Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Karl G. Maeser/1

Karl G. Maeser

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

This article has multiple orange banners, including paid contributions, promotional content, and sources too closely associated with the topic. Z1720 (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It smacks of boosterism, particularly in the section about the black boards. "He had a dream, or what he called a vision, in which he saw '...great temples of learning,'" and then showing pictures of all three. This is devotional boosterism. Also, we need more critical literature which would address the topics of polygamy and sexual abuse of minors (child brides, etc., the usual Mormon problems). Also, the lede is too extensive and should not have abbreviations in parentheses, that comes later. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The passage you pulled out seems to have been poorly written and deviated from the source. I disagree with the assessment of the lead being too long or improperly written (indeed, it seems to me a fine summary). Regarding the lack of coverage of usual Mormon problems, we should identify sources that discuss them in detail before assessing whether this article fails to adequately cover them (though I suspect it does). ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The re-write certainly helps with those passages. There look to be a few other passages that stray from an encyclopedic tone (e.g. "He was an example of dedication and faithfulness" – I've just changed this to "He has been held up as an example...") but overall it seems pretty well written and referenced.

The banners:

There is a claim that the article has been worked on by paid editors who have inserted promotional wording, which was made a few months ago on this talk page. It is unclear what the evidence for this claim is. However, I don't think this meets the criterion of being a clean-up banner that is 'unquestionably still valid' for WP:GAFAIL.

There was promotional wording, but much of this seems to have been addressed or can be addressed. This claim was made at the same time as the claim that paid editors had been working here.

The claim that there are sources are too closely associated with the subject is another one made at the same time. Citations 3, 4 and 5 are referenced multiple times. 3 and 5 are published by BYU, 4 by Deseret Book Company. All of these are Mormon-owned. However, I am not convinced that this makes them too closely associated with the subject to be considered reliable. It is quite possible that they contain biases, but that does not make them unreliable per WP:PARTISAN. My feeling is that, as far as GAR is concerned, these are not clearly unreliable and so need to be treated as reliable until they are separately discussed and consensus that they are unreliable is reached at RSN.

However, as raised by other editors, there is a danger that reliance on sources that may omit 'problematic' issues means the article fails to cover some major aspects. I think Melchior is right that the article could use more critical literature. But if it is going to be failed on the grounds that it omits major aspects, there has to be actual evidence that these aspects have been omitted. The article does actually mention that he took a second wife, and that he was arrested and fined for it. If he had taken a child bride or there were other credible allegations of abuse, these should obviously be mentioned, but I couldn't find any indication (in a fairly quick search) of either of these.

Overall, once the boosterism problems have been addressed I don't see any reason to remove this from GA. The banners should probably also be removed unless some supporting evidence is given for them. Robminchin (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support retention: Unless someone has access to some of these print sources and finds substantial deviation from them and the article, I see no reason to demote the article at this time. The tags were arguably appropriate due to the involvement of BYU student editors and some laudatory language, but I believe this article presently meets the criteria for Good Article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I read through the article and removed off-topic, POV and too detailed prose. There is some text in the middle of the Career section that is not chronological that I think could be better formatted. I also added a "when" template to the "Legacy" section. Z1720 (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- These removals were excessive. Substantial details—particularly about his second wife and early interactions with Mormonism—contradict some of the concerns raised by another reviewer and detract from the coverage of this subject. I believe that the article is now worse off than when I supported keeping it earlier today. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: Article should avoid becoming a WP:COATRACK for other topics, and should only include notable information. Some of the text was added back in, so below is my explanation of why I removed those passages:

"The baptism occurred at night because the church was banned in Germany at that time." In my opinion this is too much detail: the time of Maeser's baptism has no effect on Maester's biography. The article does not need an example to show that LDS was banned in Germany at the time: the article can instead clearly state that information earlier in the article, or mention it later to explain why the Dresden police forced Maeser to leave Germany.
If Damke is notable, she should have her own article. If she is not notable, Maeser's article should not be used to explain her biography. I did not feel that Damke's age was important to mention in the article. If it is important to mention, the article should explain why.
"This event marked Maeser's acceptance of Mormon practice that wholly contradicted his German identity." This is a pretty extraordinary claim that is hard to prove. Why didn't his baptism, move to America, or becoming president of any missionaries mark this transition? This sentence sounded boisterous and not within WP:WIKIVOICE, and if it did mark this transition this would need to be explained in much more detail with several citations.

I hope this helps explain my reasoning. If there's any other text that was removed where an explanation would be helpful, feel free to ping me. Z1720 (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to each of these:

Why not include an interesting, relevant detail about Maeser experiencing persecution for his religion in a context that he actually experienced that persecution?
This is a tad unusual. If it is important to mention, the article should explain why. The detail I added clearly explains why this is important to mention: it was a major deviation from his native culture. See the GA Joseph Smith for a demonstration that brief details about a polygamous wife are conventional.
This is a pretty extraordinary claim Not really. Re-baptisms weren't unheard of in Germany–Anabaptists once abounded–and I think a few the notion of moving to America marking a transition from German identity would come as a surprise to some of my great-grandparents. We have an RS (one of the relatively few independent of BYU, no less!) that says it, so it ought to be included.

Thank you for your explanations, but these specific removals are addressing a COATRACK issue that does not exist. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: Wikipedia is not a repository of trivia, it is a general encyclopedia. The more random facts that are added to an article, the harder it is for readers to find the more important aspects of Maeser's biography. The article already mentions religious persecution towards Maeser when he and his family is kicked out of Germany, and this fact is important to his biography because it explains why he then travelled to England. That is far more important to highlight than when his baptism took place. Converting to LDS is already a major deviation from his native culture, and further explanations of how he embraced the religion does not demonstrate further deviations. While rebaptisms might have been common at that time (and having a baptism when you are converting to a Christian religion is not uncommon) getting baptised into an illegal LDS religion is not a common part of most people's biographies. The extraordinary claim that his second marriage (and not baptism into the LDS church, causing him to convert to an illegal religion) is what marked his transition away from his culture will need extraordinary proof, not just one citation. Z1720 (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That a person converted to an illegal religion in secrecy and married a woman 23 years younger than his first wife is not trivia or random facts. Indeed, their emphasis in coverage by RSs indicate that they are relevant. Wikipedia follows from secondary sources. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]