Talk:No Man Knows My History/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Including Latter Day Saint denominations' reactions in the lead

In the spirit of discussing contested revisions, I'd like to give some clarity on recent attempts to add Latter Day Saint denominations' reactions to the lead. A recent edit said that such inclusion was not necessary because "Mormon criticism" is already in the third paragraph of the lead. However, that misunderstands the third paragraph, which refers to criticism of the book by historians' of Mormonism, not by Mormons. For example, while on the one hand Hill and Arrington were Latter-day Saints and Flanders was a member of the Reorganized Church/Community of Christ, on the other hand Vogel and Shipps were not Mormons of any denomination, and all five of them were among the many historians of Mormonism (as in the subdiscipline of history; =/= "historians who are Mormon") who criticized No Man Knows My History (as described in the Reception: Criticism subsection). Historians' criticism (whether Latter Day Saints or not) is distinct from the denominational reaction by Latter Day Saint churches, e.g. the production of a missionary tract and the threat to sue Brodie.

Looking back, I agree that mentioning the names of specific denominations in the lead is probably not necessary. However, it remains the case that one of the sections of this Wikipedia page is "Mormon reactions." Insofar as a lead is a concise version of the page that can stand alone, it seems prudent to include that in the lead as well.

I admit that appending a sentence to the end of the lead (perhaps something like "After the book's release, Latter Day Saint denominations denounced the book's negative portrayal of Smith.") would be somewhat abrupt, though it would reflect the organization of the page. I won't make the edit immediately, in case a better way to integrate that information into the lead comes to mind. It may be the case that reorganizing the page as a whole—perhaps to make "Mormon reactions" appear chronologically? But that's just one idea—could be one way to make the lead easier to write as well. I'm not sure yet.

Put briefly: historians' criticism is distinct from the denominational reactions, and since both have separate sections in the page, both seem to warrant inclusion in the lead, though I have yet to add such for want of a felicitous way to integrate the information. I'm giving it some thought, but if you, fellow editors, have an idea, you're always free to edit the page, as we all are.

Thanks! P-Makoto (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

A lede works better as a general summary: concise means less detail. However, its second paragraph is almost 20 years old! Martindo (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)