve the article, so that it can hopefully one day reach FA status. --PresN 18:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the time you spent in the review. --Blue Tie 03:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Mormon" in the article

The anonymous contributer is wrong to revise the article to claim that Joseph Smith founded the LDS Church (many groups claim his legacy), and his aversion to all refences of "Mormonism" when discussing early Mormon history are similarly misguided. For example, she was certainly an important figure in "Mormon studies", not merely "LDS studies".

However, we should also be precise whenever possible. In particular, Brodie was raised LDS. She was published in an LDS periodical, Weber was owned by the LDS Church, and she was married in an LDS chapel. Our anonymous contributer is correct to fix details which refer only to the LDS Church. "Mormon Church" should not be used in any article since it's both imprecise and incorrect. Cool Hand Luke 23:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree.--John Foxe 01:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the explainatory footnote is a good idea. It explains the terminology to both Later-day Saints and those unfamiliar with Mormon history. Hopefully it discourages editors from spontaneously claiming that Smith founded the LDS Church. Cool Hand Luke 15:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Mormonism"

Although the anonymous contributed has not shown an interest in the talk page in the past, it needs to be emphasized that "Mormonism" is a word. Mormon scholars (including some of the RLDS variety) contributed to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. The Deseret Morning News even uses the term. See Can Romney ease doubts and Should LDS insulate their children?

It's a useful word. Many groups besides the LDS Church claim Smith's heritage. When referring to Smith's church, we cannot identify it with the LDS Church because that represents the LDS POV.

Moreover, "Mormonism" doesn't turn the religion into a mere philosophy any more than "Catholicism" does. Cool Hand Luke 21:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Or, even better than the Deseret Morning News, the LDS Church itself says: "The term “Mormonism” is acceptable in describing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." This source also goes on to say that "Mormon" should be uniquely applied to members of the LDS Church, which almost everyone rejects, at least in reference to Mormon fundamentalism. The point is that even the LDS Church styleguide does not find this term offensive. Cool Hand Luke 21:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Luke.--John Foxe 21:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has some standards on how to refer to elements of Mormonism and the LDS Church expressed in a guideline or policy somewhere.--Blue Tie 04:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous editor speaks

I am willing to concede on the issue regarding the alleged word "Mormonism". While it can be seen in some historical documents that "Mormon", "Mormonite", and "Mormonism" were coined by people outside of the Church through ignorance or animosity, if the Deseret News says the word is acceptable, that should suffice in anyone's book.

It would help, though, if the general tone of the article was not that of a fan of Mrs. Brodie, seeking to explain her break away from the Church, but not any of the charges raised against it. For example, no reason is given or even speculated for why the rest of the McKay family refused to bail out Thomas McKay senior, despite the way his steadfastness in the faith persisted throughout his life, even while his wife and daughters' did not. If it couldn't shake his faith, than it begs the question why. Perhaps the McKays, and the Church, be extension, are not as bad as it would seem from this paragraph.

It would further help, if we can dispense with the implicit allegations that the larger McKay family, and David O. McKay in particular were horrified at Fawn's marriage to a Jew on basis of racist motives. I have tried to offer the obviously lacking perspective to this article that suggests that they would be horrified of any marriage of their kin to anyone not a member of the Church. It is considered taboo to do so, and has more often than not led to divorce and extreme disharmony. Further, it can reasonably be assumed that they would have seen her apostasy coming, and saw her marriage outside of the Church as another "nail in the coffin" as it were. I would compound these suggested considerations with the proposition that LDS have an uncommon love for Jews, which can be seen in part in their efforts at Jewish studies.

My exceptions I take with this article continue, but in the interest of brevity, I'll focus on just one more for now. I find the assertion that Joseph Smith Jr. did not organize and establish the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to be simultaneously intriguing and laughable, no offense. I am interested to hear why anyone could believe otherwise. I have yet to hear anything to suggest he did not, even in anti-Mormon literature.

So far, you have persuaded me to scale down this ongoing "editing war" by making clear, objective, and reasonable points, even if I don't entirely agree with them. Why not continue? I have discovered the talk and history pages and am willing to discuss.```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.255.20.110 (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for discussing the edits. You makes some good points, especially in regard to her family's horror over her marriage. With the previous sentence discussing Brodie's Jewish-Latvian heritage, you're right that the paragraph might imply racism. It should be reworded. I didn't notice the racist connotation before and reverted your edits just because I'm unsure whether the family opposed the marriage solely because he wasn't LDS.

As for the LDS Church, it's one of many denominations now claiming Smith's heritage. Although it's true he founded the Church of Christ, known as the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" from 1838 until his death (much more often without the hyphen), identifying this church with the current LDS Church requires a particular POV. Namely it represents the LDS point of view, which other sects do not share. I would be in favor of parenthetical statements about how The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is by far the largest and best-known Church of Smith's restoration, but I'm hesitant to identify the two. Cool Hand Luke 04:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for having an open mind. I wonder if perhaps the part about the objections to the marriage could be worded with the phrase "presuably because it is frowned upon in the LDS Church to marry a non-member, in addition to their concerns about her faith" or something like that. I must confess that I don't have any cold hard facts on hand to make an authoritative claim, but I know enough about the LDS people and David O. McKay in general to say that seems more likey, for whatever that's worth.

It is true that after the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, the Church did splinter. But given that the Church was already called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", that it wasn't until after that time that the other factions began to splinter off from it, and that most of them adopted similar, yet unique names, I disagree that it is not accurate to associate the current Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints with that of pre-1844. In my humble opinion, the other Churches intentionally differentiated themselves from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. In fact, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints changed its name to the Community of Christ and from what I hear, is attempting to distance itself from the Smiths. I do see your point, however, that Brodie's "Mormon studies" was inclusive of all factions, and thus requires a larger categorization than simply "LDS". I have also noticed similar uses of "Mormon" and "Mormonism" in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.255.20.110 (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Dale Morgan

This phrase has been altered. In partial compensation, during her years of research, Brodie met many Mormons--active, inactive, and apostate--who materially aided her. Most notable was Dale L. Morgan (1914-1971), who became a lifelong friend, mentor, and sounding board.

I believe Dale was not a Mormon though he does, on one letter say something about being surprised by not being "read out of the Church". However, I do not think her relationship with Dale should be removed. Instead, I am suggesting a different statement like this:

During her years of research, Brodie met Dale L. Morgan (1914-1971), who became a lifelong friend, mentor, and sounding board.

The the significance of this relationship might should be added with some specific highlights:

• He helped helped her write the book, reviewing it in pieces many times and in total, twice before its publication.
• In concert with her husband, he helped remove or tone down some of the more "bitter" passages that came out of her emotion.
• When it was published, he wrote one of the very first glowing reviews of the book, helping to propel it to success.

There may be more. --Blue Tie 00:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hope I've got the sentence started in the right direction. Bringhurst says that Morgan was "not a practicing Latter-day Saint," so I assume that means he was a birthright Mormon.--John Foxe 02:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So maybe he was a Mormon after all! How odd. But I have not found any clear evidence that he was -- only evidence that alludes to it. Also, personally, I think that my comment above was brilliant, the obvious work of a genius and the nature of his contributions to her life should be added. But I am too humble to do it to your article. :-) --Blue Tie 02:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

See what you think. I've worked most of your information into a footnote.--John Foxe 20:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Its pretty good and it only belongs in a footnote because the article is about her not him. --Blue Tie 21:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This article and No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith both Good articles

Unaware that the present article had already passed a WP:GA nomination (it wasn't tagged with the WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement banner until today) I nominated the article on her biography of Joseph Smith a week and a half ago. Joyfully, that article passed the test and today both of these articles count among the WikiProject's Good Articles. __meco 06:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Useful/dependable/reliable sources

re: recent addition as source -- Notable American Women I know I'm old fashioned, but since when does any internet site's dependability/reliability/verifiability compare with the primary/secondary source system used by scholars and historians. Sites such as this should be included as an external link, not as a source/reference for information. This is particularly important when other references are readily available. WBardwin (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the citation is to a Google Books copy of a respected reference work published by Harvard University Press (and not to an "Internet site"), I would say there are no issues here with regard to dependability, reliability, or verifiability. - Juden (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Then let's "verify" that the internet copy is accurate (the web has a very high rate of "copy" error, you know) and cite the reference book as the source, instead. WBardwin (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You should feel free to do so. Your response leads me to think you haven't actually followed the link in question. There's no "copy" error involved, it's a scan of the actual pages of the actual book. - Juden (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Fawn M. Brodie/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is well written and conforms with WP:MoS. The article is thoroughly referenced and as far as I can ascertain references are to reliable sources. The article is broad in scope, appears to contain no original research and is focussed. It is stable, with no edit warring. No images are used. I have no hesitation in confirming the article's GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)