Jump to content

Talk:Leonard J. Arrington

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLeonard J. Arrington has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 20, 2017Good article nomineeListed
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 2, 2017.

Religion

[edit]

Was he a Morman? Normally such a question is certainly irrelevant, but since the LDS is included in his field of study, and employed him for a time, i think it warrants an answer. Cheers, Lindsay 11:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subheadings

[edit]

I have added some subheadings to the article for readability. There are probably too many subheadings for the amount of text, but this allows for future expansion. I am not an expert on Mormon history so if anyone has information that can add to the early life and to the Church Historian achievement sections, that would be great. Euryalus 23:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Publications

[edit]

The four books listed now are some of Arrington's major Mormon works. However, the publishers and ISBNs are those of later editions, not the original publication. I want to change this and add more works. Are Published Works lists standardized on WP? Should these lists have:

  • original publishers?
  • ISBN's if the original edition didn't have one (i.e. books before 1970)?
  • later editions?
  • chronological ordering (earliest first)?

Also, what formatting style should be used (this list differs from the {{cite book}} style)? I propose using the Template:Book list table style (as can be seen in Stephen King bibliography). Rich jj (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With no objections in a weeks time, I'll move forward with the Template:Book list style.Rich jj (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to think the Template:Book list I've used looks very cluttered and distracting. I think I may revert to a more common "Publications" list (like B. H. Roberts#Published works) for simplicity and compactness. Facts about editions, summaries and notes would be gone, but if useful, they could be used in LDS Church Historian or Academic career in discussions about these works. I hope somebody gives input on this, since it may also affect my approach to such publication lists elsewhere. What is more useful and usable? Rich jj (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since nobody objects or cares, I'll change this list into the more-common bulleted text list, using Template:Cite book. Rich jj (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this why?

[edit]

""Arrington also granted liberal access to Church archival material to both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars. ""

Is this why he was unceremoniously relieved of his position?

CBHA (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was probably a contributing factor. Arrington had several run-ins with influential traditionalists in the church who disapproved of open disclosure and the modern historical approach. Some publications out of his department were criticized by high profile conservatives who feared it might erode faith. Arrington lasted as the official Church Historian for 10 years (although some say it was only 6) because he also had influential allies, such as the First Presidency. As leadership slowly changed, Arrington's team was pushed into positions away from Church Headquarters.
Regarding the archives, Arrington's memoirs say he was accused of allowing anti-Mormons to access salacious documents that embarrassed the church. Arrington commented that these anti-Mormon findings had actually occurred under Joseph Fielding Smith (the previous Church Historian, who granted access inconsistently) but they appeared in print after the office had changed hands to Arrington. But in the end, the plan for open archives was tarnished and it was decided that historical matters were hazardous enough to require tighter control. Arrington's successor was a much more administrative man who guarded the archives closely and restricted some materials. Overall, though, it was still much more open than under Joseph Fielding Smith.
We may never know exactly why Arrington was dismissed because it was a sensitive church matter discussed behind closed doors. But in my opinion, archival access was just one of several issues. ——Rich jj (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm... so why did Richard Bushman call the Camelot age "sanitized" (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705376021/Richard-Bushman-on-Mormon-scholarship.html)? 97.126.229.91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The link is dead, but I think these are related: snippet, another snippet, different article about the same speech(?). I'd like to read Bushman's full comments, and I'm sure I have things to learn from him on this point. It doesn't look like he thought Arrington's "Camelot" was a step backwards or that it was trying to conceal history. I think he was saying Mormon history is currently in a "golden age" where "scholarship is no longer judged by its partisan conclusions, but by its accuracy and insight." I guess it's come a long way since "Camelot" in the 1970s. It was hard enough for some people to accept The Story of the Latter-day Saints, and Rough Stone Rolling might not have gone over so well. But nowadays we have lots of young, highly-trained scholars, pumping out academic studies from numerous presses. And the Church and its members seem supportive and interested. ——Rich jj (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I couldn't easily find replacements for these dead links from the external links section. I put them here in case someone can find an archived version for them (or I might look for it later).

Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

page undergoing edits

[edit]

Hi, I'm going to be expanding this page in the next few days. It's possible that I will get too detailed about some of Arrington's life, but I also plan on editing the information I add afterwards. But if you have opinions about how my additions are going please let me know! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I drew heavily from the Topping biography, which has its flaws. If any editors would like to add information from the new Prince biography that would be an excellent additional source. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I got a copy of the Prince bio, and we'll be adding info from it gradually over the next few weeks. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete bibliography of LDS History Division Publications

[edit]

I started copying out the bibliography of LDS History Division Publications found in Dialogue, but I decided that I didn't have time to complete it. If anyone else wants to do that, here's the list from my sandbox history. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Leonard J. Arrington/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 19:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I'll give this one a review in the coming few days. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prose:

  • Generally good, but could do with some tweaking in various places.

Lede:

Early life:

  • "He grew up as an aspiring farmer and active member and one of the first"... "and... and", is a bit repetitive. How about "Growing up an aspiring farmer, he was an active member and one of the first..." Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were devout Latter-day Saints and farmers" - there are some issues with this wording. The current phrasing could lead the reader to think that the parents were "devout" farmers as well as Latter-day Saints, which is obviously misleading. For that reason I would suggest placing "farmers" before "devout Latter-day Saints". I also think that there might be some confusion as to who Latter-day Saints are: perhaps include ("Mormoms") after referring to the denomination? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rhode Island Red chickens " - does the Red need to be capitalised? And can we get a link? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Union Pacific Railroad scholarship" - again, we will want a link here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the Great Depression" - also needs a link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leonard had a transcendent experience where he felt "an intimate kinship with the world" which Arrington". First, we should use "Arrington" rather than "Leonard" at the start, and then maybe "he" as a replacement for the appearance of "Arrington" later in the sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Education

*It is standard practice to wikilink appropriate words both in the lede and at their first appearance in the main article body, so I would definitely wikilink University of Idaho here too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Overlinking states that "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." If general practice is different from the MOS, perhaps the MOS should be changed? I wikilinked University of Idaho in this section.Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In World War II, he worked in the Office of Price Administration and served in the Army in North Africa and Italy 1942-1945" - three lots of "in" here. Probably worth changing the first instance to "During". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Academic career:

*"Arrington took his notes on a typewriter and made carbon copies" - "made his notes on a typewriter and produced carbon copies"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*"America's founding fathers.Arrington" - best to use "United States" rather than the more colloquial "America"; also link to the Founding Fathers of the United States. Also, make sure that there is an appropriate space between the two sentences. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "One of Arrington's biographers, Gary Topping, attributed some of Arrington's" - maybe replace the second appearance of the name with "his". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the significant books in Mormon history" - I don't have access to the source in question, but should this be "in Mormon history" or "on Mormon history"? 22:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Also in 1959, Arrington wrote an article featured in the first issue of BYU Studies entitled "An Economic Interpretation of 'The Word of Wisdom.'",[8] which argued that Brigham Young's enforcement of the Word of Wisdom as a commandment was motivated by a desire to keep cash inside Utah (and not spent on luxury imports).[9]:137" - This is quite a lengthy sentence. I would cut it in two after the name of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From 1966-1967 he was.. From 1972-87 he was" is a bit repetitive, and yet lacks standardisation when it comes to the presentation of the years. How about "From 1966 to 1967, Arrington worked as..." and then "From 1972 to 1987 he was..." ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brigham Young's" - link to the article about Young. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historical associations: *"caused BYU studies's suspension" - "caused the suspension of BYU studies" might read more smoothly? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

LDS Church Historian and Church History Division: *If we are going to refer to "Apostle N. Eldon Tanner" then I think that we are going to need to explain the explicitly Mormon meaning of "apostle" here. Otherwise, scrap it for a more widely understood term. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

  • " Arrington conveyed publisher Knopf's interest " - bit clunky. Perhaps "Arrington conveyed the interest of his publisher Knopf," or something like that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When President McKay died in 1970," - no mention of McKay being President has previously been made in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When President McKay died in 1970, Joseph Fielding Smith became the next church president, leaving the church historian position vacant." This phrasing could be improved. Perhaps "After McKay died in 1970, the LDS' Church Historian Joseph Fielding Smith succeeded him as Church President. This left the position of official Church Historian—which was traditionally held by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles—vacant." Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arrington was appointed official Church Historian of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) in January 1972." - we have already had the full name of the Church provided earlier in the article so we do not require a repeat of it here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Apostle Howard W. Hunter was chosen as the next church historian,..." Here we state that Hunter was chosen as the church historian but only a few sentences later claim that Arrington was. Were there more than one church historians? Or did Arrington succeed Hunter? This all needs to be a lot clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arrington was appointed as "Lemuel H. Redd Professor of Western History" and Founding Director of the "Charles Redd Center for Western Studies" at Brigham Young University (BYU); his historian position was funded half by the church and half by BYU.[3]:101[14] The "Church Historian's Office" was transformed into the church's "Historical Department", and Arrington was made director of its research-oriented "History Division". " - No need for all the quotation marks, which are otherwise absent from the article when mentioning specific titles and departments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Richard Bushman suggested" - Who is this and why does their opinion matter? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the descendants of James Moyle." - perhaps "the descendants of Utah politician James Moyle."? 18:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "support projects Arrington deemed " - "support projects that Arrington deemed"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Story of the Latter-day Saints: *"sponsoring the writing of LDS Church histories in the academic style". This is a bit clunky. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

  • I would stick a reference after "Among the best known works from this "New Mormon History" were two general Church histories, one aimed at LDS Church members, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, and one for interested outsiders, The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-day Saints.". This sentence talks about something slightly distinct from the following sentences. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with systematic cataloging started by Joseph Fielding Smith" - maybe the systematic cataloguing... Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " not subject to the church's Correlation Program" - perhaps a few words on what the Correlation Program was, as casual readers are unlikely to be familiar with it. Also, here we have "church" with a lower case c whereas it mostly appears in capitalised form elsewhere in this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mounting resistance: *" Twelve Apostles" is linked here, but I think that we have already seen it linked previously in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Departure: *"The Church transferred its History Division to BYU in 1982, bringing the era of open Church Archives to a close. Working in a new Brigham Young University division" - here we have "BYU" and only in the following sentence is this introduced as "Brightam Young University". I'd make sure that the first appearance says "Brightam Young University (BYU)" and then you can use "BYU" after that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Other writings: *"lawyer of several Hollywood celebrities" - "lawyer for several Hollywood celebrities"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Death and legacy:

  • "Arrington remained an active and devoted member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout his life." This definitely needs a citation at the end of it, as it is thematically unrelated to the following sentences. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a section on his religiousness in the Prince biography--he was somewhat unorthodox. I'm not sure if it merits its own section, but I can add it if you think it would be a good contribution to the page.Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2005,[22] in honor of Dr. Arrington, Utah State University created the Leonard J. Arrington Chair in Mormon History and Culture," - scrap the "in honor of Dr. Arrington", it is superfluous to the sentence and the general rule of thumb is to avoid using "Dr." and related terms. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "church" and "church historian" - elsewhere the article uses capitalisation. Make sure that this is standardised throughout the entire article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I refreshed myself on the MOS:LDS, so the references to "Church Historian" are all capitalized, unless it's describing another job. references to the LDS Church are also now either "the church" or "the LDS Church."
  • "Church reps" - "Church representatives" would be more appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "12 apostles" - "Twelve Apostles" has otherwise been used throughout the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

*Far too many books are cited without the specific page number being given. This is a serious problem that requires attention. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

  • I was thinking of examples like Bitton and Arrington's Mormons and Their Historians and Bitton's "Ten Years in Camelot" essay. In various cases the book or article has been cited, but no page numbers have been given. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ideally, look into making some changes in the formatting of the citations themselves. The current system, whereby the reference information is right at the bottom of the article but the page numbers are preserved in-text is quite rare at Wikipedia and is generally avoided because of the difficulties that it presents the reader. I would strongly recommend switching to a more user-friendly form of formatting citations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this is not a specific requirement of GA itself, I would be willing to spend the time shifting the formatting of the references, unless you have a strong disagreement with such a change? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like the Harvard reference style, because it makes users go through two clicks to see the actual source. But I also concede that having the page number in-line is not ideal. I could be convinced--is there some Wikipedia essay readily available on the subject that you recommend?Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found some discussion at Template talk:Rp, so I feel like I understand the logic behind the shortened citation system. Shortened citations make it easier for the reader to focus on the article's content. But I still prefer the citation template style. I think readers should be disrupted a little by citations, so they can perhaps examine them and determine if the citations are reliable, although I believe that most readers ignore a page's references. I also like that named references have the same footnote number, which makes it easier to see if an article relies on a few texts by looking at the footnote number. I am curious though: would it be worse to just put the three or four most-used books in shortened reference style? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would get a bit too messy if the article begins to employ different citation styles. The current citation style certainly won't prevent me from passing this as a Good Article, but I think it needs further discussion (probably on the Talk Page) after I pass this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images:

Further reading: *There is a "full citation needed" tag on one of the entries. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Rachel Helps (BYU), this review was posted by Midnightblueowl 3 weeks ago and you have done nothing to respond to it. If within two days no action is taken on this review, I will fail it. Display name 99 (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Display name 99, sorry I didn't see this before. I'm working on it right now. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. Best wishes. Display name 99 (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Midnightblueowl and thank you for the review! I'm sorry that I didn't notice it sooner. I've corrected most of the problems that you mentioned. I had a hard time deciding if the controversy over his archives belonged in the lead or not. If you think it's too long, I can take that paragraph out--I just haven't thought of any shorter way to summarize it. I added references to the sections that lacked references that you noted. I'm not sure which book citations lack page numbers. Most of the book references have page numbers immediately following their in-line citation, with the exception of one reference for Mormons and Their Historians and one for The Collected Leonard J. Arrington Mormon History Lectures.
I looked for some more images and added a few. The photo for The Story of the Latter-day Saints is a fair use image. I think the article's mention of the book in the Mounting Resistance sub-section justifies the use here. Please let me know if you have other suggestions for improvement. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rachel; could you possibly strike out each of my comments that you have dealt with, so that I know what has been done and what yet needs doing? Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Midnightblueowl Yes, I can do that. I'm still not sure which references need page numbers--I was under the impression that page numbers are nice but not required for GA.Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Midnightblueowl, I think Rachel Phelps forgot to ping you in her last post. Display name 99 (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Midnightblueowl, I've addressed your latest suggestions. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Midnightblueowl, I've made your most recent suggested edits.Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks [1]; just a few more points. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Midnightblueowl. I've removed the "Further Reading" section. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rachel. This has been a lengthy GAR and although I continue to have reservations about the atypical referencing system employed, I believe that this article meets each and every one of the GA criteria. For that reason I am passing it as a Good Article. Congratulations! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Thank you for taking the time to review it! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leonard J. Arrington. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading

[edit]

Anyone who wants to study Arrington further will appreciate a guide to further reading. It's standard for Wiki articles dealing with scholarship. I restored & augmented it. Rjensen (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the Prince and Topping bios, since they're already in the reference section, but I could understand them being in the Further Reading section too. I added citation templates to the entries so that their format is consistent with the citations in the article. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]



[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leonard J. Arrington. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Church Historian in infobox

[edit]

I recently added Arrington's Church Historian position to his infobox. Since his position was so unique, I'm not really sure if it should go in the infobox, but it seemed helpful. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Rachel Helps (BYU) & Rachel.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leonard_J._Arrington&oldid=1223082908"