Talk:Book of Joseph

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Book of Joseph article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Latter Day Saint movement Low‑importance

	Latter Day Saint movement portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Banner at top

I plan on removing the banner at the top as I believe the issue that prompted it has been resolved. Epachamo (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I strongly disagree. Almost all of the sources are associated with the church. Doug Weller talk 13:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following are non-LDS sources cited in this article: Ritner (cited 7 times), Klaus Baer (cited 2 times), and John Wilson (cited 1 time). LDS church members are also quite capable of producing scholarly work (just look at how many times LDS Scholar Richard Bushman is cited in the Joseph Smith Article; 217 times). Brian Hauglid and Robin Jensen produced an eminently scholarly work cited here several times, that has received wide scholarly acclaim, and is totally appropriate. They have even been criticized heavily within the church for being TOO scholarly. Richard Bushman is another citation that is widely regarded for his scholarship. Sources associated with the church are not inherently a bad thing when they are used to explicitely portray what the LDS position is (as in the Bruce R. McConkie and H. Donl Peterson citations). A link to the lds.org website is totally appropriate as a link to the primary source. There is a sprinkling of references linking to primary sources, which is also totally appropriate. Epachamo (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to re-visit removing the banner at the top, with the following rubric being used: Epachamo (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rubric for appropriateness of sources for Book of Abraham articles

While Epachamo (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC) made this rubric, I do not mind if it is edited by the community and would like their input.[reply]

Solid Sources that should be used with little reservation

Anything by Robert Ritner. Ritner is one of the most widely respected Egyptologists in the field. He wrote the definitive translation of the papyri.
Anything by Brent Metcalfe. A well respected scholar of LDS studies.
Books and Material from the Joseph Smith Papers project. While sponsored by the LDS Church, it is critically acclaimed.
S. J. Wolfe books and articles. She is the leading expert on 19th century mummies in America.
Most things published by Signature Books, Dialouge, or recognized by the John Whitmer Historical Society.

Solid Sources that can be used with caveats

H. Donl Peterson's books, including "The Story of the Book of Abraham." I think this source might be the one you are referring to that prompted the whole discussion. I adamantly stand by using this source. His scholarship in his books is universally well attested, especially when it comes to the history prior to arriving in Kirtland in 1835. S. J. Wolfe states of his book, "Peterson gives an almost overwhelming amount of evidence tracing Lebolo's whereabouts in Egypt and in Europe...at the present time believed to be the most correct and accurate account of Lebolo's colorful life. ... This is one of the better sources of all the arguments for and against the identification of the tomb from which Lebolo took the mummies." H. Michael Marquardt wrote an essay in Robert Ritner's book where he said of H. Donl Peterson's book, "Peterson's book ... is a good introduction to the topic." He is careful to separate History from interpretations, and is intellectually honest by not cherry picking source material.
Most things by Brian Hauglid. Generally well respected with his peer reviewed articles and books such as "A Textual History of the Book of Abraham" provide primary sources never before available. Earlier in his career he did delve deeply into apologetics, which should be avoided.
Anything by Dan Vogel. A well respected prolific LDS Historian. He does editorialize from time to time.
Primary sources, such as the 1835 Messenger and Advocate, but not in an original research type way.
Things published by H. Michael Marquardt, except his blog, in which he editorializes in a non-wikipedia appropriate way.

Sources that should only be used with EXTREME caution

Hugh Nibley writings. He is an apologist, but was part of the history of the Papyri, and therefore a primary source, and defined the most common nomenclature used by all to refer to the Papyri and the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. He also defined the views of the LDS Church for a generation. He should not be used as an expert on Egyptology or history thought.
John Gee and Kerry Muhlestein. These so called "Egyptologists" might have the degrees, but are widely criticized for their apologetics. They are also some of the very few who have access to the actual papyri. So for example, Muhlestein wrote a paper where he pieced together the back side of the papyri, and showed where it originated. This particular article is non-controversial, and provided important images and commentary.

Sources that should not be used

Anything from fairmormon.com. This is an apologetic with non-peer reviewed research and opinions.
Things published by Institute for Religious Research. This is an organization dedicated to converting Mormons to maintstream Christianity.
Mormon Studies periodical. Dedicated to scholarship and faith. Faith has no part in Wikipedia.
Any blog to include MormonThink, Mormanity, Ask Gramps xmission, etc.
jefflindsay.com or similar sites. Lindsay is not a historian or scholar.

Removal of Banner at the top

I have removed the banner at the top for the following reasons:

Identified problems with sources have been changed.
This is a divisive issue. There is a mixture of sources from all sides of the issue, with biases clearly understood (such as in the relationship to the temple section), and an effort to choose sources neutral as possible.
The above rubric has been published for nearly two months now, with no further discussion or commentary.

Name Change

@Good Olfactory: I disagree with the name change to "Mormonism" instead of "Latter Day Saint" movement. The Book of Joseph came about in 1835, before any major split, and fail to see how it would not apply to the broader movement. I believe this should have gone through WP:RM#CM before being done. Epachamo (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, it could be moved back. I thought it was more in line with Pearl of Great Price (Mormonism). There's not much attention on the Book of Abraham within the broader movement as compared with Mormonism. This is a related but separate topic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]