Talk:Children of Joseph Smith/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Informal Mediation Requested: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-07 Children of Joseph Smith, Jr.

I've done my best to discuss these issues here and at Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. and to prompt several editors to support their claims and allegations by citing reliable sources. After many, many (many) requests by me and others, no one has yet provided any. Perhaps they exist, but no one has shown otherwise, in spite of numerous requests to WP:PROVEIT. To avoid edit warring or conflict when the pages Children of Joseph Smith, Jr. and Joseph Smith, Jr. are unprotected, and in an attempt to prompt other editors to cite reliable sources to support their claims that this information should be deleted, I have requested informal mediation, consistent with Wikipedia policy. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am disappointed that Écrasez did not heed the following instruction on the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal page:

"Fill out the information. Keep it as brief as possible. Try to present the information in a way that only describes the disagreement. To make it easy for everyone to participate and cooperate, avoid arguing for one side or the other."

The description of the dispute that Écrasez provided is just a repetition of his side of the argument and does not neutrally characterize the dispute. This is poisoning the well and such tactics make it difficult to work together toward a resolution of the issues. Écrasez, you need to show more respect for others' point of view if you want mediation to succeed. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

alanyst, you appear to have some difficulty citing specifics to back up your opinions. Please state explicitly how I "poisoned the well," as you say, examples of which are listed on that page:

"Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail."

"Don't listen to what he says, he's a lawyer."

If you say something, be prepared to prove it or retract it. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. Poisoning the well, at least according to the Wikipedia article, is "information [...] presented in order to produce a biased result". In court it might be called leading the witness. Your characterization of the dispute at the MedCab page was entirely one-sided:

• "Highly relevant verifiable facts" when you are well aware that the relevance, factual basis, and verifiability of the allegations are all under dispute.
• "There has been no legitimate justification for deleting this material" when justifications have been provided; the legitimacy of the justifications is a matter of opinion, and your opinion that they are not legitimate does not belong in what ought to be a neutral summary.
• "No substantive challenge to the reliable sources" when you know that I have substantially challenged your use of Newell as a source and have established Pratt's testimony as hearsay.
• "The only challenge has been POV regurgitation of calumny" when you know that my challenge, at least, has nothing to do with the alleged Bennett-Pratt affair.
• "To date, no reliable sources or rationale consistent with Wikipedia policy has been provided for deleting the cited facts" when I have cited WP:UNDUE as a rationale against inclusion of the material on the Joseph Smith, Jr. page.
• You mention that edit warring occurred but, unlike your other accusations of misbehavior, didn't elaborate on the parties or give diffs. This conveniently avoids calling attention to your own participation in those edit wars.
• You say that I, among others, have failed to cite reliable sources, but I have made no claims of my own; rather I have only challenged your addition of material based on your interpretation of sources. My arguments have been based on my reading of your sources, and since you are the one making the positive assertion, you are the one who has to provide the sources.
• All of your behavior complaints are notable in their omission of User:Écrasez l'infâme as an offending party.

I stand by my use of the phrase "poisoning the well" regarding your description at MedCab. Please see my alternate description of the dispute, which manages to avoid painting your position in any sort of negative light. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I did provide the sources and lots of them. As the challenger of these sources, you made a lot of illogical and easily refuted claims, like "Newell does not connect Bennett with Smith's abortions" (or words to that effect), when in fact she says

"pregnancy would be taken care of with an abortion. When refused, Bennett stated that he came with Joseph's approval." (Newell 1994, p. 111)

That's your challenge?! Based on obviously faulty reasoning like this you concluded things like WP:UNDUE. When your illogic was presented to you, you simply restated it, as if nothing ever happened, which is pretty much the to-be-avoided "contradiction with little or no supporting evidence" stage of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. As for elaboration on the edit warring, it would be neither constructive nor useful to compile a list of diffs on either side. Please feel free to do so if you disagree. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Écrasez, a simple question: To whom does Newell attribute the "system of seduction": John C. Bennett or Joseph Smith? alanyst ^/talk/ 20:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To "[Bennett] and his friends," and as she goes on to say was called, "“spiritual wifery,” a term that had been used in the early establishment of plural marriage," of which "Bennett had learned of plural marriage, maybe from Joseph himself." link Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Right; it was Bennett doing the seducing, according to Newell, using the "spiritual wifery" doctrine that Bennett developed as an alternate version of Joseph's plural marriage doctrine. ("Bennett had learned of plural marriage, maybe from Joseph himself, and plunged in with alacrity. But, unhampered by any moral or theological framework, Bennett approached women with his own rationale.") Note that "Bennett approached women" according to Newell—not Joseph. The only connections Newell draws with Joseph are that Joseph originated the plural marriage doctrine that Bennett took advantage of, that Bennett told the women whom he seduced that Joseph approved of the abortion practice, and that the city was rife with rumor associating Joseph with "Bennett's scandals" (emphasis mine). Newell gives no support whatsoever for the idea that Bennett approached or performed abortions for any of Joseph's wives, contrary to your interpretation. alanyst ^/talk/ 15:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[New indent] Newell says that Bennett performed abortions for Mormon “spiritual wives,” though you are correct in saying that she does not say explicitly whose spiritual wives these were. She also clearly demonstrates two pages later that before his break with Bennett, Smith used the term “spiritual wives” himself and that “plural marriage” and “celestial marriage” were codewords introduced by Smith to conceal the practice:

The demand for secrecy coupled with the need to warn others of unauthorized practices such as Bennett's led Joseph and the Twelve to develop a system of evasion. By employing code words the practitioners of the new and everlasting covenant of marriage," as taught by Joseph, felt they could publicly deny one thing and privately live by another … An 1886 article in the Deseret News detailed specific code words and their rationale for their use. … Examples were "Polygamy, … celestial marriage … plurality of wives, … and spiritual wifeism[.]" Joseph and the Twelve used the term [spiritual wiferery], and a few women who were plural wives later referred to themselves as "spiritual wives," but through Bennett's use the term came into disrepute. Newell 1994, p. 113

Newell says that Bennett would tell any “spiritual wives” (Smith's term, not Bennett's, until the practice became known publicly, contrary to what you write above) that resisted abortion that he came with Joseph's approval. The interpretation you offer—"Bennett told the women whom he seduced that Joseph approved of the abortion practice"—is incorrect on its face: Bennett told women who refused the abortion that he came with Smith's approval. This is clearly not limited to any women Bennett seduced, who were after all seduced with the promise of an abortion and would presumably not be the ones refusing Bennett and requiring "Joseph's approval," compounding your non sequitur reading. But I do agree that the proposed sentence for the Joseph Smith, Jr. article does not reflect this one nuance. How about,

"Smith has been accused of allowing his second-in-command John C. Bennett, a medical doctor, to perform abortions for polygamous wives who were officially single."

In the article on Smith's children, we could elaborate on exactly which wives are specified, as they are in Smith 1971 and Wymetal 1886. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it does not bode well for any type of positive mediation. Ecrasez is so virulently against any form of information if it conflicts with his specific objectives that there appears little hope of compromise or cooperative editing. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think everybody needs to take a step back and put things in perspective here. This is a minor point, by any perspective. At most, we are talking about a sentence or two in this article, and maybe a footnote in the Joseph Smith, Jr. article. Also, we are not debating the veracity of Sarah Pratt here. She could be a complete liar, or a bastian of saintly virtue--for purposes of editing, it shouldn't matter. We have to ask two questions: (1) is the fact that Pratt made this allegation verifiable?--meaning: is the fact she made this allegation (a) uncontroversial or (b) citable to the type of source typically cited in scholarly publications, and (2) is the issue of abortion for Joseph Smith's wives more than just a fringe theory? If the answer to both of these question is true, then nobody should be deleting this material, although we can debate matters of style and neutrality, etc., and making sure this is not unduly emphasized in relation to the general literature on this subject. If the answer is false, then we should remove the material. Having looked at the sources and some of the modern commentary, I'm leaning toward this being a viable issue that deserves mention, though probably just a short mention. COGDEN 19:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

COgden, do you know if Brodie ever discussed Wyl's allegations? I think it is fringe because of the dearth of information from any mainline historian. It is like a black hole; a few very minor historians have quoted Wyl and Pratt's statements, but it seems like it is simply not covered by those who one would typically think would be making hay with it and no one is responding to the wild accusations.

Almost anything can be cited, but the context and quality is identified. These are heinous allegations found repugnant by any sane individual. Bennett has no credibility and Pratt seems to be a question mark for me; I have not studied her life and what happened to her after Nauvoo. There are just too many questions to come to a conclusion. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To your points COgden, (1) obviously yes, as shown by the Smith reference, and possibly others (though no others have been brought forward), and (2) most likely no, since no other JSJr biographer seems to treat these as anything more than allegations, if mentioned at all. That said, do you have any opposition to or comments on the nascent, compromise version? Does this version satisfy your idea of no undue emphasis and a short mention? --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As to this abortion issue has not gotten much academic play, I don't know, but I don't think it is because everybody out there other than Wymetal dismisses the idea so much that they don't even comment. This has probably just slipped under the radar. But the fact that it has little coverage does not necessarily mean that it is a fringe theory. Certain aspects of history just don't have much written about them, but all it takes is one good mainstream researcher who credits the idea, and I think we have that in Wyl (Wymetal)--not that he is unbiased, but he was not on the fringe of American thought, either. Plus, there are important academic sources, besides Wyl, that credit other aspects of Sarah Pratt's interview, and there is corroboration of related ideas, such as that Bennett performed abortions to cover up his own polygamy. Thus, I think this passes the bar on WP:FRINGE, although the relative academic silence on this would certainly have implications for WP:UNDUE. COGDEN 04:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

From a document printed in the 1880's and no major historian picks it up does say something about the allegations. There have been far too many historians that are meticulous in their research for this to simply be overlooked; particularly when they are so destructive to Joseph Smith's reputation. The only reason for plural marriage to have existed was for the raising of children. These allegations turn that completely on its ear which goes against every doctrine that Joseph Smith taught. That is what is so heinous about this allegations. After almost 130 years it would seem like someone significant would have addressed this; but all are quiet. Isn't that the definition of fringe; to be out of the mainstream? Undue weight would certainly seem to apply, but I would still think this fits the very definition of fringe.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[New indent] Re: "The only reason for plural marriage to have existed was for the raising of children." This is a highly entertaining personal opinion you have expressed. If only for the purpose of further summer entertainment, would you please cite a reliable source that backs this up?

Re: "After almost 130 years it would seem like someone significant would have addressed [Smith's alleged abortion of his polygamous children]; but all are quiet." Jon Krakauer, who was the first major author to write candidly just five years ago in Under the Banner of Heaven about the fact that Joseph Smith "bedded" and married "pubescent girls" as young as fourteen, addresses one reason for the silence about significant portions of Mormon history (my emphassis in bold):

“The leaders of the modern LDS Church deem the history of their religion to be sacred, and have long endeavored to retain tight proprietary control over how that history is presented to the world. Indeed, LDS leaders have explicitly stated that they believe accounts of Mormon history should be, above all else, "faith promoting"—that is to say, accounts of Mormon history should be celebratory rather than critical, and should downplay, omit, or deny sensitive or unsavory aspects of that history. …
Dissent from official church teachings is not tolerated in the LDS faith. Because of this obsession to rigidly control how the Mormon past is interpreted and presented, histories sanctioned by the LDS Church tend to be exceedingly partisan and notably incomplete. … Even a cursory survey [of] LDS sanctioned publications will reveal [a] disturbing sanitization of the historical record. …
According to the eminent Mormon historian D. Michael Quinn, "The tragic reality is that there have been occasions when Church leaders, teachers, and writers have not told the truth they knew about difficulties of the Mormon past, but have offered to the Saints instead a mixture of platitudes, half-truths, omissions, and plausible denials." As I wrote in Under the Banner of Heaven, Dr. Quinn argued that a "so-called 'faith-promoting' Church history which conceals controversies and difficulties of the Mormon past actually undermines the faith of Latter-day Saints who eventually learn about the problems from other sources."” link

So longstanding silence about a difficult subject only means that some people wish to be silent about it, not that it is wrong. But the historical record has not been silent about Smith's alleged abortion of his polygamous children as the references Newell 1994 and Smith 1971 clearly demonstrate. What we are witnessing on this and other related Wikipedia articles is consistent with the LDS Church's desire to "downplay, omit, or deny sensitive or unsavory aspects of [its] history." Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is getting awfully tiresome. What part of repeating the same thing does not make it correct? If your statements above had any basis in fact, much to the chagrin of Mr. Krakauer, there would never have been books like Brodie's "No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith printed in 1945 some 60 years ago. Your whole position is a repetition and litany of the same thing. You have yet to listen to one editor, you ignore everything that conflicts with your unique POV and accuse everyone of undermining your "truth". Here is some advice for the moment; it does not matter. What is needed is to step back and interact with all editors to make a compromise. You have been given a proposal; focus only on the proposal and ignore everything else because it does not matter. What matters most is what is in the article. Does this make any sense to you? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 14:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The proposal at the informal mediation page, at least for the Joseph Smith, Jr. article, is the proposed compromise sentence based upon a slight modification of a suggestion by COGDEN:

"Smith has been accused of allowing his second-in-command John C. Bennett, a medical doctor, to perform abortions for Smith's Nauvoo wives who were officially single."

with supporting references. Is this proposal acceptable to you? Also, I really would love to have a reliable source that says "The only reason for plural marriage to have existed was for the raising of children."—that should go in this article, if true. Please would you cite one? Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The proposal is only acceptable if qualified by something about Bennett's lack of credibility, based on his personally written JSJr. exposé, printed allegations, and newspaper articles, as well as church documentation, affidavits, etc. about his character from the period. Sarah Pratt? Well, there is certainly enough timely documentation to either paint her as an angry woman (against Smith) or in league with Bennett, though Joseph Smith III's own account of his interview with Pratt draws a completely different conclusion - that whatever Wyl wrote was either misquoting, or that she was embellishing to Wyl, or she told more than one story to whomever was listening to her. A Sniper (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with A Sniper about modifying the proposal in the way he/she suggests; that too would be poisoning the well. I dislike trying to lead the reader to conclusions, which is what I'm seeing from both sides of this debate. I do still maintain that rather than using a passive construct ("Smith has been accused"), we should state who made the accusations with an active construct ("Sarah Pratt, wife of Orson Pratt, accused Smith"), and let the sources and wikilinks provide additional background on the credibility of the accusers and the accused. Other than the passive/active issue, I think the proposed compromise is acceptable as an addition to Children of Joseph Smith, Jr. (and I will not actively oppose making it a footnote in Joseph Smith, Jr. if that's what it takes to resolve this dispute). Écrasez, what do you think about this idea? alanyst ^/talk/ 17:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

alanyst, I agree that Sarah Pratt's name should be included. However, I wouldn't think mentioning for the reader that the accusation was made by Sarah Pratt in 1885 is poisoning the well: "Sarah Pratt, wife of Orson Pratt, accused Smith in an 1885 interview that...". There is actually quite a big difference whether the accusation was made at the time, directly following Smith's death, or during old age forty years later. It needs to also be remembered that Wyl's notes on Pratt's recollection of her interview by Joseph Smith III is the utter opposite to Smith III's published transcript, which casts at least a small doubt on Pratt's 1880s credibility - hence mentioning in 1885 is relevant without making any assumptions. Thoughts? A Sniper (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's marginal, in my opinion, and I'd lean towards leaving it out. Giving background on a source can be helpful to the reader, but adding facts that throw doubt on Pratt's credibility, as this seems to do, will invite rebutting facts and quotes that support her credibility, and that will spiral until it ends any hope of keeping the mention within the bounds of WP:UNDUE. Better simply to cite the sources, wikilink to relevant WP articles, and let the reader conduct his/her own further research and judge for herself/himself. alanyst ^/talk/ 17:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you re: stating anything to color the reader's perception of Pratt. I only mentioned the credibility issue to illustrate the importance of merely placing the following: "Sarah Pratt, wife of Orson Pratt, accused Smith in an 1885 interview that.... For me the interview/year is what balances what I (and I think at least two other regular contributors) still consider fringe. The wikilinks, etc. can do the rest. If the facts that Pratt stated this in an interview in 1885 is clearly within the sentence, I fully back up your compromise and hope the issue can end. I would also again mention that your proposal to keep this within the Children article only (and either keep it out of the main Smith article altogether, or stick it in a footnote) is the preferred compromise. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[New indent] A Sniper, I would welcome any context about Bennett's or Pratt's credibility that you or anyone else would wish to add, so long as it is NPOV, WP:RS cited, not WP:UNDUE, and interesting to read. Because this discussion occurs in the context of Smith's progeny, please consider the following attempt at a terse representation of the discussion above, proposed for the appropriate section in Joseph Smith, Jr. (with the listed references):

No alleged children of Joseph Smith, Jr. born to women other than Emma Smith has ever been proven, though the question of Smith's progeny from his polygamous marriages has been raised since his death. Several possible Smith descendants have been identified, and as of 2007 highly accurate DNA tests have eliminated four candidates,[1][2][3] though research into this history is complicated by the facts that Y-DNA genetic testing for non-male lines is not possible, and two candidates died as infants.[3] Furthermore, Smith has been accused of allowing his second-in-command John C. Bennett, a medical doctor, to perform abortions on polygamous wives who were officially single,[4][5][6] which Sarah Pratt alleges limited Smith's progeny from these wives.[5][6]

1. "Research focuses on Smith family". Deseret News. 2005-05-28.
2. "DNA tests rule out 2 as Smith descendants: Scientific advances prove no genetic link". Deseret News. 2007-11-10.
3. Perego, Ugo A.; Myers, Natalie M.; Woodward, Scott R. (Summer 2005). "Reconstructing the Y-Chromosome of Joseph Smith, Jr.: Genealogical Applications" (PDF). Journal of Mormon History. 32 (2).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
4. Newell, Linda King (1994). Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith (2d ed.). University of Illinois Press. p. 111. ISBN 0252062914.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
5. Smith, Andrew F. (1971). The Saintly Scoundrel: The Life and Times of Dr. John Cook Bennett. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. p. 141.
6. Wymetal, Wilhelm Ritter von (1886). Joseph Smith, the Prophet, His Family, and His Friends: A Study Based on Facts and Documents. Salt Lake City, UT: Tribune Printing and Publishing Company. p. 60–61.

I would welcome an additional constructive footnote or two that puts (1) Bennett in context, and (2) Pratt in context—I may add one myself that represents Van Wagoner's and Smith's and account of the slander of Pratt and Bennett. But please, please heed ≈ jossi ≈'s comment that,

primary sources, if used at all, need to be used very cautiously: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. Better, make use of reputable published secondary sources instead.

The propaganda attack on Pratt (Richard S. Van Wagoner: "highly improbable slander") obtained under threat of destruction by the Smith brothers just won't cut it by any standard. Get us something real from a secondary source that adds insight and is interesting. I just checked Google books and there's a world of WP:RS material on Bennett that's untapped here. This is a specialty of University of Illinois Press—check there first. This counts for Joseph Smith III's interview with Pratt too—don't do your own WP:OR or WP:SYN and just cite the difference, but get a reliable source that contrasts these two and offers some insight into the discrepancy. Certainly we can all think of other reasons why Joseph Smith III offered the account he did, but I can assure you that if you merely cite his account, a lot of people will dismiss him as deluded or a liar or both. That's why it's so important to get reliable source commentary on this issue. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Here is a citation and link to Richard S. Van Wagoner's journal article on Sarah Pratt and her experiences with Joseph Smith and John C. Bennett, in which Van Wagoner dismisses charges against Pratt as "highly improbable" and "slander."

• Van Wagoner, Richard A. (1986). "Sarah Pratt: The Shaping of an Apostate". Dialogue. 19 (2): 79.

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I shall wait for the mediation process to work because it doesn't appear possible to work this out with you directly. I believe your POV to slander Smith is so staggering, it borders on the laughable, and for some reason it appears you somehow feel ownership over these articles. A Sniper (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A little off topic, but not too much...

Per the restructuring initiative for polygamy related articles, I have finished my first cut at the new article Latter Day Saint polygamy in the late 19th century, and could really use some help in filling out the content for things that I have missed, and general wiki style article revision. There are also two sections that I don't have as much info on right now, (you will see them towards the end of the article) which, again, I could use some help filling out. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting...but irrelevant

Descartes1979, the consensus I'm thinking of is the one that thinks that the abortion allegations need only a few sentences for proper weight. You yourself trimmed the some of the same information that is being reintroduced down to a few sentences [1]. In what I'm calling the consensus version, we still have If you scan through the most recent addition, how much of it is actually relevant to the topic at hand, namely Children of Joseph Smith. IMO, almost none of it is - only the fact that Pratt, as reported by Wymetal and repeated by Smith, alleged that Smith used Bennett to abort progeny from his polygamous wives - and we did keep a mention that these allegations exist. All the other information has no bearing on this article, but does fit in either the Bennett or Pratt article. My favorite irrelevant twist is how Ecrasez is now trying to use the Newell reference, after it was pointed out that he was misusing the reference - how does the fact that Bennett used Joseph's name to get the women Bennett was seducing to have abortions relevant to an article on JSJr's children? What does including the full quotes add? Again, WP:UNDUE would indicate that since no historian of JSJr gives any weight to these, that we too give them a passing reference, but to do more is undue weight. And to include all this extra, irrelevant information is only needed if we're trying to participate in the debate that Bennett did perform abortions for JSJr. If the abortion allegations are kept to a single sentence, then there is no need to include the JSIII description of the conversation (which also does not mention children) as a rebuttal to the account. Now, I don't know if I agree with placing the brief mention in the intro, but anything more than a few sentences goes against the consensus (that included you Descartes) and violates WP:UNDUE. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FyzixFighter that the whole abortion thing is overblown and given undue weight. I think it belongs as a footnote, mostly because it isn't supported by, well, anything or anyone - it is all Bennett and S. Pratt. I admit I made the section larger but only in an effort to remove the POV and balance it out to illustrate to the reader that things are not necessarily what they have now been made to seem. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

FyzixFighter and Descartes1979: I have attempted to greatly condense the paragraph and balance it out. Please let me know if this works for both of you... A Sniper (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you A Sniper. You've restored it nearly to the trimmed down version that Descartes1979 arrived at a week ago. I would recommend remove the mention of the allegations from the intro paragraph and fold it into the current allegation sentences below - they both repeat each other essentially, and reuse the same references. As before, I'd also recommend losing the heading, moving the short mention of the allegations to the top part of the "Children of alleged polygamous wives", just after the current single sentence there, as it would seem to fit better there in terms of flow. I also don't think that it is necessary to use either the Orson Pratt or final Sarah Pratt quote, for reasons that Alanyst mentions above. I think replacing these with the "The abortion allegation has never...for adultery on August 20, 1842." sentences currently in the intro. In fact, I think I'll be bold and implement these changes right now. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be honored if you would - thanks again. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Attempt at revision re abortion allegation

I thought the main text of the article still gave too much emphasis to the issue, so I tried to streamline it a bit. It basically says that thus far, there has been no significant scholarly treatment of the issue other than a mention in Smith 1971. However, I also provided some fuller background in the footnote. If we briefly mention the allegation, which we probably need to do to be consistent with NPOV, I think we need some degree of background to put it in perspective, rather than just a bare allegation by Sarah Pratt. But all this can take place in the footnotes. COGDEN 00:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Great job - the less of that unfounded allegation, the better (re: WP:undue weight). Best, A Sniper (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I realize we need to strive for NPOV, and I fully support it. However, the spin that this article has had at times allows for a platform to advertise children that simply don't exist. Write about the alleged wives; write about the alleged kids; write about the modern DNA tests that, so far, exclude each pretender - you'll get no objection from me (as long as JSJr's public record is also reflected). However, someone politely placed an opening line about the children being historically significant - that's kind - but these actual Smiths are Emma's children. This needs to be emphasized if this article is really about JSJr's actual children, as opposed to supposed children. I am sure there are a few folks out there who care what history writes about the Smiths - the JSJr & Emma Smith clan - and want to make sure it is accurate. I will now step down from the soapy box... Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about it, if this article was really about the children of Joseph Smith, Jr., and not just a means of elevating nineteenth century gossip and tabloid fodder (with a little high tech DNA mumbo jumbo thrown in to make it interesting), it would go into a little detail about his children and who they were/what they did/why they matter. However, I tend to think that whomever created the page may have wished merely to stress the search for potential polygamous Smith offspring, or to trumpet unfounded Pratt/Bennett abortion allegations - if this was the case, it should have been named something a little less misleading. Thoughts? Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Most people have children. This subject is notable because of centuries of controversy over Joseph Smith's marriages; did he really have thirty bona fide wives? The title of the article may be able to be improved. I don't know. But I see a notable need for this article about Joseph Smith's children. Tom Haws (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wilhelm Ritter von Wymetal

I brought this up at WP:NPOVN as I don't think it is NPOV to use a source describing Wilhelm Ritter von Wymetal as a vitriolic journalst. Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I am coming late to this issue, but I have to say I agree with Dougweller that the statement is not NOPV, but not for the same reason he has listed. I have addressed them at the WP:NPOVN discussion, but will not repeat them here since they really have nothing to do with my comments here.

On the one side I see why the "vitriolic anti-Mormon journalist" was added. Wilhelm Ritter von Wymetal was anti-Mormon and to Mormons his statements are bias and should be read with a grain of salt.

However, on the opposite side, to call him a "vitriolic anti-Mormon journalist" is not NPOV. It is just an attack on him and is an assumption that he was bias as an anti-Mormon. It is not appropriate.

However, perhaps I can offer a compromise. Remove the entire sentence.

To be 100% honest, I'm a bit confused as to why the sentience "However, Wilhelm Ritter von Wymetal recorded in an 1886 interview with Sarah Pratt that Smith had John C. Bennett, a medical doctor, always on hand when anything happened." it is even in on the page at all. Why is Wymetal "records" so much more important than any of the other scholars on both side that he deserves to be mentioned while all the others aren't. As the sentence before it says, there is no "scholarly consensus" and to include Wymetal statements is giving him and the "Smith had Polygamist children" side more credence, making the section NPOV on that side. How can the page be any more NPOV then to say there is no "scholarly consensus". It would be the same as adding "According to the RLDS people that JS said he never had children with any of them". That would lean the page to the "Smith had no Polygamist children" side.

Additionally I don't see what it even has to do with the topic at had. This is a complete subject change. This is not a page on if JS allowed abortion or if he forced his multiple wives to have them. If this was Religion and abortion or a list of children aborted by JS, then sure I could see a possible connection, but this is not. This is a list of actual children and to a lesser extent people who claimed to be children of JS. Wymetal statement is not really appropriate anyway since it has nothing to do with a list of children that JS actually had.

The section would then read: "No children of Smith's alleged polygamous relationships has been shown, to a scholarly consensus, to have been Smith's genetic offspring. The following table lists some of the children born to Smith's alleged polygamous wives as well as those ruled out by genetic testing:"

I think this is the best NPOV possible, there is no "scholarly consensus". Just a thought, and I don't plan to make any changes.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Without giving it a lot of thought right now, that seems reasonable. Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have left User:A Sniper and a message to see if he would like to comment. Again, I didn't plan on making any changes, (to be honest I see this as a non-issue) but if Dougweller and A Sniper like the idea, and or one else chimes in, I will change it as a third party.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree thoroughly. The only reason I disagreed with Dougweller was to balance out a clearly biased reference. There is no scholarly consensus that Joseph Smith arranged for abortions, and the original editor who added the Ritter reference did so to suggest that there was. Thanks to all. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think we have a WP:Consensus and I have made the above changes.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What does "?" mean

I know that this may sound dumb, but what dose the question marks in the Allegations of children born to alleged polygamous wives table mean? Do they mean it's unknown or that it's impossible to tell, or that there has been no DNA testing done. ? can mean so many things, I have never like them.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey ARTEST4ECHO - sorry it took me so long to respond. The '?' refers to the fact that these wil always remain allegations that are based on rumor and not substantiated. Frankly, I think the whole section should be purged. What it currently translates to is this: 'lots of folks think Joseph Smith was a polygamist that had children from many women - most have been ruled out by DNA but a few remain mysteries'. Of course the fact Smith allegedly had so many wives, all of whom were fertile (we gather from the number of children they had by other men), but never had a single child proven to be his doesn't sit well with those who wish to prove Smith was a polygamist. However, what is in there now is not very encyclopedic. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

If the section is "is not very encyclopedic" is another issue that I think will take alot more "discussion" to change. My issue with ? is that it can mean to many things. If it can mean "Unknown", "Unable to prove", "Suspected", "Undermined", "Possible" etc. Each of these different meanings suggest a different levels of possibility that Smith was the father of those kids. If I say that it is Possible that you live in the United States or it is Unknown that you live in the United States. They suggest two different, but substantially different things. By saying Possible I sounds like I have something that points to you living there but Unknown suggest that I have no clue. However, again ? can mean any of those things, leaving it to the reader to determine the meaning.

I think it needs to be more explicit. Was exactly did the DNA test say? 20%, 50%,75% chance or 1 in 100, 1 in 10,000 chance, etc. Was the test unable to be preformed?--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That's just it: there is no DNA evidence for those with a '?'. It is purely innuendo or rumor from the nineteenth century - no way to prove or disprove, which is why I find the whole section rather ridiculous. There should merely be a line that says something like "despite rumors of illegitimate children, any DNA testing has excluded this possibility" or somesuch. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure "any DNA testing has excluded this possibility" is correct. The "DNA testing status" say "Incomplete" not "excluded"--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that, for those able to be done, DNA showed to a certainty a negative finding. For the rest, they'll remain rumor and speculation forever, and that really isn't bona fide enough for an encyclopedia. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong. I think you make several a very valid points. The only issue I have is that my intention in asking this question was not to suggest Removal of the table and I don't feel qualified to make that call. So I think I will start a different thread and it can be discussed, since you have a point.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)