Wikipedia

Talk:List of Joseph Smith's wives/Archive 1

< Talk:List of Joseph Smith's wives
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Major restructuring proposal

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A major restructuring proposal for all polygamy articles related to Mormonism has been made at Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy#Series and Restructuring proposal. Please visit and give your two cents. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Suppression of facts from reliable sources discussing Smith's abortion of his polygamous children

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A Sniper has deleted the following text, based upon the reviewed work of authoritative historians, comparing it to a "National Enquirer article." A Sniper's emotional response to these facts notwithstanding, these are verifiable facts from reliable sources, and a brief representation of these facts should appear in this article:

The question of Smith's progeny from his polygamous marriages has been raised since his death. [[Genealogical DNA test|Y-DNA genetic testing]] for [[Patrilineality|non-male]] is not possible, complicating the search for Smith's descendants from polygamous marriages. Also, Smith purportedly had [[John C. Bennett|Dr. John C. Bennett]] perform abortions for his polygamous wives to conceal the relationship.<ref>{{Harvnb|Wyl|1886|pp=60–61}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Newell|1994|pp=111}}, [http://books.google.com/books?id=UjHEhhqVu1UC&pg=PA346&dq=%22Sarah+Pratt%22+joseph+smith&sig=ACfU3U2k1uEvCiwbmCI5VoP4iSkUtykeAQ#PPA111,M1 link]</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Smith|1971|pp=113}}, "[[John C. Bennett|Bennett]] was also charged [by [[Joseph Smith, Jr.|Smith]]] with performing abortions, or “embryo infanticide,” a charge that was likely true. [[Hyrum Smith]] alleged Bennett seduced women with the promise "that he would give them medicine to produce abortions, providing they should become pregnant." Zeruiah Goddard claimed Bennett told [[Sarah Pratt]] "that he could cause abortion with perfect safety to the mother at any stage of pregnancy, and that he frequently destroyed and removed infants before their time to prevent exposure of the parties, and that he had instruments for that purpose." … Bennett had a long instrument that was made "of steel and was crooked at one end" that he used for inducing abortions."</ref><ref>[[Sarah Pratt]] recounted a discussion with Smith's son [[Joseph Smith III]] (by [[Emma Smith|Emma]]), <blockquote>"I saw that he was not inclined to believe the truth about his father, so I said to him: 'You pretend to have revelations from the Lord. Why don't you ask the Lord to tell you what kind of a man your father really was?' He answered: 'If my father had so many connections with women, where is the progeny?' I said to him: 'Your father had mostly intercourse with married women, and as to single ones, Dr. Bennett was always on hand, when anything happened. ({{Harvnb|Wyl|1886|pp=60–61}})</blockquote></ref>

(refs here, with links to the original sources). I will listen to what others have to say before editing again. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this lately, and actually wonder if it might be a good idea to re-create the article "Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy" but focus in on his personal practice of it to include things like this, that don't fit well in this list article or the new Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy article. I agree that the information is important, but it doesn't seem to have a good home anymore. Or possibly, change the name of this article and widen its scope. Thoughts?--Descartes1979 (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The list of wives and the description of JS's personal practices really would need separate articles. I think that re-creating "Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy" with a tightly defined focus on his own personal practice of the principle would be useful. I think that a "Brigham Young and polygamy" article along these same lines would also be helpful. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Beaman

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I noted Juden's edit of Beaman. I agree that the word 'bewildering' wasn't necessary; merely a reflection of Bennett's accusation vs. her actual date of becoming a Mormon. Anyway, what is there now is what I believe to be NPOV - it states that the allegations of Beaman being a polygamous wife of JSJr. are based on a) Bennett's exposé, and b) information found in Joseph F. Smith's testimony and book, which includes Noble's affidavit from 25 years after JSJr.'s death. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Your inclusion of "bewildered" was the least of the problems with your edit. Excluding evidence that appears in the cited sources is in fact a severe violation of our NPOV policy. I have restored the information, and expect you to discuss any objections to it here and achieve agreement on any proposed change before making it, rather than in edit summaries after the fact. - Juden (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I haven't removed ANYTHING - if your 'evidence' is formed from info in Bennett's book, that is hardly evidence. The Noble and Snow info (i.e. Noble's affidavit) is from decades later in Utah. Court testimoney? What court? Where? When? Yes, Bennett made allegations in an exposé, and THAT IS MENTIONED. Yes, Joseph F. Smith mentioned an affidavit that Noble did in 1869, and THAT IS MENTIONED. What you're doing is reaching your own conclusion that there was court testimony by these men in the 1840s. Prove it. A Sniper (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course you've removed SOMETHING! No, I am not reporting any "conclusions": I am reporting what Compton wrote. Please stop elevating your own original research over cited material. - Juden (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
What 'original research'? I am only after documentation. If you have references, please insert them, as you've done. I'm most interested in a citation for when Noble made his statement about JSJr. & Beaman sleeping together (and what the exact quote is), and when Snow made his statements. Best, A Sniper (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

D Michael Quinn

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

What's the point of this column? It's all questions marks except for Emma. --JeffryJohnston (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to get a hold of that book and fill the column in. They are question marks because no one has taken the time to go through his book yet. --Descartes1979 (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
(I don't have a copy myself or I would do it. Though I hope to get a copy soon.) --Descartes1979 (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I've got the book, and the list on page 587. I'm not totally sure we should be using this, though, since it is just a list, and not an analysis. But in any case, here's the list:
Emma hale 1827 (8 ch, 1 sb); Fanny Alger 1833, separated 1836 (possibly 1 ch); Lucinda Pendleton (Morgan, Harris) bet. 1838-42; Louisa Be[a]man 1840/1; Zinda D. Huntington (Jacobs) 1840/1 (possibly 1 ch); Prescendi L. Huntington (Buell) 1840/1 (possibly 2 ch); *Elizabeth Davis (Brackenbury, Durgee) 1841/2; Sarah M. Kingsley (Howe, Cleveland) 1841/2; *Sarah Bapson 1841/2; *Agnes M. Coolbrigh (Smith) 1842; Sylvia P. Sessions (Lyon) 1842 (1 ch); Mary E. Rollins (Lightner) 1842, separated five months later to live elsewhere with legal husband; Patty Bartlett (Sessions) 1842; *Marinda Nancy Johnson (Hyde, Richards) 1842; Delcena D. Johnson (Sherman) 1842; Eliza R. Snow 1842 (possibly 1 sb); Sarah A. Whitney 1842; Martha McBride (Knight) 1842; Desdemona W. Fullmer 1842; *Mary Heron (Snider) 1842/3; *Sarah Scott (Mulholland) 1842/3; *Hannah A. Dubois (Dibble) 1842/43 (possibly 1 ch); Emily D. Partridge 1843, separated at his request five months later; Eliza M. Partridge 1843, separated at his request five months later; Lucy Walker 1843; Helen M. Kimball 1843; Elvira A. Cowles (Holmes) [p. 588] 1843; Flora A. Woodworth 1843; Rhoda Richards 1843; Olive Grey Frost 1843 (1 ch); Hannah S. Ells 1843; Melissa Lott 1843; Almera W. Johnson 1843; Maria Lawrence 1843; Sarah Lawrence 1843; Fanny Young (Carr, Murray) 1843; Nancy M. Winchester 1843/4; Ruth D. Vose (Sayers) 1844; Sally A. Fuller bet. 1841-44; *Mary Houston bet. 1841-44; *Sarah Schuyler (Buckwalter) bet. 1841-44; *Olive Andrews bet. 1841-44; *Jane tippets bet. 1841-44; *Aphia W. Sanburn (Yale) bet. 1841-44; *Phebe Watrous (Woodworth) bet. 1841-44; *Vienna Jacques (Shearer) bet. 1841-44; *Lydia Kenyon (Carter) bet. 1841-44
The asterisk (*) "indicates a wife not recognized in traditional histories, even though there is evidence of at least one of the following: the ceremony, sexual cohabitation, or a formal divorce.... The reference to 'ch' is to the number of children born to a union,..." (p. 533) COGDEN 04:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Other authors?

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Has anyone read Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History? I haven't but I understand that it contains a discussion of at least most of Smith's wives (perhaps not recognizing a few identified by Compton or Smith). Should we include his opinions as to the list of wives? Also, D. Michael Quinn has a list that is longer than Compton's. I think that Richard Bushman mainly defers to Compton's list, so we can probably forgo his opinion on the subject. I'm not sure what Dan Vogel does in his biography, but maybe he has a list too. And there might be a few other authors as well worth including. Maybe we need a somewhat different table format to accommodate more authors and more flexibility. COGDEN 07:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Temple Lot Case "Discrediting" Smith's Wives

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

A Sniper has been appending the the text "Discredited by Judge Philips in the Temple Lot Case." This claim is not supported by either the reliable sources Newell 1994 or Marquardt 2005. Furthermore, citing court testimony and the opinion of the presiding judge is acceptable, but certainly not to make the historical judgment "discredited." Rather, it is Joseph Smith III's personal opinions about his father that have been discredited by the historians cited in this article. Frankly, given the weight of this historical evidence and the received opinion of professional historians, all this editing denying Smith's polygamy is properly characterized as a fringe theory mostly promulgated by some RLDS members (a strict minority, I believe) and some Smith family descendants. I'm inclined to delete these POV, unsupported conclusions from A Sniper, but will wait to hear what others have to say. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The silence spoke volumes. Whatever the Judge stated in that case was worth mentioning. That isn't fringe - that's just history. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree both that it is worth mentioning and that "discredited" is not neutral. As to whether the no-polygamy theory is a fringe theory, I think it's probably is under the standards of WP:FRINGE, since all those who currently accept the theory are adherents, and no notable modern independent researchers I'm aware of accept the idea, unless somebody can point me to one. But despite being a fringe theory, it probably deserves brief mention, but no-polygamy theorists should not be place on an equal footing with established and notable mainstream historians. The old 19th century Temple Lot Suit ought to receive brief mention in its own section, but not in a point-by-point comparison with mainstream modern scholars such as Brodie, Quinn, and Compton. COGDEN 04:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, this wasn't about fringe theories - that was the user's argument. The Judge in the Temple Lot case, like the Kirtland Temple case, was not an adherent to anything other than legal procedure. The Judge rebuking testimony is relevant historically. I do agree with you that discredited is iffy - I am the one who placed it there, but my meaning wasn't meant to be anything other than NPOV, from a legal sense. No matter how many plural wives JSJr. had, according to scholars Brodie, Quinn and Compton and others, the Judge in the TL case still wrote at length about the lack of credibility of some on the stand before him. Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Temple Lot case - content here is OR - ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and prohibited on Wikipedia. The court testimony and judge's decision are primary sources and cannot be used by an editor to make a point directly in this article. If valid, third-party historians refer to this material to make judgments/assertions about the various wives, it is their work, with citations, that needs to be cited. Even so, there needs to be discussion about the Temple Lot case in a separate section of the article, with content on historians' assessments, context, what the case was about, etc. Just because no one added an opinion on this two years ago does not make it correct use of material.Parkwells (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
And just becuase you deem this as OR doesn't make it so either. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Edits I reverted

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

De Groote, Michael (July 9 2011). "DNA Solves a Joseph Smith Mystery". Deseret News. Retrieved 25 July 2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) The edits on the children either repeated the fact that Ugo A. Perego found a negative result, or claimed a negative result without any source. The introduction was written in a pov manner and had no attribution. I also removed some apparently pov material cited to a self-published book and to a book with no page number given. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Missing alleged wife? Name correction.

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The record for Sylvia Porter Sessions Lyon includes "Daughter of David Sessions and Patty Bartlett Sessions, who married Joseph Smith one month after her daughter's marriage to him. On her deathbed, Sylvia informed her daughter Josephine Lyons that she was Smith's daughter..."

There is no mention of Josephine Lyons as an alleged plural wife to Joseph Smith.

Also, is the family name Lyons (given as Josephine's) or Lyon (given as Sylvia's)? 130.76.32.212 (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Louisa Beaman was recently changed to a stub, where it previously had been a redirect to List of Joseph Smith's wives. As there really isn't much there that isn't/can't be said on Beaman's entry at ..List of Joseph Smith's wives.., I don't see a reason why we should have a stand alone article for her. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Merge - I agree there isn't a reason why we should have a stand alone article for her.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Do not Merge. I do not agree that there should be a merge. This article can be fleshed out. It currently has additional information than the information in the List of Joseph Smith's wives article. There is more to Louisa Beaman than being a wife. She lived in Palmyra at the time Joseph Smith got the gold plates. At one point he hid those plates in her family's home. We need this "stub" as a catalyst for contributors to this important article. Loveonearth (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Separate topics so separate articles. Maybe if literally the only thing she was known for was a relationship to JS, then maybe-- but that's not the case here-- subject is notable beyond her role as a wife to JS. (e.g. She was also a wife to Brigham Young, for example). --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Merge - I have always thought that merely being someone's partner shouldn't merit a stand-alone article...especially when so much time has gone by and nothing has been added. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge. Agree that there's nothing much that merits a separate article. The names of the plural wives should redirect to this article, unless they are independently notable for another reason. Beaman is not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Minor Issue: "Quorum"

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is a minor issue, but it might matter for non-Mormon readers. Currently the first sentence says, "During his lifetime, Smith and the leading quorums of his church publicly denied he taught or practiced it." This is an uncommon use of the word "quorum" and it is possible that only Mormons will understand the sentence easily. Perhaps "council", "committee", or "other leadership" would be more appropriate. Otherwise, the word should be a link to an explanation.Rscragun (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Quorums is the correct usage, and we have an article describing the Latter Day Saint usage of the term, so added the wikilink to it. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Updates from LDS Church

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing new or groundbreaking, other than the LDS Church is publicly acquiescing to much of what historians and scholars in Mormon studies have been publishing for many years about Joseph Smith's wives. This new development adds more to a relatively new chapter in the complicated relationship between Mormonism and history, and info about this recent event would belong on that article, along with info about the other semi-recent "Gospel Topics" articles about difficult/controversial subjects. —Asterisk*Splat→ 22:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I removed self-referencing links to Marinda Johnson Hyde, and also slightly revised the Orson Hyde article today in light of a mention of the new LDS position that I mentioned in that talk page. Frankly, I don't understand why these incomplete entries are in this article, except to acknowledge at least rumors questioning the paternity of Hyde's children. The program that I heard acknowledged that some of Smith's wives were child brides, as well as that some (presumably others) had been married to other men, which caused probblems in developing Mormon theology, but I don't have time for the research.Jweaver28 (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Re Todd Compton's status w rgd list

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

...see opening cmt @ Talk:Todd Compton#Status @ lede as current go-to expert on JS wives.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Identities

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Sarah Ann Whitney merge

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

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)

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Joseph_Smith%27s_wives/Archive_1&oldid=1153139320"