Talk:Criminal charges against Joseph Smith

Epachamo says "Nobody, and I mean NOBODY is disputing these numbers, from the most apologetic mormon to the most anti-mormon out their, is disagreeing with the numbers". And yet -- RSes report an arrest warrant for banking fraud, and Gottagitgud is actively disputing that. See my point? In any case, you need to build consensus for these changes on talk. Feoffer (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

May I please see a specific number in the disputed "Summary of Joseph Smith's known involvement in the legal system" infobox, what each side thinks the number should be, and the sources supporting that number? No need to go trough them all. Just pick one and then we will see which way to go from there, Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I'm not sure exactly which one Feoffer disagrees with, but lets go down the table. The first one. Civil litigation - plaintiff - 20. Source: Grua, David W.; Howcroft, Sharalyn D.; Mahas, Jeffrey D.; Kuehn, Elizabeth A.; Fougler, Chad O.. The Joseph Smith Papers, Legal Records: Case Introductions (p. 834). I'm citing the hardcopy of the book, which is in part duplicated on the website linked to. Its a pretty easy to verify. All 20 cases are listed, and it says that Smith "brought twenty of the cases as the plaintiff". Epachamo (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

So, the objection is to the entire "infobox", not just one specific number in it. Why are we telling readers about how many lawsuits Joseph Smith filed in an article about his encounters with criminal courts? Why are we enumerating and tabulating every encounter he had with civil courts or precisely how many times cases he heard as justice of the peace and mayor, broken down by petition type!? The text has the effect of "flooding the zone" -- adding off-topic tabulations that don't serve to help the reader understand the topic.

In addition to the problem of off-topic statistics, there is one "on topic" statistic that is disputed by RSes -- times Smith was a criminal defendant. Some sources say Smith was arrested at least 42 times, while the LDS-affiliated "Joseph Smith Papers Project" only lists 21 instances.

The current specific issue is a 1838 arrest warrant for Banking Fraud. Reliable source Fawn Brodie reports such a warrant existed, yet Epachamo and Gottagitgud argue it should not be included as it was not listed in the "Joseph Smith Papers Project", which they regard as an exhaustive RS rather than a LDS SPS . Feoffer (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree with removing every reference to any civil lawsuit in an article with the title "...and the criminal justice system"? If not we can put that one to bed, and if the box is restored, trim it to criminal cases only.

Now for the other issue. Looking at the history of page I see this

Banking fraud, 1838 After a warrant was issued for Smith's arrest on a charge of banking fraud, Smith and Rigdon fled Kirtland for Missouri on the night of January 12, 1838.^[1][2]

References

I would like to hear any argument from the other side that those two sources are not reliable. In the case of the blogspot ref, I would also like to see an argument that this meets the subject-matter-expert exception to WP:SPS.

I am going to hold off on looking at the Joseph Smith Papers Project until I am sure that I have a good understanding about the above two sources and what they claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Guy. Thank you for stepping in. I am the user that contested the reliability of these sources. Let me walk you through them:

Hill 1977: Mentions a warrant (prompted by Grandison Newell). Cites History of the Church III, Chapter 1, which makes no mention of the warrant or Newell. My verdict: Unreliable. Likely relying solely on Brodie for this specific detail.

Bushman 2005: Mentions the civil Rounds qui tam v. Joseph Smith lawsuit (civil, despite being covered in the article) and general "piling up" of lawsuits before Smith fled. No mention of a warrant. My verdict: Does not support the claim

Brodie 1971: Explicitly states Smith fled due to a criminal arrest warrant for "banking fraud" secured by Newell in January 1838. Brodie is a dated source and has notorious problems with factuality (see WP:LDS/RS). Critically, no primary source document (warrant, docket) dated January 1838, or any date, has been found by subsequent scholars. A different warrant exists in March 1838 with Newell as compliant, but not for banking fraud. Final verdict: Brodie is the origin and the only functional support for the claim. It is against Wikipedia's standards (WP:RS) to rely on a single, factually challenged claim from a dated biographer when mountains of modern scholarship on Smith do not support it. Gottagitgud (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Blogspot was just a vestigial convenience link for people who couldn't access Brodie and others. I chopped it. The Joseph Smith Papers Project is a very good faith effort, a historians goldmine, it's not some POV whitewash! But neither is it exhaustive in the way Epachamo and Gottagitgud imagine. A warrant not being listed in JSPP doesn't supersede it having been listed in RSes. Feoffer (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure when you started conflating me with Gottagitgud, but the bank fraud case is included in my count. You can read about it here in the JSP, see biased but thorough here, and on page 201 of this book on Joseph Smith (a much better, more independent, and newer source than Brodie or Bushman) states on page 201: "Joseph was back in Kirtland by December 10. His legal and financial standing had grown more precarious in his absence. Joseph and Sidney Rigdon had been tried in absentia by a Geauga County court, charged with violating Ohio’s 1816 law against unchartered banking." No mention of a warrant. Bushman states: "A local mill owner, Grandison Newell, a longtime enemy of the Mormons, entered a suit against Joseph for issuing bills of credit illegally." No mention of a warrant (also on page 330, not 339-340). Here is Brodie: "Shortly after, when word came that Grandison Newell had secured a warrant for his arrest on a charge of banking fraud, Joseph knew that this was the finish and fled in the night with Rigdon, his horse turned toward Zion." This cannot possibly be correct, because Joseph Smith fled "in the night" in January 1838, months after Newell signed onto charges for illegal banking (see Rounds qui tam vs Joseph Smith). Brodie appears to be conflating a case where Newell indeed had a warrant for his arrest in April 1837 (also in my count). See WP:LDS/RS, the Brodie source needs to be handled with care, she wrote her book in the 1940s (updated in 1971), but scholarship has gone far beyond what she did. This is me just guessing, but there is a 1902 recollection of J. H. Morley that Grandison attempted to get a warrant of Safety Society members in November, and probably where Brodie got her information. There is no record whatsoever of this warrant in November, and doesn't really make a ton of sense given he already had a case going. Brodie was the BEST resource for a number of years, but there are so many newer sources, it should rarely be used anymore. The table of interaction with the justice system is absolutely is notable, and should be included somewhere on a Joseph Smith page. If not here, then where? Epachamo (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure when you started conflating me with Gottagitgud, but the bank fraud case is included in my count. That's a great very long paragraph weighing the possible RSes -- Brodie vs Bushman. Thank you for demonstrating my point: the precise number of times Smith was arrested is highly disputed.

The claim that Joseph Smith fled the state just to avoid yet another civil suit is what we call a Fringe theory. We know Smith ran an illegal bank, which went bust, was accused of banking fraud, and fled the state as fugitive. A RS reports a warrant for banking fraud -- we can't just pretend otherwise, we have to report that to readers.

The table of interaction with the justice system is absolutely is notable, and should be included somewhere

It's OR/synth. There's no table in the cited source, you created the table yourself by counting. I appreciate the bold effort, but regrettably the table is not an improvement for the reasons explained. You've been here since 2005, you know better than to re-insert a BOLD addition over explicit objections without building consensus first. Feoffer (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

No, its not disputed today. Brodie was wrong, and no modern historian agrees with her, which is why I included MODERN sources. Brodie is a very weak source, see WP:LDS/RS. Its not Brodie vs Bushman, its Brodie vs EVERYONE. I can add more MODERN sources if you like. Brodie's work is very old, and should be used with care. I have no doubt she would have revised her work if she were alive today, as she did with a number of other factual inconsistencies with her second 1971 reprinting of the 1945 volume.

"The claim that Joseph Smith fled the state just to avoid yet another civil suit ..." Who is making that claim? I'm certainly not. We KNOW that Smith ran an illegal bank. We KNOW that he was sued by Rounds and Grandison and went to trial for it in October 1837. We KNOW that a jury decided in favor of the plaintiffs. Suing someone is a civil case. This is not controversial. You are saying there was another different fraud case somewhere? Please explain.

My listing of sources was not not OR/SYNTH. Each number is explicitly stated in the source. Making it a table is not OR/SYNTH. This is an absurd accusation, and starting to get personal. Epachamo (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

starting to get personal well, I should instantly apologize for generating that perception, it was certainly not my intent.

You are saying there was another different fraud case somewhere

I have no idea, but Brodie reports that, Bushman omits it, and Turner omits it -- neither actively dispute it as far as I can tell. Thus, even the precise number of arrests cannot be listed uncritically in tabular form. Your table went with 21, Encyclopedia of Mormonism say it's in the 30s, and others say at least 40! The article has never tried to "sum" the rows and create a tally, because it would imply precision that doesn't exist.

Making it a table is not OR/SYNTH

No, it's the choice of rows in the table. There are 17 rows, 16 of which are off topic and discussed nowhere in the article. And even setting aside that, why in the world are civil cases and mayoral actions being summed alongside accused crimes?? That sum is not a statistic -- it has no meaning. It would be like saying OJ Simpson had 11,236 rushing yards and spent 20 years in jail for a grand total of 11,256. Feoffer (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Hold on a second. Is Epachamo actually saying that we should include references to civil lawsuit in an article titled "Joseph Smith and the criminal justice system"? Or is that just assumed from the fact that Epachamo says he likes the table and doesn't agree with me (temporarily) removing it while we discuss it? Because if anyone here actually thinks that we should include things that do not involve the criminal justice system (civil cases vs. criminal cases), we need to have a talk about Wikipedia's policies. But if it's just an assumption that isn't true we should stop talking about an issue we have already settled. Well Epachamo, which is it? (other editors, please don't answer for them). --Guy Macon (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Lets untangle this. There are five separate questions being brought up by Feoffer that need answers. Feoffer, if I'm missing any, or misrepresenting, please chime in. I'm trying to steel man your questions:

1. Should a table of interactions with just the the criminal justice system be included? My answer: Yes. Despite Feoffer saying this would be just one row in the table, this is not accurate. Remove the civil cases and there are still rows showing his criminal cases as a Complainant, Defendant, Witness, and Interested third party. Then there are his interactions with the criminal justice system as a Judge, removing civil interactions and including the following rows: Justice of the peace, Mayor’s court judge (ordinance prosecutions), Chief justice (habeas corpus proceedings), Chief justice (appeals heard). This is a table with 8 rows. Despite the assertion that the "totals" for each "category" was created by me, that is NOT accurate. If you go to the sources cited, you will see that I didn't make up either.

2. Should the table also include civil cases? My answer: Yes, with a caveat (see next question)

3. Should the article be renamed to "Joseph Smith and the justice system" If this answer turns out to be "no", then my answer to question #2 would be no. If you look at the preceding section on this talk page, I'm advocating for the re-naming of this article to "Joseph Smith and the justice system." His civil cases are notable. If not here in this article, then where? I'm actually surprised there is any pushback to this at all. Feoffer, maybe a compromise is that we create a new page called "Joseph Smith and the justice system" and then this subpage, and other subpages of his interactions as a judge and civil suits? This seems like too many articles, but maybe I'm wrong and there is that much information.

4. Was a warrant for criminal fraud issued at the behest of Grandison Newell in January 1838? My answer: The Brodie source is clearly wrong. Brodie has been a topic of discussion ad nauseum on just about every article on Wikipedia, and on the main Joseph Smith page it is agreed it is a weak source, and that anytime she is sourced, it is included with a modern source. Every modern historian in the last 30 years does not include it, and certainly since the JSP began making these records public around 2000. Despite Feoffer's assertion that modern authors somehow inexplicably omit this event, Mark Staker in his book DOES discuss it in his footnote 83 on page 508, and dismisses the timeline that Brodie puts forth.

5. Does the existence of an arrest warrant invalidate the numbers on the table? My answer: No. We can re-name the table to be "Known criminal cases" or something to that effect. Even if there were a warrant issued for his arrest, it would not show up on this table, since it was not known to reach the level of being a "case" (i.e., claimant vs. Joseph Smith). Epachamo (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

create a new page called "Joseph Smith and the justice system" I don't think we should ever "mix" the civil, criminal, and administrative. They're three completely different beasts. When I'm being sentenced for a crime, it doesn't matter how many times I got sued, how many complaints I've filed, or how many parking tickets I wrote. All of those fields are wildly off topic.

If not here in this article, then where? I Just make Joseph Smith and the civil justice system -- it's been on my todo list for years! If nobody beats me to it, I'll make it myself one of these days.

Mark Staker in his book dismisses the timeline that Brodie puts forth. Alright! That sounds really good. Can you add it here on talk? Feoffer (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, these articles and sections of articles ALL mix criminal and civil in the same article: Legal_issues_of_Chris_Brown, Bill_Cosby#Legal_issues, R._Kelly#Legal_issues, Personal_and_business_legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump, Legal affairs of the first Trump presidency, Legal_affairs_of_the_second_Trump_presidency, O._J._Simpson#Legal_history, Larry Klayman, etc. etc. Splitting them into different articles is just not a thing on Wikipedia. Even in this article, we have a section "Illegal banking, February 1837" (which should be deleted, as it is a civil case unless we expand the scope). I'd rather just expand the scope. Before we make a new article, why don't we give people time to chime in on the direction of this article, the proposal to rename it and expand the scope. Would you also be in favor of an article "Joseph Smith as a judge in the justice system"? Epachamo (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Would you also be in favor of an article "Joseph Smith as a judge in the justice system" Of course! I would _love_ to read a good article on what he was like as a judge. Who wouldn't?!

we have a section "Illegal banking, February 1837" (which should be deleted, as it is a civil case unless we expand the scope)

So bring a RS arguing/explaining it was a civil suit. Staker's footnote may well resolve the Bank Fraud issues. I have no dog in this fight, what do I know or care about 1830s banking jurisprudence! I've commented out the Rounds material per your concerns, but Brodie still indicates multiple arrests in this period?

mix criminal and civil in the same article I'm not successfully communicating the full extent of the objection. Why would we ever need to be ADDING _any_ number to the times he was a Defendant? Number of Felonies plus Number of people sued is NOT a statistic with comprehensible meaning that readers can learn from -- it's just throwing numbers at them for no purpose I can understand. Are we trying to set up some sort of "percentage calculation" comparing apple sales, orange sales, and felony convictions? Feoffer (talk) 08:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I am agnostic on whether the scope of this article should be changed to include civil cases and the page renamed as appropriate. If that's the consensus, I would insist that the two not be combined in any way, including any sort of grand "apples plus aardvarks" total. Different sections would be fine.

Did Smith ever end up in the same situation we have nowadays with Cosby, Weinstein, etc, where single crime leads to a criminal conviction and a civil case as the victims seek financial compensation? If so, I would have to rethink my opinion on separate sections.

So it looks like we all agree that, unless some time in the future there is a consensus to change the article scope and title, that we simply don't include any civil cases. Unless someone tells me that I am wrong we can put this subtopic to bed and move on. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

- To be clear, everyone is ok if we include the table but without the civil suits? I still want the civil suits, but at least we are ok with just the criminal?

- Fruit sales = apple sales + orange sales is a useful statistic in certain contexts. Reliable sources of Joseph Smith sum up all the cases. According to RSs, total legal cases is apparently a notable statistic, as are all the subtotals. Even the Donald Trump article has an approximate total cases in it.

- Are the criminal and civil cases connected? In many cases YES. This is particularly true when Joseph Smith acted as a Judge in Nauvoo, trying at times to squash extraditions etc. with regards to his criminal/civil suits relating to Missouri legal problems. It's hard to discuss the criminal cases Grandison Newell brought against Smith without the broader Kirtland Safety Society civil suit Newell brought against Smith (through his proxy Round).

- I DON'T want the Round lawsuit commented out. I WANT it in this article. I am arguing for an expanded scope. I was attempting to demonstrate by argument ad absurdum how it would hurt this article to remove civil suits from it.

- I've already cited numerous sources that clearly discuss the Round lawsuit was a civil suit. Here are the original court documents if you are still not convinced. What was Brodie thinking? I don't know, but here is another plausible theory. Check out this article, which shows that in January 1838 "the sheriff in January 1838 levied on and sold personal property of Sidney Rigdon amounting to $604.50, and some other personal property whose ownership (Sidney’s or Joseph’s) " at the behest of Grandison Newell. This was as part of the Round civil suit result though. Regardless, without attributing to Brodie, we shouldn't be flatly stating in wiki-voice that Joseph had a warrant for fraud. And regardless, it would not impact the numbers in the chart one way or the other. The Staker timeline is discussed in his footnote 83 on page 508. "83. J. H. Morley, Statement, November 7, 1902, noted that Newell went to Columbus to get a warrant for the arrest of Kirtland Safety Society officials on the grounds of operating without a charter. Court records indicate that Samuel D. Rounds entered a suit in Chardon on February 9 (he may have learned in Columbus that Kirtland’s proposed charter would come up for a vote on February 10) and a second suit on February 10 suing Qui Tam, on behalf of another, against the six directors of the Safety Society. Gordon A. Madsen, “The Impact of Litigation against Joseph Smith and Others on the Kirtland Economy.” This sequence suggests that either Newell failed to get his warrants in Columbus, typically issued on the county level, or that he had gone there for another reason, unknown to Morley, who was simply speculating about Newell’s behavior.'" Again, this is my speculation that this was what Brodie might have been conflating it with. I do not think it strong enough statement to put in. Epachamo (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I also want to add WP:LDS/RS specifically says about Brodie, "Editors should defer to more recent sources." We should follow that guideline here. Epachamo (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, everyone is ok if we include the table but without the civil suits? Nope -- let's try again: Every field other than Times as Defendant is off topic, and that field is dispusted in RSes. The table doesn't really fit with Wikipedia, it has the effect of implying that Smith's extremely serious crimes are balanced by trivial interactions with legal systems. I didn't understand the summations before of the table before, but I now understand it as a rather blatant and egregious violation of NPOV, V, and SYTH.

Starkey should absolutely get the last word. Feoffer (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

If I were pushing a Mormon POV, there is no way I would advocate including civil suits. This is absurd. What is a Starkey? @Guy Macon, are you an administrator? How should I handle these repeated personal accusations? Epachamo (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying you are acting in bad faith, I'm saying the content you proposed has the effect of WP:FALSEBALANCE. And I'm not accusing your sources of acting in bad faith -- they don't have to follow rules like NPOV. Feoffer (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, the content I proposed reflects reliable highest quality sources. If we are not trying to do that then we genuinely are creating a false balance. The sources you have been referencing, devotionals at BYU, encyclopedia of Mormonism, and books from 1971 are all old, and low quality. You should really check out the new John Turner biography. It is the most independent up-to-date biography out there. Epachamo (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and if I was I would not be allowed to do anything that involves admin rights because of WP:INVOLVED.

I am someone who some people come to for advice. It's actually how I have made my living for years.There are a handful of CEOs who hire me as a consultant to solve a specific problem: "my engineers/programmers are in the middle of a huge fight, and I don't even know what half of the words they are using mean." Also, I am a high functioning autistic and sometimes am able to see things that others miss. And miss things that others see -- it works both ways.

The best thing everyone involved in this page could do is to cut your word count by at least 95%. If the last 10,000 words didn't convince the other editor, and their last 10,000 words didn't convince you, it is insane to think that if only you post more words you will prevail. My next advice would be to pick one dispute and stop talking about other disputes until the one dispute is resolved. Right now, just trying to follow the arguments is like drinking out of a firehose, and I am thinking of withdrawing because my efforts are not helping. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I think your involvement has been incredibly helpful, Guy. The "core" disagreement is really just the proposed table (and course, moving the article to include the table). Feoffer (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Nope. You misrepresent my motives. This is not assuming good faith. Epachamo (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I added a cleanup tag for this article. The sourcing could really be improved. We cannot use BYU devotionals, or Encyclopedia of Mormonism, LDS Church website, or primary source documents. Epachamo (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, we can use them -- readers want to be able to click through and inspect the sources for themselves; But we definitely need to add cites to the most influential and the highest quality sources (Brodie; Bushman & Vogel). Feoffer (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

If this is ever going to be a good article, we cannot use them. We absolutely cannot use a BYU devotional from the 1970s, they are not scholarly, independent, or recent. They are about the worst source you can use. In this particular area, anything before 2000 is not high quality and should be replaced. Before around that time, access to many legal documents was restricted. Brodie and others relied on what they had and were the best at the time. Besides, anything that Brodie claimed (that was accurate) can be found in a more recent book, so why use her at all? It just taints the article. The best work out there right now in my humble opinion is "Joseph Smith: The Rise and Fall of an American Prophet" by John Turner. It is the only major biography that isn't written by a Mormon/Former Mormon, he is a historian of the time period out of George Mason University. Epachamo (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

anything that Brodie claimed (that was accurate) can be found in a more recent book, so why use her at all In the abstract, providing supplemental sourcing to highly-influential works makes it easier for readers verify. Feoffer (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree we should avoid primary sources whenever possible. While on Wikipedia primary sources CAN be used, it's only VERY carefully, as "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources" (see WP:PRIMARY) and secondary are ALWAYS preferred and better especially academic, reputable, independent sources to ensure verifiability, no potential conflict of interest, and notability. "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. 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." Pastelitodepapa (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Gottagitgud, replying here to avoid clutter above.

If we refuse to expand the [article's scope] simply because we want the word 'criminal' in big letters next to Joseph Smith, we risk prioritizing a single, potentially misleading focus over accuracy and scope, which is the whole point of an encyclopedia.

I promise you, nobody here at Wikipedia is trying to make Joseph seem like a criminal just because we have an article documenting his many arrests. Smith and Jesus both died wrongful deaths after arrests for crimes against the state -- readers want to know about that part of their lives. We may not be succeeding, but we're trying our best to follow NPOV.

making the article more comprehensive would also provide a balanced view of his interactions with the law, not just his time as a defendant in criminal cases.

I understand your point of view, but you might understand ours better by reading WP:FALSEBALANCE. Feoffer (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand your position. I see our points of friction as:

• You want this article to be criminal-only.
• You want the Kirtland Safety Society (KSS) failure covered. (I do too, in fact.)

Here is the central problem: We cannot satisfy both of those points under a "criminal only" title.

The civil side is massive and verifiable.

The criminal side is incredibly, incredibly weak.

If your entire argument for the existence of a criminal warrant rests on a single, super dated Brodie (1945) source—an alleged warrant which has become virtually untraceable in the following 80 years, and that has effectively evaporated from modern databases and all recent scholarship—that is simply not going to fly, my guy. It would be a fragrant violation of WP:V Gottagitgud (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

This discussion is about moving the article to a new title so the the proposed table is no longer off-topic. Feoffer (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Per your concerns about Brodie, Vogel (2023) has been added as a source for the events of Jan 1838. Feoffer (talk) 13:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Please STOP editing until we come to an agreement on how to handle this.

• You are using the Bushman quote as evidence for a criminal charge. Bushman makes no such claim. This is what SYNTH truly looks like.
• You are citing a quote by Edward Allebest from where? There is no citation.
• You have the quote by Smith from Hill?: "(noting that Smith characterized the warrant as "mob violence ... under the color of legal process". He wasn't referencing this particular warrant! He was talking about others. This truly is SYNTH. The Donna Hill book is from 1977!!! The scholarship has improved and is so abundant that truly nothing before 2000 should even be used in this article.
• Luke Johnson's recollection was 20 years later. Even Vogel calls Luke Johnsons story a "claimed later" when introducing it. Vogel is extremely careful in his source analysis. We can't assert anything stronger than that.
• Luke Johnson himself never claimed he was being arrested for a criminal charge. The earlier illegal banking suit was a civil suit, as were ALL the other numerous Kirtland Safety Society suits. Why not this one?
• What did Luke Johnson recollect? This is my own OR so please don't add it to Wikipedia. On January 1st 1838, Luke Johnson arrested Joseph Smith on a civil claim (see Bump v. JS). On January 2nd, another different civil suit (Bump v. S. Smith and JS), with Luke Johnson assigned as the arresting officer. On January 8th there was a summons for a civil suit brought against Smith (M. Allen v. JS et al.) where Joseph failed to show up. Joseph Smith never showed up, and who was the arresting officer that went to go find him? Luke Johnson. On January 24th after Smith and Rigdon had fled, Luke Johnson reported to a judge. My guess is that Johnson conflated one of these suits.
• Brodie's claim is that it was Grandison Newell that initiated the warrant. This is highly unlikely, and not the mainstream view put out by anybody that I've been able to find.

ALL of these suits were civil suits though. We cannot talk about the banking crisis lawsuits without expanding the scope. Period. We can't use flimsy or old references to support it. To be clear, I WANT to talk about it on Wikipedia. But we can't do that on this page if we limit the scope to just criminal actions. Certainly not in wiki-voice. But again, please STOP editing until we can come to an agreement on this.

Epachamo (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

please STOP editing We don't "lock" pages during move discussions. You personally requested the cleanup, which was long overdue. I've tagged the two banking-related sections as disputed while we polish. Would it be in improvement to directly attribute the entire section to Brodie and Vogel so none of it is in wikivoice? Feoffer (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

The sections don't need polish; they are fundamentally unverified and will be removed if the scope doesn't expand.

Please understand that if the scope doesn't expand, these two sections are out.

None of the reliable sources you cite (Vogel and Bushman) actually support the claims being made. Brodie is unreliable, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly (per WP:LDS/RS). Now you're scraping the absolute bottom of the barrel with self-published books to support your position, while actual scholars scream at you your position is untenable.

Why you are still clinging to this factually bankrupt position at this point is beyond me. Gottagitgud (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I have no "position" per se, I'm trying to understand what RSes say about Smith fleeing Ohio in the middle of the night. Feoffer (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

If you were genuinely just trying to understand what Reliable Sources say, you would not be sourcing to a book published by a low-tier publisher like "Covenant Books," with no independent oversight whatsoever, instead of deferring to scholarly sources that actually discuss the legal facts. Gottagitgud (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Remember that Guy and I aren't subject matter experts on this topic. You may have had years to evaluate this information, but for Guy and I and other editors, it was only a few days ago we first heard you argue the banking charges were purely civil. Nobody wants to make a civil charge look like a criminal one -- If RS say Brodie is wrong, let's happily correct her! Feoffer (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I would add that, although I am willing to dip into the subject of LDS history, my main focus is on science and pseudoscience such as found in Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

A couple notes:

1. "Criminal charges were never brought against any of the directors of the Kirtland Safety Society." from footnote 119 of the following: . They argue that any suit would have been civil in nature. This is a BYU study so not quite independent, but this particular study is generally respected, and a frequently cited article, used by Turner, Vogel and others.

2. Brodie herself implies, but never explicitly says whether it was a "criminal" or "civil" charge. Here is what she states: In January 1838, "when word came that Grandison Newell had secured a warrant for his arrest on a charge of banking fraud...". Only the government can bring criminal charges. Grandison Newell was a private citizen. At least 2 warrants for the arrest of Smith were issued in January 1838 on civil suits, maybe she was confusing them?

3. The word 'charge' generally applies to criminal suits, however it at times was used loosely, particularly with a 'qui tam' lawsuit where the state receives a portion of the penalty. Grandison Newell brought a civil 'qui tam' lawsuit against Joseph Smith.

4. Brodie was the best most reliable there was from 1945 till probably around 2000. She shouldn't be used now because WP:AGE MATTERS. Epachamo (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. A qui tam action was a hybrid that carried a statutory penalty and same coercive effect as a criminal conviction without the classification of a crime. There's plenty of interesting things like this that could be discussed if we just expanded the scope of the article. Gottagitgud (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Unless there were any actual criminal charges about the 1837 bank failure, (not civil suits with a bounty), readers on this article don't need to know about it. In the modern US, it is very rare undergo arrest in a civil case, but it's sounding like maybe things were different in the 1830s Ohio and all the bank arrests really were civil? I was more focused on 1838, but figuring out 1837 is next. Feoffer (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, a lot of the warrants for arrest were for Joseph Smith failing to show to a trial, or failure to pay judgements in a civil case. In the modern US, think about the most recent 2008 "banking crisis". The number of civil suits dwarfed criminal ones. How many bank directors had criminal charges? This article is a good read, and I'd wager that the same applied in during the Panic of 1837. Epachamo (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The table of events just says "guilty" as opposed to another entry that adds "fined $1000". Could someone please add the result of that guilty verdict to the table? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Done.

Note that the exact amount of the fine isn't found in the documents because Illinois law granted Justices of the Peace jurisdiction over misdemeanors, so there is not much documentation beyond the original complaint.

The JSP does note that a JoP was permitted to fine $3-100 for assault and battery. Gottagitgud (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Explicit thanks to all involved. Feoffer (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I just applied a template that adjusts for inflation, but I wasn't sure what to do with "$3-100." I also held of on "his followers managed heroically to raise the $38,428 required for bail." That would be equivalent to $1,100,322 in 2024. Was that the actual bail in 1837 or does the source already correct for inflation? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Brodie is an unreliable source (see WP:LDS/RS) and should be removed anyway. I'd argue that the entire section needs to be removed based on a failure of WP:RS and WP:V. No reliable source whatsoever poses that these suits were criminal. Gottagitgud (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Brodie is an unreliable source (see WP:LDS/RS) Please don't say things that aren't so. WP:LDS/RS doesn't say unreliable. Feoffer (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Reliability depends on context. In this specific context she is so. Gottagitgud (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, it's a moot question now. We have an explicit source explaining the source of the confusion. Brodie says "word came that Grandison Newell had secured a warrant for his arrest on a charge of banking fraud", but Newell was lying. Feoffer (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

This source claims the $1000 was equal to $500,000 in "today's money". Feoffer (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#No Man Knows My History

Could I ask the editors disputing this here to wait at least a day to see what the RSN regulars have to say before weighing in?

There is a lot of expertise about Wikipedia sourcing there and we might learn a few things. Let's see what they think before we try to influence them. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

the dispute on the page appears to be about Brodie saying something and all other sources either referring to Brodie or being silent.

Vogel (2023) also makes mention of the January 1838 arrest warrant that caused the midnight departure: "Former apostle Luke Johnson later claimed that he, as one of Kirtland’s sheriffs, prevented Sheriff Abel Kimball from arresting Smith by arresting the prophet himself: 'I learned that Sheriff Kimball was about to arrest Joseph Smith, on a charge of illegal banking, and knowing that it would cost him an expensive lawsuit and perhaps end in imprisonment, I [...] arrested him on an execution for his person in the absence of Property to pay a judgement of 50$, [...] which prevented Kimball from arresting him." Feoffer (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Solved - I think we can put this one to bed. Source:

Without citing a source, J. H. Kennedy, Early Days of Mormonism:Palmyra, Kirtland, and Nauvoo, 168, wrote: "There came to his ears [Joseph Smith] one day that Grandison Newell, his old enemy, was on his way to Chardon for a warrant for Rigdon and himself [Smith] on a charge of fraud in connection with the late bank.... The rumor had no foundation in fact, although there were many who desired such arrests made. Newell used to relate the story with great gusto, and tell at length how he ran the Mormons out of the country." Possibly drawing on Kennedy, in an undocumented statement, Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 207, states: "Grandison Newell had secured a warrant for his arrest on a charge of banking fraud, Joseph knew that this was the finish and fled in the night with Rigdon"

The Kennedy quote would seem to connect all the dots. The 1838 "arrest warrant" never existed, and should in fact be removed from the table. Feoffer (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

The Kennedy book is a non-scholarly work published in the late 1800s. We can't in wiki-voice state "Rumors that Smith had been charged with Banking Fraud turned out be false". The historian that quotes this source does NOT make this claim, ONLY that it might have been the source of Brodie's claim. There truly might have been a criminal charge for illegal banking, but we do not have any documentation of it anymore. Also, not even Brodie claims that it was a criminal charge. "Illegal banking" is how the 'qui tam' civil suit is referred to even in the reference you provided on page 182. Vogel also makes no such claim of a criminal charge in relaying Luke Johnson's story. The entire section "False rumors of banking fraud charge, 1838" is currently out of scope of this article and should be removed, unless there is a reference that can be produced saying that there ever existed a criminal charge. Epachamo (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Section cut as off topic! Feoffer (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

(The "false rumor" section was really just my stopgap fix when I realized the article had been wrong since forever. I'd have removed the entire section myself as out of scope. I just didn't want to do so against your (potential) objections when a move discussion was on-going about what the scope should be) Feoffer (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Here is a source with no paywall:

https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/mormonhistory/article/1042/&path_info=V30N1_1OPTIMIZED.pdf

Grandison Newell's Obsession is on page 170 of the PDF, page 159 of the original document.

Please note the solving this particular dispute does not give me an actual answer to the question I asked at RSN. Please feel free to comment there so we will have a record of the discussion to refer to if the reliability of Brodie ever comes up again. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Here is an interesting paper. Not a reliable source ("BTU: Scholarship Aligned with the Gospel of Jesus Christ"), but still interesting:

The Kirtland Safety Society and the Fraud of Grandison Newell: A Legal Examination

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the-kirtland-safety-society-and-the-fraud-of-grandison-newell-a-legal-examination

-Guy Macon (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I knew it'd turn out to be something like this. I think Brodie just chose her words poorly when she said "Word came" of an arrest warrant for fraud. That got "telephone gamed" into "there really was an arrest warrant for fraud". Feoffer (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I just wanted to let everyone know that I am unwatching this page, mostly because it looks like it is coming together now, but also because my only real interest in LDS topics are the ones that center around science and pseudoscience, such as Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon#Technology anachronisms.

If my help is needed, feel free to ping my username or post to my talk page, but please don't ping me unless you think I can be of assistance. Thanks! I will check back and see if this gets any replies for a few days before unwatching the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Well done, Guy. Your work here is done, thanks for the help! Feoffer (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, I'm going to start a new page Legal affairs of Joseph Smith, that will have a broader scope than this. Given everyone's comments here, I don't think this will be controversial, but I've been wrong before on that before. I'll hold off on making it for a bit just in case. Epachamo (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I would personally prefer to avoid mixing his roles as litigant vs jurist -- Joseph Smith and the civil justice system and Joseph Smith's judicial career. Pages titled "Legal affairs" are primarily for documenting on-going events about living persons where we don't want to say "crimes". And obviously, I object to the table that "sums" every "interaction", but perhaps an RFC could generate consensus for it? Feoffer (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

You can't isolate them and have good articles. As you dig in to reliable sources you will find that so many of his litigant vs jurist interactions were interconnected. It is difficult to discuss one without the other, just look at the whole Grandison Newell situation for example. This is more-so true in Nauvoo when he was a judge. His most controversial decisions can only be viewed correctly in context of his other legal interactions. Please show any shred of evidence that "Legal affairs" is for on-going events. We say "criminal charges" all the time for living people. The table was never a sum of every "interaction" nor was it ever intended to be. Epachamo (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Regarding table sums, here are a small sprinkling of articles that discuss, or make reference to the total number of legal cases to which Joseph Smith was a party.

• “Proving Contraries” Joseph Smith on Law and Love
• Joseph I Bentley, “Road to Martyrdom: Joseph Smith’s Last Legal Cases,” (2015) 55(2)
• David W. Grua et.al, "Legal Records: Case Introductions"
• Smith, Alex D. “Untouchable: Joseph Smith’s Use of the Law as Catalyst for Assassination.” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society (1998-), vol. 112, no. 1, 2019, pp. 8–42. JSTOR (a great article showing the entangled nature of Smith's legal interactions and why we need an upper level 'legal interactions' article).
• Joseph Smith, Jr. Reappraisals After Two Centuries
• Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Andrew H. Hedges, eds., Within These Prison Walls: Lorenzo Snow’s Record Book, 1886–1897 (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2010), xi–lxiv.

I have heard numbers thrown out in documentaries, newspaper articles, youtube videos etc. on Joseph Smith's life. Clearly the total number is of interest, and relevant to at least some people, including reliable sources. Epachamo (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Sorry to re-summon you, but seems like the disputed table is being re-introduced in yet another venue. Any advice in helping people understand why it was controversial? Feoffer (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Not a problem. I am going to write up something that I hope can resolve the issues. It's really an interesting story, and we want to get it right. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, despite @Feoffer's insinuation, my intent in creating a new page is NOT so that I can introduce a table. These are two separate issues. For now, I'd rather this conversation not get derailed yet again over a table. Epachamo (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

A lot has happened on the talk page since I last checked in, and I'm not sure I understand all the nuances of the arguments. But why don't we have a broader title and then more specific subsections? The categories are related, and if I were researching for the first time I'd want it all on one page, rather than having to track down multiple pages.

Fawn Brodie is an older work but shouldn't necessarily be dismissed out of hand.

Also, the table made sense to me. It was a quick visual of the material that could be covered in the page. I'd appreciate an explanation of why it was controversial. AIJFMM (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd prefer all the intersections of legal issues and Joseph Smith be contained in one article (this one, which can and probably should be moved to reflect a widened scope) unless the article started running over the 10,000 words limit mentioned at WP:CANYOUREADTHIS. Only then would it make sense to split it into multiple articles in my opinion. - Pastelitodepapa (talk) 07:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

This makes the most sense to me AIJFMM (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so now that the decision has been made to restrict the scope of this article to criminal charges against Joseph Smith, we need a spot to put other relevant Joseph Smith legal affairs. Any objections to Legal affairs of Joseph Smith? Epachamo (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I am going to attempt to resolve the ongoing disputes on this page and any possible new page of the same basic topic.

Let's start off with this: Please disregard everything I have said before. I didn't fully understand the dispute, and I still don't. At first I thought it was a simple matter of whether to include civil suits in a table. Then I thought it was a simple matter of whether a particular source was reliable for claims that all later sources are silent on. I am no longer convinced that this is a simple dispute.

Second, I have zero authority, and anyone involved is completely free to ignore this attempt at a solution to the ongoing dispute. This is important. I can only help if everyone agrees to accept my help. There is nothing wrong with looking at someone who thinks they can resolve something and deciding that you don't want their alleged help. I won't think any less of you and will defend you if anyone attacks you over such a rejection. This is all about trust, and trust must be earned.

Third, I have zero expertise on anything related to LDS or Smith. What I do have is expertise in resolving disputes. For many years I made a good living as a consultant resolving situations where an engineering or programming department was going to war over technical issues that the CEO didn't understand. I am hoping that some of those techniques will help here.

THE PLAYERS

Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can tell for over a year there have been three editors working on this page: Epachamo, Feoffer, and Gottagitgud (alphabetical order), with an occasional bot, vandal, or someone doing routing maintenance. If anyone else is watching and wants to jump in, now would be a good time to speak up.

It also appears to me that extensive back-and-forth discussion has failed to result in a consensus. So I am asking all of you to feel free to go ahead and continue discussing whatever you want in other sections, but please follow my structure in this section

STEP ONE: DEFINING THE DISPUTE

I am going to ask each of you to tell me, in a separate section, exactly what you think the dispute is about and what the others could do to make you happy. Please don't make any comment about the other person's answer, either as a reply of as part of your initial statement. the time will come for that. We already know that some of you will read what the others have written and think "that isn't what the dispute is about". Hold that thought. And please, make your statement as short as possible. I may ask for clarification or ask you to trim the length. Again, if you really feel that you have to respond right away, just start a new section.

Someone below asked about finding similar articles. Criminal cases against Yulia Tymoshenko since 2010 is the pretty similar in title and structure, but Aaron Burr is probably closer in historical personage. Hope this help. Feoffer (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I propose we rename most of the sections of this article to match the pattern in this article: Litigation_involving_Jeffrey_Epstein. Each section would be the parties involved, followed by the date. For example the section "Disorderly person, March 1826" would be renamed "State of New York v. Joseph Smith (1826)". I believe this change would make it cleaner and more readable. Epachamo (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose -- far less informative heading, you'd have to click through to the section to know anything about the charge. Feoffer (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC) Also, let's avoid looking to a 21st century sex criminal as a model for Joseph's articles, yes? Despite some limited overlap, I'm sure many of our valued readers would feel deep offense at the comparison. Any 21st century person would be a bad template -- We cover on-going stories that affects living persons very differently than historical figures with centuries of scholarship behind them. Feoffer (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

You are going to have to point to some policy on 21st template. Certainly WP:BLP mentions nothing of the sort. We don't re-write articles after persons have passed away. Also, nobody is going to be offended, and this is genuinely ridiculous. Clearly I'm not making the comparison between Joseph Smith and Jeffrey Epstein, and your insinuation lacks good faith assumption. I would ask your repeated, personal, condescending comments stop, otherwise I'm going to have to ask an administrator to step in. Here is a different article that adheres somewhat the same format: Legal_affairs_of_the_first_Trump_presidency,Legal affairs of the second Trump presidency, 2001 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States or even these entire articles: Trump v. United States (2022), Dred Scott v. Sandford. Looking at MOS:LAW, I think we should adhere to the naming conventions for legal articles, which entails looking it on a case by case basis. If there is no common name, we should default to the case name. Epachamo (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I guess you should ping Guy Macon if you want a third opinion? For now, BOLD proposal lacks consensus. Feoffer (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, unless you can bring up an actual policy, following MOS:LAW, is not really that bold. I'll give you some time to find something before making changes. Epachamo (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@Guy Macon Sorry to bug you again, but looks like another request has been made. Epachamo,I am still assuming good faith, but this proposal does seem it would have the effect of outright obfuscating Smith's very serious crimes and making the article almost intentionally impossible to navigate. Smith assaulted people -- we are not going to be hiding that fact from our readers. Not hidden amongst a sea of lawsuits, not hidden under an anodyne heading. The policy here is WP:BLUDGEONING, and it needs to stop. Feoffer (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

No need to apologize. It is a lot more convenient for me to unwatch the page and only look at it when asked to. Anyone editing this page should feel free to ask me for help at any time. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I have seen zero indication that I am dealing with anyone who is being disruptive or acting in bad faith. I am still convinced that everyone involved wants to do the right thing but disagrees about what the right thing is. Let me know on my talk page if it seems like I am taking sides.

Let's start with Wikipedia policy. No policy or guideline tells us that we must do things the way the Epstein page does them, and no policy or guideline tells us that we cant. It needs to be discussed, and if you can't agree, you need to follow the steps in WP:DR.

Re BLUDGEONING (which is an essay, not a policy or guideline), you appear to have applied it to article content when it is specifically for discussions with a lot of participants.

Re: "We don't re-write articles after persons have passed away", sure we do. it often happens that an article that carefully follows WP:BLP gets re-written to include material previously prohibited after the person has been dead a few years. Jeffrey Epstein is neither living or recently dead (he died in 2019) so BLP does not apply.

Re: "many of our valued readers would feel deep offense at the comparison" nobody is comparing Joseph Smith with Jeffrey Epstein. The only thing being "compared" is the formatting -- how to structure a page deal with someone who has been involved in a lot of legal cases. That doesn't mean Epstein is the best choice to copy. Would David Miscavige#2009–present: criminal investigation and lawsuits or Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump be a better template? Probably not. Not for me to decide. Is there another page I missed that would be better?

Re: "I would ask your repeated, personal, condescending comments stop, otherwise I'm going to have to ask an administrator to step in", I read the comment this was in reply to and saw no personal comments. Just comments about what the content should be. (I haven't read everything the two of you have written, just the comments in this section). I don't think the "comparison" comment was correct, but I also don't think it was personal. Also, be careful about involving admins unless you are OK with someone looking at the situation for five minutes and then "solving" it with a sledgehammer.

I have some good advice:

• Try really hard not to offend other people.
• Try really hard to not be easily offended.

An apology is almost always a good response. If you don't think you did anything wrong, apologize for being unclear. What the reader understands and what the writer intended do not always match, and the fault may be on either end. Or both ends. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I absolutely find it easy to apologize, and I'm happy to apologized for any perceived slight. At no point have I been offended -- I just didn't want any non-editor readers viewing the talk page to misunderstand. I also don't regard this as disruptive editors, I don't think we specifically need an admin here, but since you've been involved, you were the natural choice or a third opinion or resolution.

The Epstein article is about civil suits by still-living Jane Does, ours is about criminal cases of a long-deceased historic figure. We don't have to hide the names and complaints of Smith's accusers, we can put them right in the heading. Feoffer (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure that I understand. Keeping in mind that I am not taking sides and have no position on how the headings should be structured, Epachamo suggested changing the heading "Disorderly person, March 1826" to "State of New York v. Joseph Smith (1826)". The present heading doesn't name the accuser. The suggested change does. It seems to me that either alternative is fine. One doesn't tell you who the accuser was. the other doesn't tell you what the accusation was. Headings are not supposed to contain every detail. The reader is supposed to read the page, not just skim the headings. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

OH, I should have spoken more precisely. Our current heading structure doesn't list accuser like a page on on-going civil suits, but it lists the accusation aka the charge. The Proposed change would make the article impossible to navigate. Even I couldn't find _anything_ in the article if we took out the charges from the headings -- and I helped write the thing! Feoffer (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Reading the above, I think I understand why the Epstein page is structured the way it is. Unlike Smith, there are cases where Epstein isn't a named party, but is definitely involved:

• Jane Does v. United States (2014)
• Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2022)

and in the case of Jane Doe v. Epstein and Trump (2016) the name of the accused seems important. Epachamo, could you explain why this heading structure is preferred for a bunch of cases where the accused is always Smith and the accuser is always some part of the government? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

We should follow Wikipedia policy and MOS. MOS:HEAD states: "Section headings should generally follow the guidance for article titles..". The relevant section for legal cases is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Legal#Article_titles. We should use the common name for the particular case. Regardless of the section title, MOS:v. states "the first mention of a case should normally be formatted as A v. B". Epachamo (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

You folks who have been working on the article know a lot more about the sources than I do. Let's take the first case mentioned -- the March 20, 1826 arrest by Constable Philip De Zeng and the court appearance that followed it. Do most of the sources refer to it by a X vs Y case name, or by a description of what happened, or by the charges? Whatever most of the sources call it, that's the common name.

Please note that the MOS section you just cited says "For subjects that have wide coverage outside of legal scholarship the common name may not be the same as recorded in academic and court stylings." and "Criminal trials that are notable for the people or crimes involved, not for the legal precedent they set, should be titled "Trial of (defendant)" or another commonly recognizable name. Examples include Trial of Saddam Hussein, O. J. Simpson robbery case and Trial of Susan B. Anthony." --Guy Macon (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

RSes aimed at a general audience use descriptive terms: the "1826 glass looking (or "disorderly person") charge" , the "Missouri treason charge", the "Illinois treason charge", etc. The article is about "criminal charges" not influential legal cases. Feoffer (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

You need to state your reliable sources. Epachamo (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

None of these criminal trials have a 'common name' used across all reliable sources. I do concede that the MOS allows for naming things other than the case name in criminal trials notable for the people involved, which certainly is the case here. To be most NPOV, it makes the most sense then to ensure each section is titled with the formal charge brought by the state. How about a middle ground, where we have the case name, the formal charge, and the year in the header. For example "New York vs. Joseph Smith - Disorderly Persons (1826)" Epachamo (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, I sincerely and easily assume good faith with your suggestions; in the past, they have led to great improvements. But adding 'State v. JS' for every section heading seems to me like redundancy bordering on absurdity. Feoffer (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Please address the most recent suggestion, i.e., "Case name for charge (date)". Every single header would be different. The minority of cases was Smith charged alone. Regardless, we must follow MOS:v. and use the case name in the first mention. Epachamo (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

On the one hand, Epachamo makes a good point. It might be useful to look at the list and see which state, and whether it was against Smith or Smith and others. On the other hand, the obvious counterargument is that shoveling to many details into the heading can itself make the details harder to find. I have no opinion on the content, but I would note that dispute resolution WP:DR/WP:THIRD has an option to call in a third party for an opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

In light of inferred suggestions in the discussion here, I'd like to provide a space to discuss recent table additions.

1. Charge Date - This is the date that the Joseph Smith was actually charged. If there was a 'birthdate' of the charge, it would be this. In an article titled "Criminal charges against Joseph Smith", I find the date he was actually charged to be absolutely essential information, and much more useful than warrant date. In fact, because the current table just lists the warrant date, and the warrant for multiple different criminal charges appear to have been combined, the table is actually muddled, painting an incorrect picture of the number and outcome of various separate charges.
2. Prosecution - This is who brought the charges against Smith. This is much more informative at a glance than the name of the judge. Its hard to argue that the prosecuting entity is not relevant in an article about criminal charges.

Far from obfuscating the charges or diluting content, this will bring a clarity and professionalism to the article. Epachamo (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)