Talk:White Horse Prophecy

Issue of terminology

I wanted to congratulate those who have been developing this article over the last few months. This is an interesting subject that definitely has deserved its own article.

However, I have some comments regarding the article's use of terminology. When we refer to "White Horse Prophecy", we could be referring to one of two things: (1) the full May 1843 prophecy, of which we don't have the verbatim text, just a very imperfect and surely inaccurate 60-year-old reminiscence by Edwin Rushton, and (2) the specific idea within the larger prophecy that Mormon elders would swoop in at the last minute and save the constitutional government of the U.S. from being overthrown, which is well-attested. The problem is that the idea of #2 is not unique to the White Horse Prophecy. It surely was a part of it (because we have independent verification by James Burgess), but it was also apparently part of an earlier 1840 prophecy, which probably didn't refer to the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

So my point is that maybe we ought to make it clear whether we are talking #1 or #2 when we refer to the "White Horse Prophecy". It makes a difference, because the LDS Church officially disavows #1, but arguably not #2, because I'm convinced that every conservative Mormon I know still interprets #2 as validating their political views. And in the media, the term White Horse Prophecy usually refers to #2. COGDEN 02:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, I've here there is an additional Prophecy future specifying that a Mormon would become President and be key in achieving this. Weather claim authentic or not I'm floating around the net allot and I feel Wikipedia should address it and whether or not it's real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.236.171 (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Any source for that claim? 92.192.120.74 (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I just read this comment that COgden left in February, and I agree. I think this is still ambiguous in the article, and that fixing it would remedy the problems I pointed out below. -- Adjwilley (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Additions to lead section

I've added some material to the lead section. This is a restatement of points already in the article (not anything new), and my goal is to keep the lead neutral, while at the same time making it a well-rounded summary of the entire article. Constructive comments and tweaks are naturally welcome. Richwales (talk · contribs) 14:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Contents of the prophecy

I added material to the "Origins" section containing my own summary of the contents of the White Horse Prophecy, based on the George Cobabe paper at the FAIR web site. It would arguably be better to find a secondary source which discusses the White Horse Prophecy, if a suitable source with sufficient detail can be found. I'm pointing this out here on the article's talk page to alert other people to the situation and to invite anyone who wants to improve on the material to do so. I do believe it's important for the article to actually report, somewhere, just what the White Horse Propecy says (and not just the excessively sketchy description in the opening paragraph). Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ItsZippy (talk · contribs · count) 18:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article is written well - the article is clear and concise.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section does quite fulfil WP:LEAD; each part of the article needs to be mentioned in the lead - there is nothing about the theological basis in the lead.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Sources are cited well and have enough information and all quotations are cited.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The problem is the reliability of some of the sources. More reliable sources than LDS Newsroom or ULM, for example, can probably be found.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not a problem.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Mostly broad in coverage. It's nice to see interpretations, though I think it could do with interpretations or responses from people outside of the Mormon Church (perhaps American politicians or senior religious figure from other denominations), if such interpretations exist.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Not a problem.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No problems with bias. It seems to cover all of the facts and interpretations without inserting POV.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Not a problem.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No problems with copyright.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are used to good effect and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Really good article, I think it's very close to GA status. The lead needs some expansions to comply with WP:LEAD. The sources could do with some improvement - perhaps find some reliable sources to replace the less reliable ones used - and, if possible, there could be a little expansion in terms of its coverage. I would suggest you address these issues, then renominate. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: I did more work on the article (see here), and per the original reviewer's recommendation, I will be renominating shortly. Richwales (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

False dichotomy

My impression is that the third paragraph of the Lead presents a false dichotomy about the White Horse Prophesy. It currently reads:

US senator Orrin Hatch and conservative commentator Glenn Beck, both Mormons, have stated that they believe the Constitution is "hanging by a thread". US presidential candidate Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has said he considers the White Horse Prophecy to be a matter of "speculation and discussion by [LDS] church members" and "not official [LDS] church doctrine".

A reader could come away from that paragraph thinking that Beck and Hatch believe in the prophesy while Romney doesn't. The false dichotomy is that the prophesy is either true or false, whereas the position of the LDS Church seems to be that the prophesy as a whole is false, but the bit about the Constitution hanging is valid. In other words, Beck, Hatch, and Romney could be on the same page, but they're being pitted against each other with the term "on the other hand."

Another recommendation would be to replace "However, the theology behind the prophecy" in the 2nd paragraph of the Lead with "However, parts of the prophecy" or "However, some aspects of the prophecy." "The theology behind" is kind of a slippery term, and I would avoid using it unless you can explain precisely what said theology is. -- Adjwilley (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made some changes to the lead section, as well as to the "Theological basis" section (which I've renamed "United States Constitution"). Your thoughts now? — Richwales (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That's closer, thank you. I am going to try a couple of edits here... feel free to revert or modify. -- Adjwilley (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've made some WP:Bold edits that correct the problem in my mind. Let me know what you think. -- Adjwilley (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:White Horse Prophecy/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 20:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC) I'll pose a full review shortly but it looks favourable. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Did some spot-checks, all clean.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Yes in the most part; the external link in ref #31 is broken and should be fixed or another source found. (It would be nice to have 2 sources for the claim. I don't imagine this is too difficult.) Done.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:EdwinRushton.jpg has invalid licencing. Because copyright is life+70, it is easily conceivable the photographer lived to 1941 if Mr Rushton is older than he looks. I'm not sure we need to know what he looks like, anyway. Remove, I suggest, or investigate (possibly both in that order and restore if a specific author and/or sufficiently accurate date can be found). Removed as suggested.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All fine.
	7. Overall assessment.

Almost there! One or two fairly small things - on hold for 7 days. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I can see you've attended to these things, so I'm passing the article. Consider reviewing a nomination against the criteria - GAN runs a constant backlog. Nice one! Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Edwin Rushton photo

I've restored the Edwin Rushton photo to the article. A lengthy discussion at Commons several weeks ago regarding the licensing status of this photo concluded that it was most likely in the public domain — in the words of one commentator, "I would say that it is very, very likely that this image is PD-US, but we can't be entirely sure." Given that Commons has accepted the photo after a significant discussion, I believe it's acceptable to include it here without compromising this article's GA status. — Richwales 04:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ezra Taft Benson quote added

In a 1986 Brigham Young University speech the Prophet Ezra Taft Benson stated: "I have faith that the Constitution will be saved as prophesied by Joseph Smith. But it will not be saved in Washington. It will be saved by the citizens of this nation who love and cherish freedom. It will be saved by enlightened members of this Church – men and women who will subscribe to and abide by the principles of the Constitution."<ref>Ezra Taft Benson, [http://www.latterdayconservative.com/ezra-taft-benson/the-constitution-a-heavenly-banner/ The Constitution: A Heavenly Banner], ''Latter Day Conservative'', (16 September 1986).</ref>

173.79.49.64 (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this should be OK. However, we are required to write Wikipedia articles from a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV). To that end, I changed "the Prophet" to "LDS president" in your new material. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on White Horse Prophecy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110824102649/http://www.aolnews.com/2010/10/05/is-glenn-beck-attempting-to-fulfill-the-mormon-white-horse-prop/ to http://www.aolnews.com/2010/10/05/is-glenn-beck-attempting-to-fulfill-the-mormon-white-horse-prop/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706165607/http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/1885/ to http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/1885/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Church name spelling.

When I belonged to the Church, the spelling was: "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", not "...Latter Day Saints". Has it officially been changed? Writers, you should look into this. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The current capitalization and hyphenation style of the name The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was not adopted until some time after the death of Joseph Smith. Historical references to the church organized by Joseph Smith, during his lifetime, should generally use the form "Latter Day Saints". See the MOS:LDS page in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)