Talk:Joseph Smith

First sentence

There has been some editing and reverting centered around the first sentence that has made me wonder whether an alternate wording might be appropriate. The first sentence currently reads:

Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was an American religious leader who founded the Latter Day Saint movement, of which the predominant branch is Mormonism.

As I noted in my edit summary here we have this wording (as opposed to just saying that he founded the LDS Church) because there are multiple churches and claims of succession. (See List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement) However, the current wording bugs me as well, mostly because it's wordy and awkward. I also don't think that Latter Day Saint movement should be the first link in the article, since it's kind of an academic term that's usually not mentioned in the sources (they usually just mention Mormonism or the LDS Church, sometimes in combination with the Community of Christ). Anyway, I think a good replacement wording would be

Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was an American religious leader and founder of Mormonism.

I like that because it's simple, direct, and still accurate. During his life he was just the founder of Mormonism, and that is what he is most known for; yet the wording doesn't imply that he is not also considered the founder of non-Mormon denominations formed after his death (specifically the CoC). Specific denominations (LDS & CoC) are still mentioned prominently in the last paragraph of the Lead. Thoughts? ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you.--John Foxe (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I also agree. The current wording, IMO, is a magnet for editing disputes because the term "Latter Day Saint movement" is not widely accepted. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I add my voice to the consensus. Good compromise. I do think, however, that we need to discuss how to appropriately handle editors who repeatedly revert this article to claim Smith as only the founder of the LDS Church. I have tried explaining this on the talk page. I have gone to individual user's talk pages. And still the trend continues. So what can/should be done about that? --Jgstokes (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Smith as "founder" of the Church

I posted this topic before, but it has since moved to the archives. I repost it now because it still appears to be an issue. We have several editors with only IP addresses who are overzealous Church members with no regard for Wikipedia policy that are insistent that we stick to what all LDS members accept as truth, that Smith restored the Church that Christ originally established upon this earth. It is to those IP editors I address this comment. Because of Wikipedia rules and regulations about maintaining a neutral point of view, we cannot say that Smith "restored" the Church that Christ originally established, however much we believe or know it to be true. Before you jump all over me, I am LDS as well, and I too believe that Joseph restored Christ's original Church. But as a Wikipedia editor, I have to accept Wikipedia's views about neutrality, and so we can only say that our church "believes itself to be" a restoration of Christ's Church, and we must thus list Smith as the founder of it. In reality, however it came about, whether you believe it was through angelic direction, divine intervention, or a whim of his own, it took someone accepted by the general public as mortal to establish a Church, and that is what Smith did. So, I would say to you anonymous IP address editors who keep insisting that we list Smith as the "restorer" of the Church, please be sure that you are following Wikipedia policy when you make such edits, and please give it some thought before making edits such as these. You can save yourself and others a lot of stress and trouble if you do so. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, the people who most need to see the above comment are also the least likely to even be aware that article talk pages exist. It might be better to consider either semi-protection or pending changes protection for this article. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to make a pending changes protection request. I have made a semi protection request in the past and it has been granted, but I really don't understand the formatting involved and would feel much more comfortable if someone with more Wikipedia experience than me were to take care of it, if we really think it is necessary to go to that length. I'm not convinced that's the way to go. If anonymous IPs are unaware of the talk pages, we need to make them aware of them. I think doing so would be the fair thing to do before requesting page protection. On the other hand, this has been happening a lot more lately, so maybe it's time to act first and consider coddling the IPs later. So, if someone with experience could make the page protection request for us, that would be fantastic! --Jgstokes (talk) 05:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I tend to think this action is a bit like using a shotgun rather than a flyswatter to kill the annoying, buzzing fly. It reminds me of the temple garment page that used to be constantly reverted by well-meaning Anons, but just found the pictures offensive. Instead of preventing all Anons from editing it may just be easier to overlook how annoying the consistent edit is and revert it anyway. Some can be persistent, but I think those are the ones where the discussion on this page is helpful. Most will never return and carry on their way. They are not committed to the article, just checking things out. Just a few thoughts, but given that I seldom participate on Wikipedia any more my counsel comes cheaply and I freely admit that I may not be here to revert these types of changes much. --^StormRider 08:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed - shotgun approach inappropriate here. The "rate" of ip pov editing is far to low for semi protecting or pending changes. If the rate should increase to several per day or even per week, then such protection might be acceptable. Meantime - monitor your watchlist. Vsmith (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Since these changes being made would not constitute "vandalism"—that is, deliberate attempts to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia—I agree that we should not protect the page because of this issue. As far as I can tell, they are all more or less good-faith edits. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Addition of Harris note

Since it will no doubt be unwelcome and contentious for some, I'll ask for comments here first. Sam Harris wrote, in his recently published book, Waking Up, that Smith was a "libidinous con man and crackpot". Certainly the sentiment is notable, as other commentators, such as Christopher Hitchens, have expressed the same. However, this idea is not clearly expressed in this article (which may be, at least in part, the source of the repeated assertions of POV for this article). Within Wikipedia's policies, is there any objection to adding this, perhaps in the "legacy" section? Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

What is of more value; calling someone a ""libidinous con man and crackpot" or actually providing the historical facts of an individual's life? What part of Smith's life is missing from this article? --^StormRider 09:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Harris and Hitchens are no doubt notable individuals, but I'm not persuaded that their opinions about Smith are notable in the context of a biography of Smith, any more than the opinions of similarly well-known individuals such as Mitt Romney, Trey Parker, or Rick Warren might be. What elevates the "con man and crackpot" view above any other arbitrary popular person's view of Smith? The views of the major branches of Mormonism are self-evidently notable because of Smith's central role in their theology; also clearly notable are the opinions of academically respected biographers of Smith. Beyond these, on what basis might we determine that opinion A should be addressed but B should be omitted? alanyst 16:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

For Rider, I can't answer your first question. That should be left up to the reader. We simply provide the material that reliable sources report. But if both ideas are not presented (assuming they are both notable), the reader may not know there are conflicting ideas. This is how we encounter POV on Wikipedia. I'm not clear how the second question relates to my query, so I'll leave it at that.

For Alanyst, I offer that WP:RS states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered" (emphasis in original). The fact that Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and other commentators have viewed Smith as a con man and other labels (putting aside truth values for those assertions which we cannot adjudicate) means that this can be seen as a significant minority view at the minimum. Yet, it is not included in the article. I am offering one of the sources to include the idea.

I don't think the idea needs to be belabored or expanded or take up a whole section. It can simply be part of the opinions of Smith's legacy. In my opinion, this may help alleviate further POV claims. Thanks for your comments. Airborne84 (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)\

If I might make a more concrete suggestion, the passage could be directly attributed with context provided. For example, "Modern atheist commentators such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris have painted a darker picture of Smith, labeling him a "con man" and even a "crackpot." By identifying that the sources are atheist commentators, the reader will understand the context behind the words, rather than think it is everyone who thinks that. Airborne84 (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the wording you propose is well crafted; but I'm still not sure you've demonstrated that it crosses the "significant minority view" threshold expressed by WP:RS. The question hinges on what we deem "significant", I suppose. Atheism is a significant philosophy, and Harris and Hitchens are significant in that domain; but the significance of these atheists' views of Smith is not, to me, evidently more noteworthy than any views on Smith that have been expressed by other significant people in other significant domains such as politics, entertainment, literature, other belief systems, etc. Can you explain how this particular view is distinctly more significant than those you would consider insignificant minority views? alanyst 17:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't tried to interpret the word "significant" in WP:RS before. If it is to mean significant in number, it would be rather tedious for me to list dozens of websites and published sources here. It could easily be done. But if this is a concern, perhaps I could suggest a few quick web searches using the terms "atheism", "con man", and "fraud" combined with "Joseph Smith"? Again, please don't interpret that I'm suggesting these connections are true. But a quick search will reveal that there are plenty of atheists as well as other religious people who hold this view. (As an aside, Christopher Hitchens wrote, "To a mainstream Christian, Jew, or Muslim, nothing is more obvious than that founders and prophets of other religions, such as Joseph Smith, the Rev. Moon, Mary Baker Eddy, and L. Ron Hubbard, are either frauds or delusional." And you can also easily find websites by religious people in opposition to Mormonism and Smith.) However, here we are talking about atheists' views.

It seems that on Wikipedia that a significant minority view is represented if a reliable source states it. In this case, we have at least three prominent and widely published atheists stating a sentiment in unison. In the policy WP:RS, under "some types of sources", "Biased and opinionated sources" are listed. These three authors fit that bill. They do not appear to fall into the categories listed under questionable and self-published sources. So they should be able to stand on their merits as sources.

This would be a different matter if there were three prominent sources under a certain discipline or area stating a sentiment which could not be clearly backed up with a web search. That's not the case here. It is easily shown with a web search that these three sources reflect a sentiment about Joseph Smith held—rightly or wrongly—by quite a few religious and nonreligious people. And that appears to qualify for a significant minority view—at a minimum. To ignore this is to continue to invite POV assertions.

To address your other comment, I don't see why views on Joseph Smith from other areas (politics, other belief systems, etc.) should not also be included. The article on Jesus includes views about him in other religions and belief systems for example, and that is a Featured Article. It appears that some editors have ideas that only "historical facts" (the subject of some debate in and outside Wikipedia) should be included here. It is not clear to me why that is, given the name of the article is "Joseph Smith" and not something much narrower. Thanks for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• This kind of thing has been discussed a few times in the recent past... See [1], [2], [3] for recent discussions. Just for fun I made some "test edits" for ways the wording could potentially be implemented in the article. Edit 1 uses roughly the wording proposed by Airborne84, while Edit 2 is shorter and puts it in a different paragraph. Perhaps the second one is short enough that people would accept it as a compromise with WP:DUE weight? (I kind of like it if only for the irony of having atheists and evangelicals in the same boat.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there a religious or ideological group of non-Mormons who accept Joseph Smith's witness as true? Why pick on evangelical Christians when the same could be said of everyone from mainline denominations to Muslims?--John Foxe (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to pick on anybody, and my parenthetical above was mostly humor. The evangelical Christians, I believe, are mentioned because they are the ones actively publishing literature against Mormonism. That's different than the sentiment of the other groups you mention, which I think is probably closer to apathy. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I made the addition to the text according to the first edit example that Adjwilley provided, as the second seemed to be less agreeable here. If I've moved too fast in inserting the text, please feel free to undo for further discussion.

I didn't include Hitchens since in his commentary on Smith in God is Not Great he doesn't call Smith a fraud directly. He just relates a story in which Smith was convicted for fraud. I used a YouTube video for Dawkins, but there are print/web sources available at the "Christian Post" and others which could also be used if that is preferable. And thanks for the time and discussion. Airborne84 (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted, since I was hoping to see a little more of a discussion followed by consensus before adding anything permanently. I'm still not convinced myself that something needs to be added. I think something that would convince me would be to have some of the biographies on Smith mentioning the atheists calling him a con-man and crack-pot. I seem to remember Bushman talking about earlier historians hypothesizing that Smith had been delusional, but that that theory had mostly fallen out of favor with modern historians. I'll flip through my books and see if I can find something...Remini or Vogel might have something to say about it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If you'd like. I'm not sure why we need a secondary source to tell us that prominent atheists call Smith these terms. We have the sources telling us that themselves, which is backed up by web searches. Indeed, the idea may actually be more than a significant minority belief in just the atheist community. It may actually be a majority belief between them and other religious folks that is not reflected in the article. I don't know that to be the case, but we do have people making assertions of POV here quite a bit, which should tell us something.

In any case, there's no rush. I welcome comments from other editors. Airborne84 (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

And if you're simply looking for secondary sources to note that these atheists use these terms, there is no shortage of that online. These comments are noted in a number of news sites online. For example, the "Christian Post" noted Dawkins's use of these terms during Mitt Romney's run for the US presidency. They don't have to be scholarly secondary sources; Wikipedia does not require that to merit inclusion in an article. Perhaps if you could clarify what you are looking for, I can help. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd much prefer a printed, peer-reviewed biographical source over a politically charged news article about Dawkin's Twitter posts on Romney. In my perusing I came across a quote by Robert Remini in the preface to his biography on Smith. He says,

I should make it clear at the outset that I am not a Mormon. As such I faced several problems in writing this book, one of which involved Joseph's visions and revelations, which are crucial to an understanding of him, his church, and the times in which he lived. After considerable thought I decided to present his religious experiences just as he described them in his writings and let readers decide for themselves to what extent they would give credence to them. I am not out to prove or disprove any of his claims. As a historian I have tried to be as objective as possible in narrating his life and work. Mormons will have no problem in believing everything Joseph related about his encounters with the divine. Others may be skeptical, but I hope they will, like me, find his life and legacy of particular importance in better appreciating how this nation developed during the early nineteenth century and how religion played such a commanding role in that process.

I'm not saying here that we need to take the same approach as Remini, but I do think that it is a good one. When we have a subject area like this (religion) where everybody believes everybody else is wrong, I'm not sure about the merits of repeating the name calling in what is supposed to be a professional encyclopedia. I will however look over the section again and see if I can partially resolve your concerns using the secondary sources that I have at my disposal. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on my latest edit? It puts it more in terms of what scholars have said, and I think the language is better and more academic ("fraud" and "psychological disorder" instead of "con-man" and "crack-pot"). ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

In principle, I don't agree with the sentiment about "name calling". In practice, I like very much what you edited and it is an excellent addition to the article. If I may say so, it definitely moved the article toward another Featured Article nomination.

But it is not there yet. My concern lies in the idea that we should avoid including a position, labeling it name-calling. What this does is set up an automatic bias and POV. It also means that we, as editors, are taking a position that it is name calling and it is not factually correct (and I don't know if it is name-calling or correct). And, it means that very positive, positive, and balanced commentary will be allowed, and perhaps some very carefully worded negative commentary. But very negative commentary is then excluded. This means that if a number of the most prominent atheists in the western world (or perhaps world) are united in their strong condemnation, it will not be allowed—in an encyclopedia which is supposed to capture all notable ideas.

The following sentence presents a very positive position: "Biographers, Mormon and non-Mormon, agree that Smith was one of the most influential, charismatic, and innovative figures in American religious history." It would be unfortunate and very un-encyclopedic if we keep that but exclude a very negative position.

In any case, I'm quite satisfied that your edits addressed, in a significant part, the POV issues that exist. I personally would not vote for it to become a featured article without including, even in passing, the atheists' position. But that's just me.

Again, thank you again for the addition. It is very welcome. Airborne84 (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Please also check that I didn't misrepresent the source when I adjusted one sentence. It's just that when we list one position, and then follow it with "however", it can present the appearance of favoring the latter view over the former. Better is to simply state one position and then state the other. Airborne84 (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it was more accurate before in the sense that there isn't anybody advocating those theories anymore, probably in part because psychology has come a long way in the last 70 years. Vogel is fairly certain that Smith "did not inherit epilepsy from a grandfather whose seizures were the result of a head injury" and he of the theory about paranoid delusions he says, it "has not fared well" (with a citation to an earlier article). I'll respond to your longer post in a bit. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

(Shrug) You can revert if you'd like. But as written the passage reflects the same sentiments with less appearance of POV. And since this article appears to be the subject of POV claims fairly often, I recommend the current version. However, if the edit actually misrepresents the source, it should not stand. Thanks again. Airborne84 (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Addition of 14 year old wife, Helen Mar Kimball into Polygamy Section

To add context to the age range, I have been in a revert "war", which isn't a war, but folks seem to think it is, so here I am.

In the polygamy section, Emma's reaction is noted. Stepping into her shoes, it would probably be easier to have another wife in the marriage if that woman was my age. Her rejection of polygamy should be obvious when considering the age of Helen Mar Kimball: 14. This information gives great context, and allows the reader to understand why Emma reacted poorly to a God given commandment. Villaged (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for making a post on the talk page. I believe your addition is based on a couple of incorrect assumptions, for instance the assumption that Kimball was a wife in the usual sense of the word. As far as I can tell, Kimball was "sealed", but then continued living with her parents as if nothing had happened. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the wives who that actually got Emma's goat were the ones in her own age range who began living in the Smith household. Anyway, my main concern is that starting to list exact ages and link the names of wives in the body of the article is diving into too much detail. We name the first and second wives, give an approximate age range, and provide a link to List of Joseph Smith's wives for those who are interested in the details. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

We list the age range of the wives, but leave out the youngest and the oldest, thus not representing the information that's most important to the character of these marriages. Sealed or not, living at home or at parent's, she was his wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Villaged (talk • contribs) 20:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm try to understand where you're coming from on this. What exactly is, in your opinion, "the information that's most important to the character of these marriages"? ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's easy to see that within the paragraph as it was, it spoke to the age range of the wives. This provides further insight to the age ranges. Villaged (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding the information that at least one of Smith's wives was fourteen would increase the yuck factor for most 21st century readers. However, for what it's worth, Fawn Brodie gives her age as 15.--John Foxe (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The LDS Church itself lists her age as 14. I agree on the yuck factor, but polygamy itself is also a yuck factor, so it's all yucky. Villaged (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Before we get carried away here, how uncommon was this in frontier areas? Even today in some states a bride can be as young as 15, in at least two states even younger. Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about getting carried away, nor is it about modern acceptance. It's about giving the age range of the brides. I think that we should also include the oldest bride in there. I was doing that research when folks went to a revert war stance. Villaged (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

As for myself, I think it is sufficient enough to note that Smith had a certain number of wives 20 and under. What purpose would it serve to list the exact age of each woman who claimed to have been sealed to Smith? It would merely serve to blacken the reputation of a man whose ethics and morality have already been greatly scrutinized and maligned. Enough is enough. I think we should leave things as they are, unless the consensus feels, for whatever reason, that mentioning the younger wives is somehow pertinent to this matter. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No one is asking to list all of the ages, just the youngest and the oldest to be included. This has nothing to do with morality or ethics, unless you think that this is unethical? It's absolutely pertinent to the matter when speaking about the ages of the wives that he married. Villaged (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a difficult issue, given the societal contexts involved. From today's perspective, it definitely intensifies the yuck factor, as mentioned, but people of the mid-19th century generally did not have that type of reaction to a marriage of an adult male to a 14-year-old female. Suitability for marriage was pretty much based on physical development, not age, and somewhere around 3 per cent of American women were married by age 14.

So ... I'm not sure what to do with this. Including the age without the context could carry with it unspoken implications, but at the same time, I don't think it's a huge problem to just include the fact. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I think this idea about a "yuck" factor is useful but ultimately distracting. We shouldn't (in my opinion) be deciding on what to put in or take out of the article based on that. There will always be those with personal agendas who want to focus on certain details that will make the article more or less yucky, but instead of focusing on that we should look at it as what best represents the sources (weight etc) and what works best editorially. The language about the four wives under the age of 20 comes straight out of Bushman's book, so I feel we're good on the first point. On the second point, the addition of specific names and ages makes the sentence uncomfortably wordy, and adding the name and age of his oldest wife as proposed above would make it even worse. Also, to simply say that Smith "married" a 14 year old isn't quite accurate, (it certainly wasn't in the Warren Jeffs sense of the word) and there's not really room in the paragraph to make that distinction.

Lastly, in case you didn't see the diff, instead of just deleting the wording about Kimball, I moved it to the footnote, since that has often proved to be an acceptable compromise when someone insists on placing undue emphasis on this or that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that that approach is sensible and fair, and I agree with it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that this is a more than fair compromise. This way the fact can appear without giving it the "yuck factor" spoken of or violating Wikipedia's policies about giving undue weight to certain issues. Well done, Adjwilley. Thank you very much! --Jgstokes (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

When I saw how the OP titled this section yesterday it tickled my memory, but I didn't know why until this morning when I remembered User:JosephSmithMarriedA14YearOldGirl, who showed up last year wanting to promote a certain fact. When blocked for username violations they questioned whether a new user name of User:HelenMarKimballExisted or User:ThereIsAnArticleOnHelenMarKimball would be allowed. [4]. Probably not worth an SPI report, though both users don't appear to be new, but interesting to note certain similarities. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Seriously. A sock puppet? Me? Do you really think that there's only one person in the world who knows this fact about JS? I mean, for goodness sake, the LDS Church just published an essay that fully owns this fact. Villaged (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I called anybody a "sock puppet". I just said you didn't appear to be new here. Your use of the term "sock puppet" isn't helping that much, as I rarely hear that term outside of Wikipedia-related discussions, but then I'm not much into internet forums, so I assume it's just me. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you think a SPI report is? You're just tossing that out there and then saying that it's not worth it in my case, but that there are similarities. Even if I were new, I would be offended by this. Villaged (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Funny. From what I have seen outside of WP, there is a reasonably sized movement in certain quarters to have JS "exposed" as a pedophile, so I wouldn't be surprised if, over time, multiple individuals approach the same horse with stick in hand .... (One funny thing about these people that I've noticed is that often when they find out about JS–HMK for the first time, they seem to assume that no one else knows about it and that they must therefore spread the word. I suppose it's that way for a lot of things for some people.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

After reflection on this, I completely disagree with the notion of hiding this in the footnotes. From reading the comments, it's clear that many of you are using your beliefs in the LDS church and Joseph Smith as Prophet to color what you want done with a major point about JS's polygamy: hide it so that investigators won't see it. The truth is, that he married a 14 year old girl. Stating that he married a "few women under 20" sweeps a fact, undesirable as it is, under the rug. The yuck factor is distracting, yes. He married a 14 year old. Yes. It's the equivalent of not mentioning Abraham Lincoln's senate time and stating that he performed time as a "legislator". In other words, you're trying to cloud the fact too obtusely. Finally, yes, many people will come "with this stick in hand" as it's a huge fact that is missing from this otherwise well written article. Villaged (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, you're certainly entitled to your own opinion. One thing you should know. Not all people who have commented on this issue believe Smith to be a prophet. This article is contributed to by those who accept him as a prophet, those who believe he was a con man, and everyone in between. To balance the discrepancy, there's a little principle called consensus. This means that no editor or group of editors can put anything in an article contrary to the opinion of the majority. And it appears that the majority opinion in this case is in favor of either not including this fact at all, or, if it is included, to only include it in the footnotes. Sorry if you can't/won't accept that, but that's the way Wikipedia policy works. If you don't like it, you can complain to the admins. But don't expect much sympathy. As long as a consensus decision has been made and is backed up by reliable sources, then the decision will likely stand. Sorry. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Majority rule does not equal consensus. There isn't consensus on placing this in the footnote, nor is it in the body. I am aware of my options, but clearly, folks here are trying to hide this information that has been deemed, "yucky". The yuckiness does not take away the truth of the matter: he married a 14 year old girl. And in a section that talks about his private life, his married life, marrying a 14 year old is a BIG FACT. To dismiss it in the footnote, or nowhere at all is not to do service to the article, as you're just hiding/obsfucating facts. Villaged (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Villaged, if the information is included in a footnote, it's not missing from the article. But as to the point you made, it's probably not terribly productive to get into various users' motivations for editing in certain ways. I have no doubt that some users edit this article in an attempt at apologetics and to make Smith look as good as possible. I have no doubt that some users edit it to discredit Smith and make him look as bad as possible. (There are also many who attempt neither, of course, and try to be "fair".) I've seen editors throw accusations at each other both ways on issues such as this, and it tends to go nowhere and doesn't really help things. I find that for each individual editor, it's best if I just assume good faith, even when I know that there will in fact be some percentage of them who edit in bad faith. When I disagree with a particular editor on an editing issue, it's just not fair for me to assume that they are editing in bad faith, because I think most of them will not be. And even if they are, at least it leads to more decent interactions that can resolve the issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You think there are apologetics here? Just read this talk article. I'm actually surprised by the fact that if the Church has come out and said that this is fact, that the apologetics just haven't admitted that and placed it in themselves. Villaged (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I know there are. But that doesn't mean I automatically discount edits by those users or make a deal out of it. Nor do I assume that that is their primary motive. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Disagree with putting it in the footnotes. It needs to be in the main body. Owtc (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I support putting it in the main body—within reason. There is no need to list all the ages in the main body. However, a reasonable compromise here may be to change the wording from "Ten of Smith's plural wives were under the age of twenty" to "Ten of Smith's plural wives were between the ages of 14 and 20." That identifies the range without unnecessarily getting into detail. Airborne84 (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I like that. It doesn't hide the fact in the footnotes, presents the information without being too wordy. That's really good. Villaged (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Putting something in a footnote does not "hide" it. Removing it from the article altogether might, but footnotes are part of the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I added something like that to the article. It seems a good compromise.--John Foxe (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I can be happy with that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not happy with it. This revision (probably unintentionally) results in a text that redundantly reads, "...and during the next two-and-a-half years he married or was sealed to about 30 additional women, ten of whom were between the ages of 14 and 20, and ten of whom were already married to other men (though this was usually accomplished with the knowledge and consent of their husbands). Ten of Smith's plural wives were under the age of twenty, while others were widows over fifty". The next revision takes out more context, implying (incorrectly afaict) that he was sleeping with the wives of other men. It also blanked a bunch of sources.

I pulled out my copy of Bushman tonight and re-read the sections on polygamy. I usually turn to Bushman's book when I'm uncertain of how much weight to give something, because it is pretty much universally accepted as the best biography of Smith. Anyway, Bushman mentions the ages of some of the wives, naming several by name and recounting their stories. He doesn't mention Kimball by name, or give her age in any part of the book. The closest he comes is in a parenthesis on page 492 where he's talking about the initial anguish the women, particularly the younger ones, must have felt. It reads: "(Ten of Joseph's wives were under twenty.)". For a detailed list of the wives, he directs readers to Compton's definitive work on the subject. If the leading 700 page biography on the subject doesn't bother to mention Kimball, why is it so important that we mention her in the corresponding 10 page encyclopedia article? The compromise of linking her in the footnote here is more weight than Bushman gives her in his entire book.

The question nobody has answered is why this is so important. Is it important enough to abandon good encyclopedic writing, to ignore WP:WEIGHT, and to deviate from trying to follow the best reliable sources? Is increasing a "yuck factor" more important than impartial writing and accuracy? Anyway, I have reverted the problematic changes for now, pending further discussion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)