Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Golden plates/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 17:15, 11 April 2008.

Golden plates

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notifications completed: Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, User:Twunchy (FA nominator), User:John Foxe, User:COGDEN, User:Gldavies (primary active contributors)

Criteria at issue: 1a, 1b/1c/1d

  • 1a (well-written). Simply put, this article is not engaging prose. For example, just in the lede, the word "said" is used four times, in two different contexts. Large sections of the article are disorganized or redundant. See, for example, the quote about rustling the pages at the end of the "Translation process" paragraph and its recurrence in "Format, binding, and dimensions". Many, many references and descriptions are of what the plates were "said" to be, but a substantial number of them do not give us any indication of who said these things in the prose itself; see especially the first sentence in the "Engravings" section. This lack of prose attribution makes some antecedents unclear: in the "Origin of the plates" paragraph, "Book of Mormon" appears to be the antecedent of "these men". Also, a couple of claims are strangely prefaces as being the statements of "non-believers" (see especially in "Unsuccessful attempts to retrieve the plates"). Even details such as the punctuation of [sic] is inconsistent: square brackets are used in the same paragraph as parentheses in "Unsuccessful attempts to retrieve the plates"! (Serpent's Choice))
    • Comment on well-writtenness: There is no doubt room for stylistic improvements. However, as to the term "said", we are somewhat limited by WP:NPOV considerations. Almost every single statement by anybody in the article is contested, and we have to constantly reflect that. I don't think any of us should ever be willing to sacrifice NPOV for readability. Who said each of these things is noted in the footnotes, and I don't think it is really important in all cases to say who said what, particularly when multiple people said that. It would work against well-writtenness if we listed all the subscribers to each statement in every instance. However, I'll take a look over the article and make stylistic improvements. COGDEN 21:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1b (comprehensive), 1c (factually accurate), 1d (neutral). Here covered together as aspects of the same fundamental problem with the article. Simply put, there is no criticism, no discussion of the claim that the plates may not have physically existed at all, or been forged, or been a modern artifact. The article spends only a stubby paragraph on the plates' supposed origin as a pre-Columbian artifact (and even in that, fails tp. Claims of other origins reside entirely within the spinout article Origin of the Book of Mormon. The article admits that there are other arguments in the "Other metal plates" section at the end, but does not treat them neutrally or give them due weight. Here these alternatives are "apologetic studies" or "apologetic ideas", and are mentioned virtually only to be discounted. Statements and assertions (although supported by reference) such as Smith's ability to translate the plates without them being in his physical presence are utterly uncontested. Scholarly rejection of the concept of Reformed Egyptian is relegated to its separate article (which bluntly states "No non-Mormon scholars acknowledge the existence of a "reformed Egyptian" language as it has been described in Mormon belief.") -- no rejection of the validity of this purported language, in any form, is present in the plates' article. There have been claims on the talk page that this treatment is due to the nature of the plates as a religious belief rather than an article on a physical, historical artifact. But the tone of the article does not bear this out; the text clearly implies that the plates were real objects, even describing sourced speculation of the precise alloy involved. Regardless, even for highly contested religious-historical articles that are below FA status (Jesus), there is sourced analysis of the accuracy of claims. This article, in contrast, has none of that. The blurring of religious doctrine with historical events has led to some extreme peculiarities. In the "Retrieving the plates" section, the text seems to treat without skepticism that the citizens of a New York town "sent for a skilled necromancer".
    Additional note: Although the article contains an impressive 175 footnotes and 58 supporting references, a summary audit of their breadth and nature is concerning. A plurality of footnotes are references to the writings of Joseph Smith, Jr. himself, and are thus primary sources at best. Several more statements are sourced to the writings of Brigham Young and other Mormon contemporaries. Even the secondary sources do not generally appear to represent independent scholarship. Only three of the 58 references were published after 1900. The FARMS Review (ref 17) is a publication of questioned scholarly independence and quality. Dialogue (ref 26) is considered a more independent source of Mormon scholarship, but is still solely associated with the field. Finally, Improvement Era (ref 32) was the then-official publication of the church. There is not a single reference from a journal, book, or any other source published within the last century other than those three articles in dedicated Mormon publications. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Almost the full range of criticism in academic literature is, indeed, found in this article. It doesn't reach out and grab you, however, because almost all the criticism in this field is in the form of "How could anybody believe X?" or "How could anybody not believe X?" That kind of criticism doesn't need to be stated, because it is implicit, except in a "criticism of..."-type article specifically about the criticism. I disagree that this article needs to get into the pros and cons of reformed Egyptian. The article is already a large one, and this is adequately covered (or should be) in the reformed Egyptian article. If we included everything in all the subarticles, the article would be too long to be a featured article. The statement that Brigham Young said that Palmyra citizens "sent for a skilled necromancer" is not reasonably disputed by any critics or apologists. Necromancy was a clearly-documented profession during the time period, and Brigham Young said that. There is no literature disputing that Brigham Young said that, or that someone Young considered to be a "skilled necromancer" was called to Palmyra by Smith's neighbors. I agree that the final "Other Metal Plates" section can use a good going-over, and I'll make a pass. COGDEN 21:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As to the breadth of the sources, this article represents almost the entire universe of primary sources on the subject. Certainly secondary sources are important, too, but not at the expense of primary sources. Like I said before, this is already a long article. It is a big job to say what all the primary sources say, let alone say what the secondary sources said about the primary sources, and what the secondary-secondary sources said about the secondary and primary sources. This has always been meant to be a very factual article presenting in an encyclopedic way that is known about the golden plates. More detailed secondary and derivative analyses by Joe Evangelist and Mary Mormon could certainly be added to the footnotes and in the sub-articles, but they are somewhat outside the scope of this article, limited by size as it must be. COGDEN 22:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose I'll stand corrected on the necromancy issue, although I'd love to see that referenced to a secondary source instead of Young, since it just appears so strange at its face to a modern reader unfamiliar with the material. However, as to the sourcing, Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Articles are constructed primarily from reliable secondary sources, using primary material (with caution) where applicable or to provide unique insights. Especially to be FA-class, an article must summarize the full range of scholarly views and interpretations, giving each weight appropriate to its level of recognition and acceptance. The plates have been discussed in The New England Quarterly[1], The Journal of American Folklore[2], Religion[3], and in no shortage of books published after 1900 (this one discusses the translation-as-fiction in Chapter 1 in some depth, just as an example). And those references were the fruit of less than 5 minutes with Google Scholar, far from an exhaustive effort at research. Serpent's Choice (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've expanded the "Origin" section to cover the range of theories as to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. There are basically four theories, which I listed there. However, the full discussion is already the subject of a couple of sub-articles. Thus, I think it's most appropriate to summarize them here, then use summary style. COGDEN 21:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite its recent main page appearance, this seems a particularly week FA. Some of the stylistic concerns are easily fixed, but many require a return to their references. And any approach to the tone and content of the article would require a substantial investment in additional research and sourcing. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three to six months is the minimum suggested time between promotion and review. Considering the minimal Support level on the FAC, I recommend this continue in review; one of the three Supporters entered several dubious declarations at FAC,[4] and one is an active article editor, so a new look could be warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


As I have mentioned on the talk page of this article, this review process is not just a forum for complaining about this article. Instead of taking the attitude that we must knock this article out of FA status, just because of religious dissent, is not constructive to anything in Wikipedia. I propose that instead of just writing paragraph after paragraph of complaints, please address your concerns with the article directly in the article, we needn't waste our time blowing steam in side forums. I oppose the review of this article simply because I see a POV motivation behind those wanting this article shot down, as referenced on the talk page, there are many dissenters to this article that have voted this into review simply on the "I don't believe in this" motivation. I will reiterate that regardless of religiously motivated attacks on this article it still stands as a very well documented, and well written article. As for the attacks on the primary sources, I believe that those should be the gold standard of references!! You can't get a better source than the primary ones. If you disagree with the source that does not change the fact that it is a primary source or the fact that it was said or written by the author. Disagreement is one thing - dismissing sources because you don't like them because they don't support your contrarian views is another arguement not to be had here. Twunchy (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My problems with this article have nothing to do with its topic. Please do not resort to casting aspersions about my motivation. As to the primary/secondary issue, that is a Wikipedia policy. "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." In Wikipedia, primary sources are simply not the "gold standard" of references. Whether or not I like the primary sources quoted in this article, or agree with them, or, indeed, whether or not I ascribe to the Mormon faith, are all irrelevant. The sources do not meet the expectations of FA-quality referencing. Could an article on this topic reach FA-quality? Possibly. But it will require a ground-up rebuilding, based on the kind of material Wikipedia expects of reliable sourcing. The references appear to exist to craft a comprehensive article. The three modern secondary sources that are referenced in the article will help to support adherents' claims. I have cited above a handful of sources that take varying stances and positions; the book I noted, for example, claims the translation is an outright fiction, but then goes on to discuss its impact from that perspective. This is a well-studied topic, there are doubtless dozens more. But this is a long and exacting process. Despite the fact that I have a backlog of Wiki-tasks that I never seem to make headway on, I am willing to assist with this article as best I may ... but in the meantime, it is not an example of the best that Wikipedia can offer and will not be for some time, nor in a form that resembles the current text. Serpent's Choice (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it means anything, it seems Sperpent and I agree on a lot of the basic issues of this topic. Also, I would want to retort that when I tried to engage in constructive dialogue on issue on the article I was completely ignored and called on for my lack of belief in the relgion behind the article. In fact the only time I could get a reply was when I used vieled jabs at the relgion and even then the issues I arose were not addressed, just the jabs. I have decided that a ground up re-construction is the only thing that can make this article readable. It is often disjointed and repeatative and includes several sourses and phrasing that would lead one to believe that the article is stating a fact and not an article in a system of beliefs. As well valid critism seems to be muted if available and a separate section outlining the main critism, namely the dispute over the existence of the plates themselves, seems all but required in order to keep NPOV in the article as a whole. There also seems to be quite a bit of ownership applied to the article as well by various editors, but I guess that goes with most reglious/controversal articles. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is quite a bit of misinterpretation of this Primary sourcing issue, to quote wikipedia:

Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is an example of a primary source. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

As I see most of these cited primary sources in the article, they are being used according to the policies above, there is no interpolations or inferences from these, there are just statements of fact as they pertain to the original quotes. These quotes would not change in a secondary source! To quote the secondary source that is quoting the primary source is just adding a level of complexity that isn't necessary if the information is the same. If used properly wikipedia has no issue with primary sources. Here's my warning to all who venture into the secondary sources pertaining to the topic...many are very biased...some to the extremes (on both sides). The issue is of great controversy and one typically doesn't delve into this subject without a noticable bias, they are typically written from either a skeptics perspective or an apologetic perspective, with very few hammering out a balanced approach. Good luck with the overhaul, I think you've signed on to quite the task. I for one don't have much time to start reading new books to find the same information that already exists...I see this as akin to building a new road right next to a perfectly good one, just because of a few potholes...an excersise in futility I predict. It will only placate those who dissent to the topic in their satisfaction that they shot down such blasphemy. Twunchy (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there are just statements of fact as they pertain to the original quotes - Not fact, unveriable heresay. They may have said them but with the primary and secondary source is required to confirm that they were commenting on the object in question if the information is to be used about it.
my warning to all who venture into the secondary sources pertaining to the topic...many are very biased...some to the extremes (on both sides).

I would say the primary sources are equally if not more biased then any editor could be and their entry into the article itself, epseically to the degree of over 150 citations, creates an automatic POV problem.

The issue is of great controversy and one typically doesn't delve into this subject without a noticable bias

I would equate this in a way to evolution when it comes to controversay. If you asked someone who believed it in if there is a controversy, they will say no. If you asked someone who doesn't, they will say yes. This is really the reverse of that case. There is absolutely no proof they existed, besides the testimony of 11 to 13 witnesses. Any one of those witness and or a follower of them, at least in my opinion and I believe the wikipedia policy follows me, would be an uncredible witness. I am not saying there should not be an article for the subject, a system of beliefs is information that is real and encyclopedic but I would hardy say that there is an actually controversy over the plates because if they existed, no one went about making it independantly verifable and therefore from a scientific and encyclopedic point of view they did not exist, from the information we have. Besides the disjointed-ness of the article, that is its main flaw that make it non NPOV, most sections leave the reader believing that they are reading an actualy account of history and about plates that no one can verify actually existed.

...I see this as akin to building a new road right next to a perfectly good one, just because of a few potholes...an excersise in futility I predict

I agree, this article is in such a mess that try to fix it with patch work will not due. That is why I and Serpent suggested a ground up approach to fix it. I would say the best bet is to take the references from each section and the section itself and parse through it. Go section by section until it is complete. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a flaw in your logic when dismissing these quotes, I will again reiterate that if someone said something, and you are quoting what they said, that is NOT hearsay. Hearsay is from SECONDARY sources, a third person perspective. Hearsay is exactly what it looks like...a compound word meaning (simplistically) "I heard someone say"...AKA a rumor. If a quote is direct, it fundamentally CANNOT BE hearsay by definition. I think your arguement stems from the fact that you believe what Joseph Smith and his followers were talking about is made-up or fictional...and therein lies your POV. To discount or dismiss what someone said, repeatedly mind you, even if you don't believe it, doesn't change the fact they said it. This article must show both sides of the coin, not just your side. There are over 13 million people who implicitly belive this, without a doubt. Perhaps there are more who don't believe it but we still must remain neutral to the subject. This means there will be information included that you might not like, that doesn't support your viewpoint. I don't like some of the non-believers propaganda in this article but I haven't been complaining about the inclusion of such, because I recognize the need for balance. And to your point of proving the plates existed...this is not necessary, THIS IS A MATTER OF FAITH, not science. Until you can PROVE to me that God himself, or Moses, or the Miracles of Jesus exist, I will not accept this arguement. Again you CANNOT prove matters of faith. Twunchy (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


First, your defination of hearsay is significantly different than mine. Mine goes along with the more or less legal version, found on the hearsay in US article of Wikipedia actually and it goes "Hearsay is the legal term that describes statements made outside of court or other judicial proceedings." I think we can agree that Joseph Smith made zero effort to have any sort of independant or judicial review of the matter. I will go further and show the defination as to why I use this standard of hearsay, again from the article, "The theory of the rule against Hearsay is that assertions made by human beings are naturally unreliable. It therefore becomes necessary to subject such forms of evidence to “scrutiny or analysis calculated to discover and expose in detail its possible weaknesses, and thus to enable the tribunal (judge or jury) to estimate it at no more than its actual value” (Wigmore on Evidence §1360)." I think the natrual unreliablity is clear in that the golden plates make the foundation for Smith to become a propheit in his own reglion, which would seemingly rule any of his, and his followers testimony on the issue of bias (of course, that is on the idea that you believe being made a propheit in a reglion is a non neutral thing.)
so just to get this straight, anyone who might be a believer in this cause is unreliable? By what standard? By your standard if an independent witness see the plates, and then believes in them they are automatically then unreliable? Your logic confounds! Twunchy (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now for some retorts: I think your arguement stems from the fact that you believe what Joseph Smith and his followers were talking about is made-up or fictional...and therein lies your POV I'm going to ignore that made-up and fictional are the same thing ... and say that I've made my point of view clear on the subject, but as for the encyclopedic sense I believe I have a fairlt decent track record of simply wanting the facts laid out in the best way possible, naming balanced, which this article is not. I believe it is your POV that is causes you to ignore my pleas for balance and retorting to calling me a reglious bigit, hater of all that Mormon is really below this debate.

I dare you to find anywhere in my posts in which I called you a bigot, sir, there are no such inferences. Twunchy (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 13 million people who implicitly belive this, without a doubt. Well I can go on all day about how foolish a statement like this is. How many people believe in the Loch Ness Monster? Does that make it real without any actual evidence? Uri Geller in the 70's was widely believed to have supernatural power until James Randi proved him a fraud, does that mean he had supernatural powers in the 70's because millions of people believed it then, but now he is a mere mortal because less people believe that? You seemed to even doubt this as a valid point yourself, and so I would say that just because it is a reglious belief does not make it true, and in most cases, it is likely not given the nature of reglion in general.

again as a matter of faith you cannot lump believers of a religion into the same group as conspiracy theorists and fictional or paranormal accounts, if you disagree with a religion that doesn not give you the right to compare them...apples and organges is the arguement...religion vs. fiction...they are not in the same realm. Twunchy (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

means there will be information included that you might not like, that doesn't support your viewpoint. Well I think I can direct this at you. There IS information you WILL not like because it DOES NOT support your viewpoint.

and I am stating such sir, there are already contrarian viewpoints and non-believer's statments, but there just apparently isn't enough in the article to make you happy about your POV.

don't like some of the non-believers propaganda in this article but I haven't been complaining about the inclusion of such, because I recognize the need for balance. Where is the 'non-believers propaganda' It is inbetween the part where you explain the history in great detail about how Joesph Smith found the plates and talked to Angels? Or the part where you list that the plates maybe real because of circumstanial evidence that in ancient times people used metal to write down history? (ignoring, of course, that the Jews and the followers of Jesus did not follow such a method, even though Mormonism is a supposed continuation on them)

Because the Jews and Jesus didn't write on golden plates...Mormonism is false...again your logic confounds. Twunchy (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS A MATTER OF FAITH, not science.... Again you CANNOT prove matters of faith. Well I agree there, and I believe I stated that on many occasions and I even went so far as to say that the article should exist because it is an article of faith. I am begining to think you read one line and then go blank on the rest of my paragraphs. But as a matter of faith that is not supported by any scientific evidence and an article of faith that occured in the realm of scientific discovery (aka Not the same as Moses and the ten commandments because scientist weren't around in 1000 BC) I would think that holding it to a higher plane evidence (higher meaning more then because Joe Smith said so) is not too much of a task, espeically if you are purposing that millions of people believe this. Remember, you claim is millions believe this. I would go so far as to say billions do not. So if we weighted the article on that, it would not exist. The fact the article is given the creedence of existence shows my NPOV on the subject. All reason and science would not give it an agrument. That said, it is deeply flawed. The article regluar cites one to 4 unreliable characters of history and goes into great detail as if one were describing actual recorded series of events, which is not the case with supported evidence. I would think that a balanced article would clearly state that it is the system of beliefs in the Mormon reglion, not a factual account, the existence of the plates is highly disputed and the facts of the belief system by put on display as opposed to this long telling of history. It seems as though the article was blown up with rhetoric and historical referencing on purpose to give the story more weight, with would be against NPOV. Anyway those are my comments on that for now. Please refrain from attacking my belief system and focus on the issues of the article. Thank you. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All this talk about the reliability of the sources is beside the point. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to evaluate the sources. Our job is to present the sources in a neutral way. Whether or not Joseph Smith was a reliable source, or by contrast whether people who knew him but disbelieved are reliable sources, is irrelevant.
The theory expressed about about primary sources being "bad" is held by a vocal and activist minority of Wikipedians, but it is not a consensus and never has been. The best Wikipedia articles, and the ones most likely to have Featured Article status, rely mainly on primary sources. Here, there is no benefit to citing Scholar Bob's quotation of what Scholar Jane said about what Joseph Smith wrote, when we can cite directly to Joseph Smith and get it straight from the horse's mouth. If, for some reason, Scholar Bob's opinion is notable or adds to the subject matter, then we can cite Scholar Bob as a primary source for Bob's opinion, too. We do that in some cases with this article, but there really isn't much room to include a full level of meta-information about the golden plates.COGDEN 20:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The best Wikipedia articles, and the ones most likely to have Featured Article status, rely mainly on primary sources. Can I have some examples please, of FA articles where the primary citations are done by primary sources, and signicant edits. Thank you. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC) NOTE: I can provide ten examples that counter the claim right now but the onus is on you to support your facts.[reply]
Certainly. Examples are not hard to find among the best Wikipedia articles. Since primary sources are the most authoritative recognized sources of the cited information, the best articles will naturally use them whenever possible. It's unwise and bad practice to use a second-hand source ("according to x, y said z") for a point when a more authoritative one ("y said z") is available. If the more direct source is not available for some reason (it was lost or never published), then the second-hand source is recognized as the primary source. Looking at the FAs for February, I notice that Feb. 1's featured article Through the Looking Glass (Lost) is based primarily on primary sources such as press releases, original reviews, original journalism and interviews, etc. Same with Dookie on Feb. 2, Knut on Feb. 4. In Feb. 5,s Las Meninas, most of the citations are primary sources, although they are also secondary too (as most academic primary sources such as journals are). Most of the citations in Feb. 7's Thoughts on the Education of Daughters are cited as primary sources for the information cited. Golden plates was Feb. 8. Of these articles, I think that Through the Looking Glass (Lost) was one of the most remarkable, and it also happens to be the one most heavily based on direct, authoritative (that is, primary) sources. COGDEN 08:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--John Foxe (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You definition of a primary source doesn't appear to fit the definition most wikipedians use. For Lost, the only primary source is the episode itself and the press releases. All other sources; reviews, interviews, original journalism are all secondary sources Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article could be under review for a month or longer, brevity and specificity wrt WP:WIAFA is helpful. Serpent's Choice has presented reliable secondary sources; overreliance on primary sources will be an issue when independent reviewers start to look at the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, thats the catch 22 with editting this article, I consider myself independent which is why i entered the discussion, but then I get accused, just about everytime I edit, that because I am not a believer I am too biased to edit. So, how do we overcome this? Have only Mormon's discuss the history? I think we need to start with making sure people realize the article is a mess first, then we an agree on how to fix it. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What will matter in the final analysis as to whether the article remains featured is WP:V and WP:WIAFA; discussion should be grounded there, and any other ranting just takes up bandwidth. This for example, All this talk about the reliability of the sources is beside the point. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to evaluate the sources. won't go anywhere when other editors start looking at whether the most reliable, independent secondary sources are adequately represented here, or whether the article has an overreliance on primary sources. Arguments should be grounded in policy, not individual editor opinions. The review phase gives you an opportunity to highlight issues; the clearer and briefer the better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status check? Changes so far. Have any of Serpent's secondary, scholarly sources been consulted or incorporated, and are there any decisions about them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The primary concerns with the page have not been addressed. Most of the editing in the last week has been quibbling over the lede. I have advocated a 'sources first, then rewrite' approach, rather than an attempt to simply shift the sourcing of the current material to secondary works, but from my end, this has been slow; I do not have ready access to a lot of the necessary references, especially from the theological standpoint. Efforts to solicit them on the talk page have not yet drawn a response. Bottom line, this is fundamentally the same article as last week. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The case for lengthening the article

Serpent's Choice has proposed making the article longer by adding additional secondary sources. Can we please discuss the trade-offs between such increased content and article length? Featured articles are expected to not be too long. Some are longer than others, but this article currently stands at about 32 kb of readable prose, which is usually considered about the right size for a featured article. By adding a lot of additional secondary and tertiary commentary about the subject, we would of course expand the size of this article, which presently stays close to the raw facts and presents them in a balanced way, without much secondary apologetic or critical analysis, musings, or theologizings by biased apologists and critics. The biased secondary material is of course important and interesting, but would greatly expand the scope of this article, as well as its size. If we add a lot of secondary material, does that mean we need to split off some sub-articles here, and have, for example an article like Obtaining the golden plates? Also, can we rely on the other articles that already do discuss this secondary material, such as Origin of the Book of Mormon and Historicity of the Book of Mormon.? COGDEN 21:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current readable prose size (per Dr pda's script, and as discussed at WP:SIZE) is only 30KB, which is well under the 50KB guideline. There is plenty of room to expand.[5] By the way, the current WP:LEAD doesn't seem adequate. Also, I adjusted footnote placement (see WP:FN) and reference size (see WP:MOS regarding text size, the article was smalling twice the refs, making them hard to read). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible secondary sources

Serpent's Choice proposes that beyond the raw facts, we add additional secondary commentary from a number of apologetic and critical sources, and that we should identify the sources first, then include the commentary in the article. So that we have everything in one place, I'm starting a list of potential secondary source that we've discussed thus far. Anyone can add additional secondary sources they think might be pertinent.

  • Comments Please fix the References section as soon as possible, as its current layout is incorrect and misleads the reader. It should not be numbered; it should be bulleted. The footnotes are numbered. By numbering the references, the reader can be confused when seeking a citation. Please change the # to *. See WP:MSH: the section headings are very long and several are repetitive; can they be shortened? Why the bulleted list instead of two paragraphs in "Other metal plates in the Latter Day Saint Tradition"? Missing conversions, fixes needed throughout, see WP:MOSNUM, example: ... from 60 miles away, ... (add km conversion). WP:MOSDATE, the article has inconsistent date linking. If you link some, you have to link all month-day or month-day year combos, example: ... September 22[13] in ... and ... him to return the next year, on September 22 1824, with the "right person", ... dates are linked elsewhere in the article, so they need to be consistent. Solo years and month-year combos aren't linked. For an article this size, the WP:LEAD does not appear adquate: it needs to be a compelling, stand-alone summary of the entire article, highlighting all important points, so that if the reader goes no further, they have a broad overview. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), referencing (1c), and neutrality (1d). Marskell (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see there's been a lot of work and comment on this one. Moving it down to get crisp declarations on article status. Marskell (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weighing in

I've been following this discussion and wanted to voice my opinion. I think Serpent's Choice has raised some very good issues. No one would accept, say, the article on Intelligent Design without a criticism section or something talking about the proponents on the other side of the fence. Neither would an article on the Flat Earth view be accepted as feature content if it only used references from sources supporting such a viewpoint. This standard should also apply to this article. I have done a lot of reading on the subject and have found no sources outside of Mormon publications that support the plates as credible in any way, if they existed in the first place (which most non-Mormon scholars contest). It is lopsided to leave out honest and reasonable questions of the historicity of the subject at hand. It is not a matter of being a Mormon or not, but whether a subject being portrayed as real and history is such. Pages on Jesus and the Bible have a well-rounded viewpoint (for the most part). So should this article. Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is lopsided to leave out honest and reasonable questions of the historicity of the subject at hand.
This issue is briefed in the first section of the main article, but has it's own article here -> Historicity of the Book of Mormon.
I have done a lot of reading on the subject and have found no sources outside of Mormon publications that support the plates as credible in any way, if they existed in the first place (which most non-Mormon scholars contest).
There are many non-LDS sources quoted and incorporated into this article, with many of Joseph Smith's peers and antagonists quoted in the article, and as to the discussion on a criticism section, much discussion has been made concerning a separate criticism section but Wikipedia discourages criticism sections here WP:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section.
It is not a matter of being a Mormon or not, but whether a subject being portrayed as real and history is such.
Obviously therein lies your viewpoint, but it is stated in the article that the Golden plates' existence is a matter of faith, particularly the LDS faiths, but their importance whether they existed or not should not be diminished by peppering the article with skeptical POV statements, and reassurances such as "if they existed", or "if they were real" etc. There is a basis as to their existence, and many statements and volumes of arguements have been written about the subject, both for and against, but even given the lack of an examinable modern artifact you can't just dismiss their existence all together. The statements within the article are based on the best sources available, typically primary sources, of Joseph Smith and his followers and also of his critics. Because a person may or may not believe the statements presented does not mean that the statements are invalid or misleading...if it was said, it was said, and it is accurately quoted here. Twunchy (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the discussion, Kristamaranatha. I'm always pleased to see other knowledgeable never-been-Mormons contribute to the editing of Mormon articles. Nevertheless, I believe Twunchy has the better of the argument here. The majority opinion, that the golden plates are mythological, is well represented in the article as it stands. To have a separate section which says in effect, "O, pshaw, there weren't any golden plates" would sound silly or petulant and could not be proven anyway. A "criticism section" might also work to Mormon advantage. They would rightly demand a rebuttal, an "apologetic section," and would be able to quote from credentialed apologists (such as those from FARMS) who have made a cottage industry of defending the more wacko LDS beliefs. The uninitiated would be no better served than before.--John Foxe (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out the Origin of the Book of Mormon and Historicity of the Book of Mormon articles, which I think are well written and well-rounded presentations of the subject. My question is whether it is sufficient to say that "there's another article about these objections" and leave it at that? In other cases there would be a great outcry to include at least something about objections. As Serpent laid out, most of the sources cited are pre-20th century and do not really provide a well-rounded view of the subject at hand. I have noticed that the section of the Golden Plates article dealing with these objections has been fleshed out a bit, which is a great development since the beginning of this debate. I have a lot more confidence in the article as it stands because of that. Kristamaranatha (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for additional, relevant, and "well-rounded" information from late twentieth- and twenty-first-century secondary sources, but I think you'll discover them harder to come by than you imagine. Most critical and apologetic writing of the last fifty years simply reconfigures in modern dress arguments that were advanced more than a hundred years ago. Can you give us an example of a secondary source that you believe is being ignored in this article?--John Foxe (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only one I can think of off the top of my head is The Kingdom of the Cults. It may sound POV to have "cults" in the title, but I think they do a good treatment of Mormonism as a whole and raises some good objections to the origin of the plates. Kristamaranatha (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have read this source, and I will object to every attempt to include this tertiary source (yes it is more akin to an encyclopedia-not a secondary source), "Kingdom of the Cults" as a reference for this article. I will state that this book is quite possibly one of the most extreme POV sources not only about the LDS religions, but many, many others including hinduism, buddhism, islam, jehovah's witnesses and many more (on a rough estimate there's 2-3 billion people belonging to the collective of "cults" mentioned - more adherents than christianity itself). The authors of this book had one intention when writing it: to scare people (good "christians" I assume) away from the religions profiled therein using slander, deragatory statements, and misinformation. This is not a reliable source, it is a work of intolerance against anything but what the authors agree with. Twunchy (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults has too many negatives to be used as a source for this article, Kristamaranatha--and the most important of these have nothing to do with the actual content of the book. For one thing, Martin got his doctorate from a degree mill (and used the title "Dr." even before he put his money down). Mormons with first-rate academic degrees could easily be cited in opposition. Further, there's nothing important in Kingdom of the Cults that wasn't noted a hundred years ago and that is not already reflected in this article, such as the unusual Mormon definition of the word "translation" or Joseph Smith's previous interest in magic, "glass looking," and treasure hunting. So citing Martin would provide no additional light on the golden plates; it would only generate plenty of heat from folks like Twunchy.--John Foxe (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many helpful suggestions have been discussed and addressed, and the article has improved immensely. There are always improvements to be made in any article, but this one continues to represent the best that Wikipedia has to offer. Much of the remaining criticism seems to come from people who are not yet fully on-board with the NPOV principle and/or are not familiar with the existing literature on this subject. COGDEN 03:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixes needed: Why are the alternate names in the lead in italics? See WP:LEAD, WP:MOSBOLD and WP:ITALICS. WP:MOS#Ellipses (spaces) attention needed throughout. I still see WP:PUNC issues (logical punctuation on quotes). Shouldn't Book of Mormon be italicized on every occurrence ?? Is this apostrophe correct (plural?): it in his parent's home in Manchester. Another check through for p. vs. pp. (^ Quinn 1998, p. 195–196. ) Unformatted URL here in a citation, and if dates are linked in the article, they all need to be linked: ... Salt Lake City Weekly, December 27, 2001 [1]. Several unformatted citations (example: The Voree Plates - Mormon scriptures - brass plates ); we need a publisher, last accessdate, author and publication date if available on all websources. Here's another example: ^ BBC news report "The six sheets are believed to be the oldest comprehensive work involving multiple pages," said Elka Penkova, who ... don't just say BBC news report. We need a title and last accessdate, see WP:CITE/ES. Per WP:GTL, portals belong in See also (not External links). Since this article doesn't have a See also section (which is good), I'd rather see the portals at the top of the references rather than so far down in the article, but that's a matter of personal choice. I don't think this article got a good review at FAC, but it has gotten a good review here, and it's very clean (once these minor issues are addressed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status? Has Serpent's Choice been asked to revisit the concern about lack of secondary sources and overreliance on LDS sources? Roman Catholic Church was just denied featured status, partly for this reason. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize for my long absence from this article (and Wikipedia in general). I have been attending to the serious illness of a close friend and my own bout with the flu. I will look over the current state of the article and see where we stand. I also have acquired several sources that, if not present, I will attempt to include. Serpent's Choice (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong remove Fails 1b, 1c and 1d. Examples from the first three sections only of unacceptable claims insufficiently supported by reliable independent references and lacking any counter-criticism include:
    • "The last three of the angel's requirements were corroborated by non-believers" No, they corroborate what Smith or his father said, not what the angel said.
    • "When he fainted because he had been awake all night," No, he may have been dreaming all night, or faint through illness or over-work or because he had a vision. This sentence only uses a Mormon source in an attempt to support the thesis that Moroni was real as opposed to a figment of Smith's imagination.
    • "using his seer stone to locate the place where the plates were buried" or to locate where they were supposedly buried or pretending to use the seer stone.
    • "At the proper location, he saw a large stone covering a stone (or possibly iron) box.[36]Using a stick to remove dirt from the edges of the stone cover, and after prying the cover up with a lever,[37] he saw the plates inside the box, together with other artifacts." This is essentially all supposition based solely on what Smith said.
  • Fails 1a. Peculiar turns of phrase from the first three sections only include:
    • "The golden plates cannot be examined by disinterested scholars," Obviously, because they either do not exist or were returned to Moroni. This sentence should either be removed or rephrased such as "The golden plates, if they ever existed, were never examined by disinterested scholars."
    • "the angel appeared a fourth time" there is ambiguity here: was Smith awake or unconscious during the vision? DrKiernan (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the changes but there are still issues in the succeeding sections. My examples are just from the first three. All the instances where disputed events are mentioned should be phrased so as to make clear that they are events as reported, not as events which are verifiably true and proven. DrKiernan (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please remove the graphics; they render the page unreadable. Something isn't "done" until the reviewer says it's "done", and graphics just get in the way. DrKiernan gave samples only of the prose issues; marking them "done" doesn't solve the prose issues. Graphics slow down the page load time for all of FAR (and its archives) and render it less readable for everyone else who has to sort out where thing stand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Aside from objectors to the subject at hand, this article is still, as it was to begin with, a very well written article that satisfied the requirements of the initial FA status. The objections likely stated against this article are typically from those who disagree with the subject of the article itself, and arguements typically come from either a "traditional christian" background and view the article as heretical and forwarding a "cult" perspective, or from an agnostic or even atheist perspective...thus leaving out the global perspectives, i.e. not just "christians" object to or believe these things. Those who object to the article over religious differences are failing to see the article as a whole instead, singling out a few statements from perhaps a pro-mormon source, ignoring all of the statements from non-mormon and critical sources and claiming the article demonstrates a pro-mormon POV that truly does not exist within the text of this article. A lot of the discussions focus on the existance of the plates themselves, and the lack of an examinable artifact. These claims are placated in the language used in this article, such as "existance of the plates is a matter of faith", and "According to Latter Day Saint theology", etc. But seemingly some people will not quit attacking this article, with arguements veiled in semantics, rather than in fact or substance, until it loses FA status because their POV is not overwhelming the article. So in my opinion, this article should remain a FA, it satisfies all requirements 1a-87z (sarcasm implied), and although controversial, still represents the best wikipedia can offer about the subject presented, whether you like or or not, and whether you agree about it or not. Twunchy (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there additional secondary sources not cited in this article?
Comments. If I am commenting in an incorrect location, SG retains the carte blanche I gave her to chop and move my comments around.
  • This review doesn't come as a surprise. The article was recently brought up at the Fringe theories noticeboard here. I was the first responder and noted that it was an FA, so it couldn't be overtly fringe-y. (I am a noted optimist.) By and large the commentary there indicated that it was acceptable, but not exceptional. It was noticed that it relies too much on within-LDS sourcing, so much so that one editor recommended that {{in-universe}} be slapped on it. (In fact, the expected reaction to the "work of fiction" phraseology in that template if used on this very article caused {{in-religion-universe}} to be written.)
  • Another look at it shows that it is almost entirely sourced to primary sources. This is not in keeping with good practice, and definitely leads to POV problems. To choose a (non-FA yet comparable) example at random, the article on Acts of the Apostles uses the primary source only for the "summary" section, moving to reliable, academic secondary sources (many independent) to discuss questions of questions of authorship, origin, historicity and other analyses. The current approach in this article is, to put it mildly, wholly inappropriate and cause it to fail 1b and 1d, but especially 1c.
Thanks for your time, and I hope this FAR is less problematic than the last one on which I commented. Relata refero (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What "reliable, academic secondary sources" are being ignored in this article? It's like Mark Twain's quip that everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it. Enough already of generalities; give us specifics. I want a list.--John Foxe (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Are you claiming that none exist? Relata refero (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am. None at least that have been ignored in this article. If I'm mistaken, please provide the evidence.--John Foxe (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. There are none in the article. By definition, if even one exists anywhere, all available secondary academic sources have been ignored. At the very least, a good portion of it could be sourced to Arrington-Bitton. The translation section should benefit from the fact that this effort has been widely studied by linguistic scholars and scholars of translation - especially postmodernists, for some reason; Douglas Robinson, one of the foremost names in the field, has a couple of papers on it, I think, and probably a good-sized section in his book, though I don't have access to it at the moment. There are, obviously, hundreds of sources. If there wasn't even one, as you seem to imply, I would be nominating this article for deletion. Relata refero (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prove your point by providing the name of just one "reliable, academic secondary source" discussing the golden plates that's on par with the scholarly secondary works by Bushman, Quinn, and Vogel cited in the article. I have no doubt that something's been missed. But I'm also confident that your sputtering indicates cluelessness about what that might be. --John Foxe (talk) 10:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't we the polite one. Well, of course I'm relatively clueless. Like most FA reviewers, I'm not exactly an expert on this subject matter. I do know a problematic article when I see it, though. Since you mention that Bushman, Vogel, and Quinn are "cited", lets look at why I didn't mention them. Quinn on Smith's astrology and on the context of treasure-hunting - reduced to a footnote. Instead a quote from a 19th c book's in the main article for the latter point. Bushman is used only for the small section on "other metal plates". And Vogel - well, I'm glad you added him a few days ago, but do you really one line makes up for writing the entire remainder of the article based on primary sources? (Don't say that all academic discussion of the reported discovery process belong in Historicity of the Book of Mormon, please, that stunted article discusses only the historical allusions made in the translations and whether they correspond with evidence available from elsewhere.)
Please see above, where I have already provided specific reliable, academic secondary sources that could be helpful. Arrington-Bitton is one (I understand it is, in fact the standard work on the subject), and Douglas Robinson's Who Translates. For an example of what this article loses by ignoring such work, the line "Smith's process of what he called "translation" was not typical of the usual meaning of that word" lacks any of the contextualisation required; so-called spirit-channelled translation has been extensively studied. Really, I can't imagine why you think three lines and two footnotes based on secondary sources and then slavishly repeating primary sources is the best that Wikipedia can do. Relata refero (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said earlier that there were no secondary sources cited. Now you've had to explain away three first-rate ones. Arrington-Bitton is essentially a textbook, a survey history of Mormonism. The golden plates are covered in one paragraph on page 12. The windy theories of Douglas Robinson may indeed be worthy of notice in the section of this article dealing with translation. I would encourage you to incorporate them if you can. Of course, they have nothing to do with the golden plates per se.--John Foxe (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) Let me make it quite clear I don't like your tone, and I suggest you smarten that up a bit. On the actual business at hand, there are no secondary sources used as support for major claims. Let me repeat: this article has three lines and two footnotes based on secondary sources. If you call that "explaining away three-first rate ones", I'm afraid that there is likely to be no response. This is an FA sourced practically entirely to primary sources. That's unacceptable. That the golden plates are covered in two pages in the main survey of Mormon history is hardly surprising; what is surprising is that that is considered inappropriate to use as a source. And if theories of translation are irrelevant to this page, why is there a section on it? Remove it, please, as irrelevant to a FA candidate. The more I read this article and the associated literature and WP articles, the more clear it is to me that the design of this page, what has been chosen to stay in and what appears to be considered "irrelevant", the style of sources used, are all designed to keep legitimate scrutiny of doctrine out. That is unacceptable anywhere, and especially in an FA. Relata refero (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've still not provided even one "reliable, academic secondary source" discussing the golden plates that's on par with the scholarly secondary works by Bushman, Quinn, and Vogel cited in the article. If including more citations to say, Bushman, Quinn, Vogel (or even to the paragraph in Arrington-Bitton) would satisfy you, I don't see why that couldn't be done. But your concern seems to be rather with what you perceive to be the article's pro-Mormon bias. Here I bow out because I'm not a Mormon, never have been a Mormon, and consider the authenticity of the golden plates to be on par with the authenticity of the Golden Fleece.--John Foxe (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did. I mentioned Douglas Robinson specifically. About the general bias of the article, well, of course that's a problem. But the central problem that I came here to comment on remains the measly three lines and two footnotes based on secondary sources. If it can be fixed, excellent. If its not, then I don't think this should remain an FA. Relata refero (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is unwise to focus on hypertechnical distinctions about whether sources are "primary" or "secondary" in this article. Good featured articles can be, and are, written either type of source exclusively. Actually, if you want to detour into arcane historiographic theory, almost every source here is both primary and secondary. A secondary source is simply a source that repeats something that someone else wrote. If the "secondary" reference has an original idea, that counts as a primary source for the new idea too. Most secondary sources, if the author has something original to say about the subject matter, are also primary sources. Likewise, most of the "primary" sources are "secondary". But lets not get bogged down in historiographic distinctions here. What we need to ask ourselves is: (1) is there a source, of whatever type so long as it is reliable, for every proposition made in the article, and (2) is every proposition made in the article presented in a neutral way? I think the answer to both questions is pretty much yes, although any article can be improved if people continue to work on it. As to the second question, I think the most telling indicator is that Mormons think the article is horribly anti-Mormon, while skeptics think the article leans pro-Mormon, and purely apathetic people, with no stake in the game either way, think it's pretty good. That means we have succeeded. COGDEN 01:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. All articles must use reliable secondary sources. If such sources don't exist then a subject isn't notable and we are engaging in original research. It isn't frequent that I agree with RR but in this case he is spot on. And furthermore, the claim that "A secondary source is simply a source that repeats something that someone else wrote" demonstrates deep misunderstanding about what generally constitutes a secondary source for Wikipedia purposes. The reason we rely on such sources is that they can do original research and such. This is in fact close to the actual meaning of secondary source in common parlance. If there is some separate meaning for certain areas of historiography that's hardly relevant to Wikipedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JoshuaZ. The article appears to be pseudoarcheology in that it uses primary sources, many of which date to the early history of the Mormon church, where they were doing anything they could to validate their religion. This article is not neutral, and will not be without significant rewriting utilizing modern and peer-reviewed secondary sources to add to the scholarship. If COGDEN wants a Mormon religious treatise, why not copy the Doctrine and Covenants, and call it a day? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break
[edit]
  • Remove Religious articles have to make one of two choices: either state it is an allegory or religious doctrine, such as Noah's Ark, which stays neutral by not trying to scientifically or archeologically prove that the Ark existed (which the last time I checked was placed in a POV fork from the article). However, once a religious symbol, story or personage is claimed to be "true" or had existed, and utilizes sources to verify it, then the NPOV must account for the wealth of data that may or may not confirm the existence of the Golden Plates. Given that there is no archeological support for what was written in the Book of Mormon, I'd almost start with the fact that the culture that supposedly created it did not in fact exist. Accepting the Golden Plates as a matter of religious faith is fine, then the article should state it as such and should not attempt to prove its existence, like Noah's Ark. If you want to use science or archeology or historical texts to "prove" its existence, then WP:RS, WP:VERIFY. and WP:WEIGHT need to come into play, much like articles on Creationism or Intelligent design. Right now, this article is merely a Mormon D&C advertisement, and is hardly scholarly and neutral. And Cogden's last point, that Mormons think its anti-Mormon, etc, is a one man synthesis of no statistical merit. The article is a religious tract, and it belongs in Wiki-mormon, not here, because it is not neutral. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 12:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is difficult to accurately comment on sources you are not familiar with, but I assure you, a lot of thought and discussion has gone into making these citations balanced and accurate. This is a complicated article, but if you read it carefully, you will see that the article in no way tries to "prove" anything. This article is about what authoritative sources have said about the golden plates. That's all an encyclopedia can do. It cannot take any position about the truth or falsity of sources, it only can relate them.
    • But it is simply untrue that the citations in this article are one-sided. Actually, most of the sources cited in this article are by disbelievers, many of whom intended by their statements to cast doubt on the existence of the plates. We cite these sources here, despite their strong opinion, because it is not our place to judge. Likewise, we cite Smith himself, and those who said they saw the plates or the translation process. If we did not cite these people, (1) we wouldn't have anything to talk about, and (2) the reader would leave the article with a sense that the point of the article has been missed. But overall, most of the sources are indeed secondary. It's understandable that people would make a mistake like this about the nature of the sources, because you can't really know this unless you read the sources and are familiar with who the author is and their point of view. To assist people in understanding this, here's a table that should hopefully lay this issue to rest:
Source Believer/Skeptic Primary/Secondary source
Anthon, Charles Skeptic Secondary source
James Gordon Bennett, Jr. Skeptic Secondary source
Abram W. Benton ? Secondary source
Emma Smith Bidamon Believer Primary and secondary source
David S. Burnett Skeptic Secondary source
Richard Lyman Bushman Believer Secondary source
Willard Chase Skeptic Mostly secondary source
John A. Clark Skeptic Secondary source
James T. Cobb Believer Secondary source
Abner Cole Skeptic Secondary source
Lyndon W. Cook Believer Secondary source
Oliver Cowdery Believer Mostly secondary source
David Crystal Skeptic Secondary source
Peter Daniels & William Bright Skeptic Secondary source
E.B. Grandin Skeptic Secondary source
Jonathan Hadley Skeptic Secondary source
Isaac Hale Skeptic Mostly primary source
William J. Hamblin Believer Secondary source
Abigail Harris Skeptic Primary source
Henry Harris Skeptic Primary source
Martin Harris Believer Primary source
Eber Dudley Howe Skeptic Secondary source
Joseph Knight, Sr. Believer Mostly secondary source
Fayette Lapham Skeptic Secondary source
Joseph & Hiel Lewis Skeptic Mostly secondary
Frederic G. Mather Skeptic Secondary source
Brent Lee Metcalfe Skeptic Secondary source
J. Cameron Packer Believer Secondary source
Grant H. Palmer Skeptic Secondary source
W.W. Phelps Believer Primary source
P. Wilhelm Poulson Believer Secondary source
Orson Pratt Believer Secondary source
Read H. Putnam Believer Secondary source
I. Woodbridge Riley Skeptic Secondary source
B.H. Roberts Believer Mixed
Andrew Robinson Skeptic Secondary source
Katharine Smith Salisbury Believer Secondary source
Benjamin Saunders Skeptic Secondary source
Lorenzo Saunders Skeptic Secondary source
Orson Saunders Skeptic Secondary source
Joseph Smith III Believer Secondary source
Joseph Smith, Jr. Believer Primary source
Lucy Mack Smith Believer Mostly primary source
William Smith Believer Mostly primary source
Edward Stevenson Believer Secondary source
Wilbur F. Storey Skeptic Secondary source
Tvedtnes Believer Secondary source
Pomeroy Tucker Skeptic Mixed
Orasmus Turner Skeptic Mixed
B. Wade Skeptic Secondary source
Richard S. Van Wagoner Believer Secondary source
Ronald W. Walker Believer Secondary source
David Whitmer Believer Mostly primary source
Stephen Williams Skeptic Secondary source
Roger D. Woodard Skeptic Secondary source
Brigham Young Believer Secondary source
  • Further commentary NPOV issues aside, I find the reference section problematic. First of all, as others have mentioned, the lack of non-LDS sources is amazing. A truly neutral article, that attempts to the espouse the archeological nature of these tablets, deserves a significant amount of commentary on the pseudoarcheology and pseudoscience presented here. Furthermore, the references themselves lack ISBN numbers for a number of books (suspiciously, the one non-LDS book did lack an ISBN). The lead is not balanced, it is not neutral. Again, if the editors want a piece of Mormon dogma, then please write it as such, and make no claims that it actually existed (for which there are no secondary and reliable sources). If you're going to rely on pseudoscience, then for NPOV to exist, we need a balanced article, not an LDS First Presidency press release. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 13:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no lack of non-LDS sources, as you can see the above chart. Most of the sources are skeptical, and an even greater majority are non-LDS. As to your concerns about archaeology/pseudoarcheology and science/pseudoscience, these are good concerns, but these issues are not discussed here, either pro or con. This is the wrong article for that. This material is more related to the Book of Mormon than the golden plates, and should go in articles like archaeology and the Book of Mormon, Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, Genetics and the Book of Mormon, or one of the many other Book of Mormon-related articles. Like any article, there has to be a limit to its scope, or it would mushroom into something truly gigantic. We should not expand the article to include either the content of the Book of Mormon or Mormonism in general. COGDEN 02:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • remove Orangemarlin and DrKiernan bring up points that are fatal to this being an FA and are not fixable without massive rewriting. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More commentary Section comparing the existence of other precious metal plates, though interesting, do not confirm or deny the existence of these golden plates. That's one of the prime tenets of Pseudoscience by utilizing confirmation that it happened someplace else. Based on that logic bats and birds are the same, when, from a biological, evolutionary, and scientific standpoint, they are both flying vertebrates, and that's about it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to admit I am quite disappointed with the English writing in this article. For a purported FA, the writing is not good. "Smith's claim to have found golden plates was noted locally, and the distraction of having the curious attempt to see them, as well his own lack of money, caused Smith to move to northern Pennsylvania" for example is a long sentence and awkwardly worded. There are numerous similar examples throughout the text. It needs, at the very least, a serious copyedit.--Filll (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of changes have been made recently as a result of this process. It certainly needs a new copyedit. I've fixed the sentence you mention, and am going through it to find other stylistic problems. COGDEN 05:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - Poor writing; not neutral; unreliable sources; problems with undue weight; ownership problems, etc. A copyedit will not fix this mess, it needs to be started over from scratch, and must be written from an academic not religious perspective. •Jim62sch•dissera! 18:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources are reliable. They are all published in peer reviewed journals or books, and you can find them in any library. As to ownership, I haven't really seen that problem. Various people have worked on this at various times, but nobody has ever, to my knowledge, attempted to "own" the article. As to undue weight, the issues discussed in the article are almost exactly the range of issues that are discussed in the literature, both apologetic and critical, and in about the same proportion, although frankly, the range of issues mainly line up with the most common issues that come up in critical literature. I don't think this is a weakness, however, because by and large, we have included at least those apologetic issues that have merited serious discussion in the field among critics. COGDEN 02:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentary- The writing can be improved but is really pretty good considering the corpses from past edit wars that litter the field of battle. The sources are perfectly reliable and the tone neutral. No naysayer ever provides the names of academic secondary sources he presumes must exist out there (but don't). It's necessary to say I'm not a Mormon, I've never been a Mormon, and I believe the golden plates are so much hooey.--John Foxe (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I been around this project long enough to know that when someone says "I'm not this", it means very little to the rest of us, who have seen it over and over again. I don't care if someone is LDS or not. The article is not neutral, because, since it is hooey, and they're significant peer-reviewed scholarship to indicate it's hooey, then where is it in the article. If the owner of the article wants it to be a religious document parroting the Doctrine and Covenants, hey I'm there supporting its FA. But if it wants to be neutral, then all the aspects of WP:NPOV need to be followed. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You need to be specific about what kinds of citations you think should be added. There could very well be articles out there that are germane to this topic, which we could add to the footnotes, and if so, I'd like to know. Many of us on both sides of the "Are the Plates Real" issue have scoured the literature on this, and I think we have it covered. There are other citations that provide the same information that is already cited, but not much else remains. COGDEN 02:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, by the way, I was taught the basics of Chemistry by Henry Eyring, and my recommendations for Medical School were written by Ted Eyring, who taught me more about inorganic chemistry than I care to remember, and Henry B. Eyring, both high level members of the LDS church. I wonder what that means? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Provide evidence that the article ignores "significant peer-reviewed scholarship." What are specific examples of articles and books not treated in this article? (I'm not sure that your relationship to the Eyrings has any deep significance, except that if you went to the University of Utah, you were probably raised around a lot of Mormons.)--John Foxe (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No one has yet pointed out a valid, neutral, non-Mormon secondary source on Mormonism and the Golden Plates that could be used to improve this article's NPOV that isn't used already. Haven't any non-Mormon doctorate students published theses or dissertations with research on Mormonism? Haven't any American non-Mormon sociologists studied Mormonism? I heard somewhere that sociological researchers in other countries have studied Mormonism because they see it as a unique sub-culture in the history of the United States. Has anyone tried to search for secondary sources in other languages like German, French, or Spanish? Surely some neutral and reliable source has studied and published commentary on Mormonism somewhere. Cla68 (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are lots of articles by non-Mormons on various aspects of Mormonism, but there are hundreds of Mormonism-related articles, and they should be cited in the appropriate article, rather than here, unless the article is specifically about the plates. But I think we have already covered the universe of opinions on this subject pretty well, and I doubt there are many non-Mormon sources that add something pertinent to the topic here, which isn't already discussed. There are some additional Mormon apologetic issues, but some of them have not received discussion from non-Mormon critics; so these Mormon-centric issues are not included. COGDEN 02:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove The main problem is that the article does not clearly demarcate between religious mythology associated with LDS belief and fact. Compare this to the Shroud of Turin or other similar articles to see my point. Wikipedia featured articles are supposed to conform to WP:NPOV. This article does not because it doesn't make it clear that academic scholars who are non-Mormon deny that the plates are anything more than a Joseph Smith hoax. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who are these "academic scholars" who deny that the plates are no more than a hoax of Joseph Smith? Name them.--John Foxe (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is already clear, beginning in the very first section after the intro, that many non-Mormons believe that the plates were a hoax. The views of the above 374 sources are either (1) already represented, or (2) only mention the golden plates in passing. We can add them to the footnotes, but what does it add to the article? We don't have to cite every source in existance on any given point, just the most authoritative ones. Now, if any of these 374 sources contributed new information to the article that is not already covered, then we should be interested, and that would be relevant to featured status. But that's not the case here. The range of discussion of these 374 people are already covered here. COGDEN 20:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue, which becomes apparent to anyone who does research in this field, is that unlike the shroud of Turin, nobody can prove, through scientific means, that the golden plates were a hoax, or that they did not exist. The plates are not an extant artifact, and thus are more like the ark of the covenant than the shroud of Turin. The sole source of information, ultimately, for proving their nonexistence are the statements of Smith and his associates, many of whom were believers, and many of whom were skeptical. All modern skeptical authors writing about the plates cite the very same sources that are already included in this article. Since there is a consensus that these sources are the ones that are considered most authoritative as to "hoaxitude", these are the sources cited. The article has covered, pretty well, the universe of the most authoritative and widely-cited sources critical of the golden plates. COGDEN 21:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: I have waited quite a while here. In part, I was concerned that after the arbitrary break a posse seemed to have been rounded up to remove, which is frowned on at FAR.

That said, the removes take this one, both in numbers and arguments. The most germane comments remain Serpent Choice's from the beginning. The word "said" does not just appear four times in the first paragraph. It occurs 108 times in the body. "Smith said... His father said... the angel said..." This is not simply a matter of dull and repetitive phrasing, but reflects a serious structural problem: the article is simply a retelling of the Mormon story. No criticism, no metatextual discussion, no modern scholarly interpretations, and "no discussion of the claim that the plates may not have physically existed at all, or been forged, or been a modern artifact." Nothing. The closest we get is a tacked-on section at the end that tips over into apologism. This article does not meet 1a, 1c, or 1d and should be completely revamped if it is to be brought back to FAC. Marskell (talk)

  • That's your call, but I'd consider this carefully because it is a policy decision and something of a shift in the meaning of the FA categories. In the past, 1c, and 1d have only been about verifiability of the sources (what people have "said" about the subject matter) and neutrality and balance of their presentation. It has never been about verifiability of the truth of the sources, or bias in the individual sources themselves. This subject matter cannot be discussed without very liberal use of the word "said"--ie, what Smith "said", and what his skeptical critics have "said", which never agree. If we remove the "saids", we violate WP:NPOV--thus, removing this article as FA on this basis means that articles on this type of subject matter are inherently non-featurable. Nothing regarding this topic is verifiable except what people have said, and this article represents essentially everything that has been said in published, scholarly sources. Mormons cannot prove the plates exist, critics cannot prove they do not exist. Thus, if this is our criteria, these types of articles on inherently controversial and nonverifiable subjects like Xenu and Noah's Ark should all be removed as featured articles. As to there being no discussion that the plates were a hoax or did not exist, that's simply incorrect. Look at the first section, which was added in response to Serpent Choice's comments. Also, look at the footnotes throughout the article. COGDEN 18:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Golden_plates/archive1&oldid=1142602388"