Talk:Fawn M. Brodie/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Notes on POV Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Her what was McKay? RickK 04:57, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Jefferson biography

The Wikimedia help mailing list received an e-mail from a reader Elizabeth.

I read your excerpt on the controversial biographer Fawn Brodie, which includes a big quote on how her biography of Thomas Jefferson was seen as monumentally ignorant; I would think, as a note, you ought to include that subsequent DNA testing confirmed her hypothesis and theory regarding Sally Hemmings’ offspring being related to Thomas Jefferson, which should have put the arch academics back at least one step. I’m simply a lay reader who followed the dispute, with no axe to grind.

This is confirmed from the following article on the Monticello website. [1]. I have added a paragraph to the article. Capitalistroadster 03:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It is correct that the DNA testing showed she was correct, though she was certainly not the first to opine that Sally and Tom were intimate (it was a sort of open rumor in Washington when Jefferson was alive). However, the objections to her book were not about the affair with Hennings, but rather the reviewers were troubled by her methods. Here are some quotes:

Michael Kammen, Historian and Professor at Columbia and who knew Fawn Brodie wrote in his review of the book that she was "a historical gossip incapable of distinguishing between cause and effect." (Ouch!)

T. Harry Williams, another historian and biographer said that the Jefferson Biography was: "not biography as the art is understood by its better practitioners..... [Psychological tools] can be useful to writers of biography and should be employed by those who cherish the art. They must, however, be used with some restraint and recognition of their limitations.... [but Brody] badly set back the calling of psychobiography."

Julian Boyd a noted Jefferson scholar said that "among the whole chorus of adulatory critics of Mrs. Brodie's book not a single Jefferson scholar is to be found."

Garry Wills - author, historian and professional reviewer of books: "[she] has managed to write a long and complex study of Jefferson without displaying any acquaintance with eighteenth-century plantation conditions, political thought, literary conventions, or scientific categories--all of which concerned Jefferson." He was also concerned that she did not have a good grasp of the changing meaning of words and so she read things into statements that were not originally intended.

The list of historians, biographers or historical critics of Brodie's Jefferson work is large and distinguished: Lois W. Banner - the feminist social critic, Max Belloff - noted british historian, John B. Boles - currently a leading historian at Rice University, Paul F. Boller Jr. - Historian specializing in Presidents, Henry W. Bragdon - Early American History professor, David H. Donald - Pulitzer Prize Winning (2x) historian, Michael Fellman - noted professor of American History, Alvin S. Felzenberg - Historian of Presidents, Larry R. Gerlach - Published Historian and Professor, Holman Hamilton - widely published biographer, Steven H. Hockman - Professor of History and Jefferson Scholar, Reginald Horsman - Distinguished Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Winthrop D. Jordan - Professor of History and Afro-American Studies whose book "White over Black" had inspired Brody, criticised her bad psychology, Jerry Knudson - Published History Professor, Journalist and Jefferson Fellow, Jon Kukla - published history professor and Jefferson era Scholar, Dumas Malone - Distinguished Jefferson Scholar w 6 volume Biography, Bruce Mazlish - an eminent psychohistorian (He called Brodie's book disappointing), Max M. Mintz - Professor of History at Southern Connecticut State University and well published Revolutionary War Era Biographer, Frederick I. Olson - history professor, Robert Rutland-Research Professor of American History at the University of Tulsa, Robert Spiller - editor of historical collections, Cushing Strout - professor of History at Cornell, Thad W. Tate - historian with a focus on racial concerns, and Benjamin F. Wright - historian who focused on the founding fathers.

All of these folks wrote that her biographical technique was flawed. But that critique has been lost in the news that DNA evidence confirmed a rumor that Brodie was not first to record, but somehow became noted as having uncovered -- probably because this relatively minor matter was a central theme in her book.

64.178.145.150 01:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any of the editors who wrote this article meant to say that Brodie's research should be discounted, nor did the authors above, but rather that her research needs to be read with her more obvious research and writing faults in mind. Much like nearly all books and authors she has faults and her works have flaws. Due to the controversial nature of her work they are perhaps more public, but her preservation of historical data was wonderful. Most works in the academic setting will have critics who point out flaws. She makes some huge errors and huge leaps to conclusions, but did some wonderful things as well. Even her mentor criticised her work, but didn't discount her research, just her intentions and methodology. When an author does something to prove a point, it results in less-vaulable work. -Visorstuff 23:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC

Some of her critics DID say her research was bad. However, generally it was a complaint about her logic and methods of induction. Most praised her ability to weave a story together.64.178.145.150 23:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

She was a gifted story teller - much like D. Michael Quinn. The problem is that she jumped to conclusions without evidence for it. An example of her logic would be like this: "Hank lived in a trailerpark. He drank beer. He wore a wifebeater tanktop. We know that some men who drink and live in trailerparks and wear tanktops beat their wives. Therefore Hank must have beat his wife." All of the first four sentences are true. Sentence five is conjecture. It may or may not have validity, but we cannot know for certain if Hank beat his wife from that evidence. The story is there, and is strong (she was a gifted writer) but the conclusions are speculative and made to support her points, which she readily admitted on many occasions. She wanted to prove her points, and as morgan pointed out would discount evidence to the contrary to tell her story. Her research is still good. Just has a very deep POV. It hurt her credibility on a number of fronts, but her noteriety made up for the damage. -Visorstuff 00:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Its off topic but a more egregious example of that technique you are describing (but also one that is even more interesting in some ways, perhaps because of its total audacity and obvious flights of fancy) is the process used by Baigent et.al in Holy Blood, Holy Grail. 64.178.145.150 14:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Remind me; was her mentor by any chance a Mormon? Al 23:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Dale Morgan was not Mormon, but one of the first Western United States historians that dealt with Mormon history. Like Thomas Sheridan and Wallace Stegner has often been accused of being a mormon because he didn't attack the church, but dealt with the church from a face value/traditional point of view (they didn't say whether or not they thought brigham or joseph had revelations or not, and treated the "miracles" as historical events as they were to the people who experienced them, rather than the naturalistic style of Brodie, where she claimed something like drug hallucinations or epilepsy caused visions, or something non-supernatural was the cause, etc.) -Visorstuff 00:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope you understand why I would be skeptical of anyone who wants to be a historian but accepts supernatural claims at face value. Such claims, by their very nature, are unverifiable, and therefore have no place in history. History may attempt to explain why people made such claims, but it cannot presume that the claims were true. Al 00:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What you say may be true for Science, but it is not true for History. Indeed, one of the fundamental principles of examining historical documents and events is to intially presume that they are what they purport to be and then find reasons to discount that belief, rather than to doubt them first and then find reasons to assert that they are correct. This is not to say that you accept documents and accounts uncritically but rather that you do not come with an agenda. That, of course, is an ideal.

64.178.145.150 14:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

When history conflicts with science, history loses. Al 15:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Silly statement. It is impossible for them to conflict. All that can conflict is perceptions of history and perceptions of scientific fact. But actual history is incapable of conflicting with science because it is governed by the same laws that govern science. What you probably meant to say was that when historically held notions of fact collide with new discoveries, the historically held notions lose. This is true, particuarly in Science. 72.13.168.149 19:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There's something called the principle of charity, by which you make an effort to interpret arguments so as to pick the one that makes the argument strongest. Clearly, what actually happens (regardless of what historians think) cannot conflict with what actually could happen (regardless of what scientists think). Just as clearly, I'm talking about the conclusions of historians and scientists. If a historian claims an event that contradicts science, the historian has just made a full of themselves. In the end, history loses because it is inherently less reliable than science. Al 20:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

History is not nessecerially about what happened, but what survived about what happened - and what motivated people to do what they did. A good historian will take claims at face value - and not interpret what they may be (that is the role of scientific theory). An example used elsewhere is about 1850-60 immigrants' and sailors' views about mermaids. Some swore they saw them. A good traditional historian, rather than say, "there are no such things as mermaids" would gather the accounts, present similarities, discuss why this made sailors to change their sailing course/normal behavior, what the immigrants believed was happening, and the impact on the world today and the legacy of "mermaids," whatever they were. The historian would present from the eye of the "witness" and help the readers to understand what motivated that person, and in turn teach tolerance and not place his world view on others. This strain of history accepts that it was possible for the red sea to be parted by Moses/God, that Candles lasted for seven additional days for the macabees, or that knights hunted down dragons. Naturalism, on the other hand does have to prove first that the event could be interpretated another way - with a scientific explanation - and that God would not (if he exists) intervene in the affairs of man. Naturalism would say that Mermaid sightings were probably porpoises and that superstition of the sailors caused foolish alterations of their normal course, resulting in lost time, etc. It is a difference in philosophy of history - Brodie took naturalism as her course, while Stegner, Morgan and Sheridan don't directly deal with the supernatural event (that's unprovable either way), but rather deal with the results, the motivations and more that resulted from the events. They deal with what they can backup, not speculate on what they can't prove. Stegner points out that few "Seagull" miracle accounts existed contemporarily, but that later accounts motivated the mormon settlers to treat seagulls better and point out that the accounts that were told helped the mormon pioneers to develop more fully their sense of chosen-ness. Thus he doesn't deal with the event itself, other than mentioning that people believed it occured and it was documented, but then deals with its effects. This is not how Brodie was - naturalistic. In my opinion, and the opinions of the above-mentioned historians, a good historian is all about knowing what you know and knowing what you don't know, and not having to think you know what you can never know unless you were there - and then writing about what you know. Ya know? -Visorstuff 20:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

History does not involve epistemological relativism. We can report things at face value, but we are obligated to interpret them in the context of all available evidence. If some story says that some guy parted some sea, we must report this story, but we are under no obligation whatsoever to believe it. We may search for ways in which it could be partially true or simply reject it as myth. Al 05:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

More information on how Brodie used circumstantial and hearsay to support her concusions in the Jefferson biography may be found here [2]. Some of her evidence proving an affair between Jefferson and Hemmings include they were in the same location within nine months prior to the birth of her children, accusations from a politcal foe, and recollection of a neighbor if he treated sally better than most slaveowners treated their slaves. Anyway, thought this group may enjoy. -Visorstuff 19:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And yet it looks like she was likely right. Al 05:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved from my Talk page.

You ask for citations. I can find citations that say that OTHER books are "The Difinitive" biography. But aren't these all opinions? The current version gives an opinion. An opinion that is not neutral. It is too sweeping, as I said, for a book that is over 60 years old and has been surpassed by additional information and many othe biographies.

So what sort of citation do you need? Do you need a citation that opines directly that "No Man Knows My History" is NOT difinitive or do you need an opinion that some other book is THE difinitive book?

And isnt this whole thing ridiculous? I am trying to make the article LESS dependant upon opinion. Why would you argue for more opinion and claim that doing so is NPOV? 05:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And yet it is quite easy to find references to the book as being the definitive biography of Smith, which is why that text should remain. Al 07:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If it is quite easy to find references to the book as being the definitive biography of Smith:

1. Are they recent? 2. Are they by writers who knew of the more recent works?

And .... if other books are also "The Definitive" biography and If I find a source that says it is NOT the definitive biography what does that mean?

Its a silly opinion. It should go. Or should wikipedia be substandard?

NMKMH is no longer THE definitive biography

Said of "Rough Stone Rolling":

“Clearly the definitive biography for generations to come. ” --Terryl Givens, author of The Latter-Day Saint Experience in America. If something ELSE is THE definitive biography, then this one cannot be it.

“Richard Bushman’s ... DEFINITIVE biography of the Mormon prophet SUPERCEDES all previous studies–hagiographic and critical–of this American original.” --John F. Wilson, author of Religion and the American Nation

"...Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling will become the definitive biography of Joseph Smith for this generation. It richly deserves your attention and a place on your bookshelf." -- Jeffrey Needle, Non-Mormon book reviewer.

As far as I know, only one reviewer every said that Brodie's book was "definitive" and here we have 3 discussing a more recent book. Anyway, the whole idea is only opinion.--64.178.145.150 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not our job to say which book is the definitive biography. Certainly, there are a number of reliable sources that speak of it as such, and still more that call it the first definitive biography, suggesting that even if it was superceded, the stuff that came before it did not measure up. Al 05:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is not our job to say which book is "The definitive" biography. And yes, there are a number that speak of it as "such", but that is a very small number. As far as know it is only 1 (one). And that source may not be all that reliable either. It is the publisher of the book. In their original marketing of the book they declare it to be "definitive". However, it opened to dismal reviews. Only when Morgan (who was a friend of Fawn's and contributor to the book itself and thus not unbiased) reviewed it did it begin to improve in its reputation. And then others started quoting the marketing hype. But I am unable to find any objective reviewers with a background in history -- that called this work definitive. you say "Find a cite". I say that in return. If this book is so definitive, who so voted it as such? All that can be said is that it is an important work, in that it is frequently quoted and cited. But, if it is definitive then show that it is. Otherwise the article should not buy into the marketing hype. This is an encyclopedia after all.--64.178.145.150 08:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out earlier, it can be argued that there are more definitive biographies available today. However, there's plenty of support for it being the first definitive biography, so that's what we're going to keep. Al 13:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think that there is "Plenty of Support" from verifiable and reliable sources then cite them. Since there actually is NOT plenty of support for it being "the definitive" or "the first definitive" or even "definitive" other than the original publisher or people quoting the original publisher, we shall keep that word out. --72.13.168.149 21:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

From the Amazon blurb for "Reconsidering No Man Knows My History (Fawn M. Brodie and Joseph Smith in Retrospect), by Newell G. Bringhurst":

"Midwest Book Review

In 1945, Fawn M. Brodie wrote the first definitive biography of Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon Church. For doing so she received both praise and condemnation -- and eventual excommunication. No other book on the Mormon prophet has entirely supplanted it to this very day. In Reconsidering "No Man Knows My History" Newell Bringhurst has compiled an impressive volume of original scholarship on Brodie and her biography of Joseph Smith. Reconsidering "No Man Knows My History" is essential reading for any student or scholar with an interest in Mormon history, western Americana, and literary biographical scholarship. " http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0874212146/102-0914020-1156936?v=glance&n=283155

Note that this comes from a book that criticizes her book. Al 01:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You are not quoting Newell G. Bringhurst, you are quoting the "Midwest Book Review". Note that the MBR is somewhat like wikipedia: Just about anyone can write a review for them. And also note that this review is anonymous. So, the reference you quote is not reliable. I quote from WP:V "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. " For a Biography, the appropriate peer review is historians and biographers who are used to checking facts and validating perceptions. Book reviewers are not concerned with such things. They are more interested in the ease of the reading, the joy of the reading, the layout of the book and so on. Book reviewers RELY upon the dust jacket and marketing hype for phrases such as "the definitive". I quote again from WP:RS "Beware false authority. Look out for false claims of authority. Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree. ... The first question to ask yourself is, "What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?" Anyone can post anything on the web." The Midwest Book Review is not a peer review nor a peer reviewed journal and the review you are citing is simply an anonyous opinion of someone no different than a wikipedian. It is, in essence like quoting a personal opinion on a wikipedian's user page and citing that as a source.

As an aside on that, I suppose an "expert" on the subject would be Fawn Brodie herself (or perhaps her unacknowledged co-author). She might say that the book was definitive, but I would hope that this would be rejected as biased. However, I have never heard that she said such a thing and indeed I believe (I would have to look it up) that while she found no good biography previously, she also admitted that her book was not the final word on the matter -- that no biography could be. (More about this idea later)

I would also point out that Newell Bringhurst is NOT critical of Fawn Brodie. He loves her! He even proclaims a sort of "affair" with her, though the two never personally met. He sees both himself and his mother in her. He considered the book "No Man Knows" to be "well written", "compelling", and (relatively) "hard edged". About a decade ago, he produced a number of essays regarding her book. He contributed, as I recall, one essay, which was positive. There was another one that looked at it from a literary perspective an that was positive. But overall this collection of essays tended to give one doubts about the quality of her work. And so, this is the only source that I know of that came from Newell Bringhurst that is somewhat critical of Fawn Brodie and even then it is the words of others, not Newell who are critical.

So again, one problem with 'definitive' is that it is not supported by objective, reliable sources. Sure, the publisher might say a work is definitive. Publishers reviews and movie trailers have a purpose -- they are not objective at all! And yes people may repeat what the reviewers or movie trailers say, but this aping of unobjective and unreliable sources does not add validity. But there is another problem. The notion of "definitive" is simply considered wrong or anathema by most historians because a "definitive history" of any subject is seen by most as impossible and by the rest as nearly impossible. I realize that non-historians might use that term in gushing literary terms, but actual, degreed, peer-reviewed and published historians are almost certainly going to avoid it because it is not a good term. And thus my objection rests on two grounds -- no verifiable, reliable source and bad useage. This continues to be the case despite your so-called cite.

We could accept the opinion of someone who won't even sign a name, or we could do real research and find things like this:

Granted, Vardis Fisher criticized Brodie's handling of some of her sources as Sterling M. McMurrin documents in "A New Climate of Liberation: A Tribute to Fawn McKay Brodie, 1915-1981" published in DIALOGUE: A JOURNAL OF MORMON THOUGHT, Vol. XIV, No. 1 (Spring 1981), page 74. McMurrin records that Dale E. Morgan called the book a "definitive biography," "the finest job of scholarship yet done in Mormon history" (page 74).

McMurrin goes on to say, "Whatever its merits and demerits, the Brodie book was a watershed in the treatment of Mormon history by Mormon historians. I believe that because of NO MAN KNOWS MY HISTORY, Mormon history produced by Mormon scholars has moved toward more openness, objectivity, and honesty" (DIALOGUE, Vol. XIV, No. 1, pages 74-75). (http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/UMI-2.htm)

As you can see, I was quite right to call it the first definitive biography. Do not bother reverting again. Al 23:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for not signing with my IP address. Entirely accidental. Anyway, you may note that I have mentioned previously that there is only ONE reviewer who ever called this a "definitive" biography. That ONE reviewer was Dale Morgan. And incidentally the date of that review was as I recall about 24 Sept 1948. Anyway, the problem with Dale Morgan as a reviewer is that he is the unattributed co-author of the book. His involvement in its writing was substantial and so he is not an unbiased source either. Note that I have said that if either Fawn Brodie OR her unnamed co-author were the source of this comment it would reasonably rejected. And it is. --64.178.145.150 01:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

POV Edits

Here are some edits that need to be revised to meet the POV requirements of Wikipedia:

Adjectives are a problem with NPOV.

It is not clear (and not particularly interesting or relevant) that the "coveted" comment is a quote by a particular person. There is no need to quote them, just say that "Brodie was awarded the Alfred A. Knopf Fellowship". This avoids POV in the article and it avoids having to go into lengthy descriptions of how someone else thought it was coveted.

But the next instance is worse. You say: "Gary Wills's review in the New York Review of Books is as acerbic as it is informative: " That is just POV. You can say "Gary Wills, in the New York Review of Books says: " but you cannot describe it as acerbic (and maybe not informative) without violating NPOV.

As an aside, not POV, but a regretable thing... that quote where she talks about her parents teaching her to go after truth -- it seems to me that is a sort of central theme to her story and it is unfortunate that you are relegating it to a footnote.

I like the style improvements you have made though. --Blue Tie 02:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments about the style improvements. I certainly won't fight over the use of the word "coveted."

The Wills quote was here before I got here, and I don't like it either. To call such quotations "acerbic" weakens them. So do what you please with that book review.

I did put the "truth" quotation back in the text.--John Foxe 02:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I am glad the truth quote is in. It is a nice quote. I edited the Gary Wills quote intro. His quote is a masterpiece of criticism. He must have worked on it a long time! I read it over and over and the words make you stare and laugh at the same time.--Blue Tie 02:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. That's a viciously funny sentence. I've played around with Brodie a little more, wondering if you would complain that "savaged" is POV. It's a verb, if that helps. --John Foxe 18:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Callender was the problem

Richard E. Ellis, The Jeffersonian Crisis: Courts and Politics in the Young Republic (Norton, 1971) calls James Callender "perhaps the most scurrilous newspaperman America has ever known." (78) One reason why so few people--including Malone and Peterson--took the Jefferson-Hemings connection seriously is that Callender was the first to publish the local gossip about Jefferson. Callender may have been right about Jefferson and Hemings, but Callender's vitriolic political partisanship--not to mention his alcoholism and suicide--severely impaired his credibility. --John Foxe 18:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

the sanitization of brodie

how did this article get so sanitized? no mention is made of her subsequent biographies - her claimed "new" original sources not being quoted correctly - not identifying that there were different versions of "factual" representations of meetings with JS reported by her - the lack of respect Brodie had as a historian later in life because of the less controversial scrutiny given her other works which were also found lacking - and on - and on - and on. --Trödel 02:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Brodie's other biographies certainly need more commentary--and will get some in coming weeks as I have the opportunity. But there's no doubt that NMKMH was her best work, written before she became enamored of pyschohistory. Don't take Nibley too seriously. In doing the best he could for the Church, he beats Brodie hands down for distortion and taking things out of context. And his whole attitude, typified by the title of his critique, was flippant. --John Foxe 10:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think flippant is too non-specific a word. His critique was dismissive and disrepectful (unsurprising since she had developed a reputation for personal dishonesty among the LDS and the RLDS) but, relative to other reviews it was probably the least shallow.--Blue Tie 22:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

ok thx --Trödel 17:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI, I've read through some more of this material including more of brodie's book, and while disrespectful and obviously written with disdain, it seems that many of Nibleys substantive criticisms are valid. --Trödel 16:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Good Article

I think that Foxe has done such a good job that this should be reviewed as a "Good" article. --Blue Tie 22:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)