Talk:List of Joseph Smith's wives

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sarah Ann Whitney merge[edit]

Being a child of someone that is notable, or being the spouse of someone that is notable, doesn't then make an individual notable too (see: wp:Notability (people) & wp:NOTINHERITED). See nothing in the Sarah Ann Whitney article indicating that she is notable. I suggest that the bulk of the article be merged here, with the information about her later marriage to Heber C. Kimball move to that article. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. Sounds like a great idea to me. Thanks for discussing your idea first, though. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 21:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Done--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 21:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Ann Whitney is once a co-author and twice a subject at WorldCat.

(Louisa Beaman, above, is not one --that is, not under surname Beaman or Smith. Whitney is identified under surname Kimball but VIAF searches 'Smith, Sarah Ann Whitney' and 'Whitney, Sarah Ann' both yield the crucial hit.)

See Identities, below, for further general information. --P64 (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Identities[edit]

This is a copy with modification of that which I posted this hour at Talk:List of Brigham Young's wives#Identities. There I provided some illustration in the sections on two particular Young wives, which may help access that biog and bibliog data which is available at LC or WorldCat.

The footer should not include metadata or categories for any particular Smith wife (as it has until this hour [1]). Those features are appropriate in biographies, and personal redirect pages such as Emily Dow Partridge (expanded yesterday).

The most convenient point of entry to those biographical data available at the U.S. Library of Congress, and to the WorldCat and LCCatalogs, is viaf.org, where any entry with the U.S. flag icon provides LCCN for the person.

--P64 (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of duplicate page: List of other Wives, Wives of Joseph Smith -- right for the wrong reason[edit]

The article List of other Wives, Wives of Joseph Smith was rightly deleted but for the wrong reasons. The article was essentially a duplicate of List of Joseph Smith's wives. However, the cited copyright violation was wrong as the author of the source states he copied the information from Wikipedia:

  • Information derived primarily from Todd Compton's book In Sacred Loneliness - chart from Wikipedia, edited by Joel B Groat
  • For more information, including detailed citation and links to articles about some of Joseph Smith's wives with the most extensive documentation, see the original Wikipedia article, "List of the wives of Joseph Smith, Jr."

Further, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows the content of List of Joseph Smith's wives pre-dates the MIT page. --Deaddebate (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like WP:CIRCULAR is the correct reason for deletion, then. Bahooka (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

secret marriages[edit]

My edit just got reverted for mentioning that Louisa Beaman was married to Joseph behind Emma's back. A plural marriage where all the wives are consenting is very different from one where not all wives are informed. user:jgstokes you have previously reverted another one of my edits claiming that Dialogue Journal is not a reliable source. I think you will need to accept that it is in fact a reliable source when it comes to mormon scholarship. I'm not aware of any source that contradicts the claim from the dialogue article. If there is, I would certainly be interested to see it. Dithridge (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this issue could largely be avoided by following WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV instead of using WP:WikiVoice. Who says this was done without informing Emma? ResultingConstant (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I can put Richard S. Van Wagoner as the source of the claim. Dithridge (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not even the reason for my objection. Any claim is just that, a claim, unless there is a source that has been proven to be neutral. In other words, not motivated by bias or prejudice. Wikipedia, as I have been repeatedly reminded myself, is not so much about what is "true" but what is "verifiable". And that is a very fine line indeed. Add that to the fact that any material that might have a tendency to call Wikipedia's neutrality into question should probably not be used. These are the reasons for my objections. If a proper discussion takes place, and if it is determined by the consensus that this "claim" (clearly attributed to be such by Dithridge himself above) is permissible according to Wikipedia's relevant policies regarding verifiability and neutral point of view, then we can talk about its inclusion. The unilateral insertion of these claims (again, so-called and identified by Dithridge himself above, not my words) without proper discussion and a consensus decision on it is in poor taste and shows some degree of lack of forethought and appropriate understanding of Wikipedia's policies. While I am LDS, and while I make that no secret, as I said, Wikipedia is not so much about what is true, but what can be verified by sources that are shown to be reliable and appropriately neutral. And I see a lack of that in the wording of the edits I reverted. A consensus decision and the proper following of Wikipedia policy is all I am after. I have had my edits, motivation, and even my character called into question because I failed to follow Wikipedia policies in the past. So I know all too well how easy it is to violate policies even without any intention of doing so. Knowledge is power, and as long as appropriate discussion and a consensus decision are taking place in this matter, that's more than enough to satisfy any concerns on my part. As for me, I always prefer to err on the side of caution and making sure that if there is any doubt in anyone's mind, mine included, regarding the intent of any edit, or if there is any danger that proper policy is not being followed, it is best to revert questionable content and subject it to the process of discussion and consensus than to let it go. If that makes me worthy of criticism in that regard, then so be it. FWIW, those are my thoughts on this. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
At first glance, I think there is no question that this meets WP:V The source says what it says, everyone is in agreement on this yes?. So we move on to WP:RS. Based on our own article of the journal Dialogue_(journal) its a peer reviewed journal, which has been publishing for some 50 years now. The author himself seems slightly weaker, as being an amateur historian, but was published repeatedly on the topic, and again this article was presumably peer reviewed as part of the journal publishing process. Both the journal and the author are writing in their area of expertise and are not making exceptional claims (albeit controversial ones). We certainly should not present this author's viewpoint as WP:THETRUTH but I see very little justification for excluding this POV. This is a single sentence, relevant in its context. Assuming WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is followed, I do not see any WP:WEIGHT issues either. Note that wikipedia's demand for neutrality is a restriction on us, the editors, not the sources we use. In fact per WP:BIASED and WP:YESPOV it is quite often neccesary to present non-neutral viewpoints. In this particular case, I have not seen any evidence that an alternate viewpoint has been published anywhere, so we dont even have issues of WP:FALSEBALANCE. that this POV may be embarrassing or uncomfortable or even Wikipedia:Offensive for LDS believers is really not a consideration. As a meta point, the process here has been largely appropriate. Dithridge was WP:BOLD. You reverted. It has now been discussed (WP:BRD. But short of specifically articulated allegations of policy violation, I think you have lost this argument. ResultingConstant (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Joseph Smith's wives. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)