Talk:No Man Knows My History/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Back to basics

I haven't been following this discussion, but I thought maybe I'd insert my two cents. All this discussion about motives and people's religion is, of course, entirely beside the point and a waste of everybody's time. So let's get back to basics, and ask two questions: (1) why are we citing the Perego article, and (2) how much prominence is it due? First of all, if Perego were an apologetic criticism of Brodie, then we would simply treat the article like Nibley. But the Perego article is a scientific analysis, not an apologetic criticism. The article cites Brodie, of course, but only to refer to hypotheses that Brodie posed in her book. It is incorrect to frame Perego as a criticism of Brodie: Brodie presented hypotheses, and Perego answered them with scientific research. It happens all the time in science. So the only purpose of citing Perego in this article would be to provide the answer to Brodie's hypotheses posed in her book.

So how much prominence should we give the Perego article in this article about Brodie? That depends on how prominent the paternity hypotheses are within Brodie. If Perego were never written, would this article even mention Brodie's hypotheses about Smith's paternity? Maybe, but I can't think of a reason why it would comprise more than about a sentence. If so, then mention of Perego would probably just be footnote material. In fact, you could argue that the existence of Perego makes Brodie's hypothesis all the less notable for purposes of this article, given that the hypothesis was wrong. After all, nobody cares much about the few obscure hypotheses that Charles Darwin got wrong in his Origin of Species. If Brodie's hypothesis is not independently a noteworthy issue for this article, then it's hard to see how Perego's experimental work relating to that hypothesis is noteworthy for this article, either. Unless, that is, there is some prominent, reliable, and citable source from mainstream academia that assigns some great and unusual significance to the fact that her hypotheses were not born out by later research.

As to the bit about what Perego said to a FAIR conference, I don't think that's citable. His speech was not subject to peer review, unlike his article in the Journal of Mormon History. De Groote's news article is citable, but here I think we are probably getting pretty derivative. The De Groote article raises the prominence of Perego in an absolute sense, as an important scientific finding, but I don't think De Groote necessarily raises the noteworthiness of Brodie's hypothesis. COGDEN 21:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. How do you think we should proceed? Would you recommend that all the Perego material be relegated to a footnote? If there were to be one sentence in the text, do you have a suggestion as to how it should read?--John Foxe (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's see one short sentence like this minor copy edit of the original addition without the references:

"Renewed criticism of the work came During the 2000s when DNA profiling of descendants of three children identified by Brodie as possibly being fathered by Smith through polygamist relationships—found they were not progeny of Smith."

It is only to address Foxe's objections that the commentary on this issue has gotten verbose. I agree that one sentence is enough. --Trödel 04:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You'd need a reliable source to say "renewed criticism." Plus, such a sentence is WP:UNDUE unless it clearly mentions that publicizing Perego's work was an effort at Mormon apologetics—and most likely not even then. As COGDEN said above, "If Brodie's hypothesis is not independently a noteworthy issue for this article, then it's hard to see how Perego's experimental work relating to that hypothesis is noteworthy for this article, either. Unless, that is, there is some prominent, reliable, and citable source from mainstream academia that assigns some great and unusual significance to the fact that her hypotheses were not born out by later research."

Would it be possible for us to agree that while mention of Perego belongs in an article such as Children of Joseph Smith, it doesn't belong here? In other words could we agree to an article that was Status quo ante bellum?--John Foxe (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It absolutely belongs here. See copy edit above to remove the criticism language. --Trödel 13:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you reply to COGDEN's belief that if Brodie's "hypothesis is not independently a noteworthy issue for this article, then it's hard to see how Perego's experimental work relating to that hypothesis is noteworthy for this article"?--John Foxe (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

He also said, "Maybe, but I can't think of a reason why it would comprise more than about a sentence." The comparison to Darwin is not a good one since Darwin's entire work was presented as a theory with evidence, not as a historical biography. Finally, just going from memory, I believe Compton said something like anyone who would seriously study Joseph Smith's polygamy should begin with Brodie's book and that she was an excellent psychohistorian. Additionally, I've even seen her comments about Buell quoted in response to recent newspaper articles about Mitt Romney. As Vardis Fisher said, "[Brodie presents] as indisputable facts what can only be regarded as conjectures supported by doubtful evidence." We should not ignore one of the few items she claimed that can be proven or disproven. --Trödel 14:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the Vardis Fisher quote to the article, and I have no doubt that there's too much conjecture in Brodie. Furthermore, I think the small steps she took towards psychohistory are weaknesses, not strengths, of the book. But going after Brodie's guesses about the children is petty. As COGDEN said, if her guesses about the kids' paternity aren't a noteworthy issue in Brodie, then Perego's refutation of them isn't either. Besides, I think there's WP:OR going on here. If we don't have a reliable source that says Perego proves Brodie wrong, then don't we have a WP: Synthesis?--John Foxe (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Lets put things in perspective: this small article has only one paragraph about the contents of Brodie's book. If our budget for discussing the contents of her book is a single paragraph, there is no room in that paragraph for something as obscure as her discussion of the paternity hypothesis, which is not a major focus of her book. If this section were larger, and if there were some way to justify mentioning the hypothesis there, then it naturally follows that you'd have to also mention Perego. As it stands now, the Perego research is mentioned in the "Mormon Reactions" section, and I think that's incorrect. Perego is a Mormon, but his research is not a "Mormon Reaction"--it was scientific research following up on a paternity hypothesis which was commented upon--but not originated--in Brodie's book. Like many others, including Mormons, Brodie thought it was likely that at least some of the children of Smith's wives were Smith's. Perego's research is directed at the hypothesis, and he mentions Brodie only as an example of people who touched on the hypothesis. COGDEN 19:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

COGDEN's assessment seems reasonable to me. Gandydancer (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure what COGDEN's assessment is trying to say so please forgive me if I misinterpret it. Just because the article is small doesn't mean that a WP:V source should be excluded when it scientifically shows that the conclusions Brodie made in the book were incorrect. The two are very relevant and very related. If I wrote a book which claimed that Pope John Paul II fathered children, and "The significance and ground-breaking nature of my work is generally acknowledged within the field of Catholic studies.", why wouldn't a DNA test proving my hypothesis was incorrect NOT be relevant. While I agree that "Renewed criticism of the work came During the 2000s when.." was incorrect, I don't think that excluding all the information entirely is appropriate either. That is why the sentence "Since 2003, geneticist Ugo A. Perego and others at the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, have used Y-DNA testing to investigate three of the five children whom Brodie had suggested might have been fathered by Smith in polygamist relationships. The tests proved that none of these three children were engendered by Smith." was added, not my myself. The issue I have is the constant addition of "Mormon geneticist Ugo A. Perego", and other Mormons employed.." and "Mormons attempted to discredit" since these are only an attempt to discredit Perego's "scientific analysis" based only on his religion.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It's an overstatement to say that Perego's research shows that Brodie's "conclusions were incorrect." Brodie repeated, with approval, someone else's hypothesis that a few specific children of his wives might be his biological children. Though Brodie was a prominent voice, she was not the originator of the hypothesis. Perego et al. performed a partial scientific test of that hypothesis, proving that some of the hypothesized children were fathered by other men. Perego's and his colleagues' research is notable in its own right because they have partially settled some of the longstanding questions that originated before Brodie, as to Smith's paternity. And I agree with you that Perego's faith as a Mormon is not relevant to his scientific conclusions. Perego's credentials as a geneticist, and those of his colleagues, are solid, and there is no reason not to consider their genetic conclusions reliable and significant.

What does not, as far as I can tell, seem to be very notable is the fact that Brodie was one of the many writers who viewed the hypothesis favorably. A lot of people have commented on the hypothesis over the last century, and there is still a lot of evidence linking Smith to the daughter conceived during his marriage to Josephine Lyon. But this was not a major thrust of her book. The parts about Smith's paternity were not very long or prominent, and were just one element of her multifaceted exploration of Smith's polygamy and polyandry. More importantly, as far as I know (and you can correct me if I'm wrong), when mainstream academic writers discuss Brodie generally, the fact that she was among the many scholars who favored various Smith paternity hypotheses isn't one of their main topics. There are many other hypotheses Brodie made in her book that have not been sustained by later research. Such is the nature of historical research. Why should we single out this one? COGDEN 20:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that it is rather odd to pick this point out of Brodie's book, I feel that this point, and the Perego quote from the FAIR conference that accompanies it, is a good illustration of "Mormon reaction" to the book. It's not the research so much as the sentiment that makes it illustrative: Mormons see this book as flawed (at best). I think the article is fine with or without this paragraph, but I feel I should at least make clear what justification I would use for its inclusion. As has been stated elsewhere, the point of Brodie's failed speculation on Smith's children, in and of itself, is rather obscure and undeserving of attention on its own merit. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

For me the issue is that this shows the illigitimacy of some of Brodie's work. The fact that she is not an objective historian, she writes to meet her objective, rather than just using facts to reach a conclusion; her conclusion was already made and she ignored data that did not support her objective, is important for uninformed to understand her work. Citing an error her her work assists readers to understand that she gives her opinion often and the book is not historical fact. This is just one area that demonstrates this point. -^StormRider 09:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

But Brodie did not ignore any facts here. DNA evidence simply wasn't available to her. It's like criticizing an oncologist for not using chemotherapy before chemotherapy was invented. Brodie repeated (with appropriate caution) what others had said earlier and added that Oliver Buell looked like Joseph—which he does. There are legitimately negative things you can say about Brodie's book, but this is a cheap shot.

@BFizz. I'm sympathetic to your position, but if we accept the phrasing of the article as it stands, don't we need a reliable source, something beyond Perego, that says, "Mormons believe Brodie flawed because of new DNA evidence"?--John Foxe (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Storm Rider, Perego did not challenge Brodie's objectivity in his peer-reviewed article. Rather, he tested a hypothesis favored by Brodie and many others based on limited information, and falsified that hypothesis based on genetic data. Falsifying a hypothesis does not, in itself, bring into question the objectivity of anyone who favored the hypothesis. If that were the case, then Isaac Newton would lack objectivity because his theory of gravitation was falsified by 20th century tests supporting General Relativity. Even though his hypothesis was wrong, it's possible that Newton was reasonable to support his hypothesis given the information available to him at the time.

Therefore, if we want to use Perego to "challenge the objectivity" of Brodie, then we will need a secondary source in support of the view that Perego challenges the objectivity of Brodie. We cannot cite Perego merely because we, as editors, think that Perego challenges Brodie's objectivity. That would be original research. COGDEN 19:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that Newton's theories were "falsified" as the formulas for general relativity are the same as those for newton's laws when looking at macroscopic events (to speak more precisely, the formulas for general relatively can be simplified through algebra - and are identical to Newton's - if the particles in question are relatively large - i.e. not close to atomic size). Additionally, Newton's laws still accurately describe the phenomena that he was commenting on. In fact, Newton's laws are still taught as valid and used by scientists on non-atomic level problems.

Comparing Brodie's statements to scientific hypothesis is flawed - Brodie did not form a hypothsis based on observable results and then test the hypothesis to see if contrary results could be obtained (i.e. the scientific method). Brodie used conjecture and rumor to paint a picture of Joseph Smith; she ignored information that did not support her view; and she did not test her hypothesis to see if contrary results could be obtained. That she, through her method of writing, concluded that Joseph Smith was likely the parent and was wrong is notable. No one is drawing conclusions from the language that is proposed above - there is no original research being done. Just a reporting of the results. Thus, reporting that years later, DNA evidence showed that her conclusions were wrong should be included.

A better comparison would be to a person wrongly convicted of a crime that is found innocent by DNA evidence. If the original reporting and the original crime were not be notable, the fact that they were released after being wrongfully accused and incarcerated for many years can be notable itself.

I do agree that we would need a source to add to the article that DNA evidence casts doubt on her research and writing methods. --Trödel 21:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Brodie couldn't be scientific in her treatment of this matter because there was no such science available to her in 1945.

Perego also bends his evidence in a very non-scientific way by including in his total three supposed male descendants not even suggested by Brodie, including the mystery man, Orrison Smith, dragged up (I suspect) just to improve his bag count. And I'm still made uneasy because the study wasn't published in a scientific (as opposed to a history) journal. Some of you may know what happened when professional DNA testing supposedly solved the mystery of Everett Ruess in 2009—and then didn't.--John Foxe (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

So its a flaw that he included all the claims for which he could find a sufficient sample. I'm sure that if he had only picked a subset of the available sample then that would be a flaw in his research as well. You have a visceral reaction that Perego is biased for some reason and now are looking for ways to support your theory. --Trödel 03:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Who was Orrison Smith? If Perego is doing science (as opposed to apologetics), why doesn't he provide this information?--John Foxe (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Trodel: you say that you " agree that we would need a source to add to the article that DNA evidence casts doubt on her research writing methods."

My response: I agree, and that's the point. It is a tremendous leap to conclude, based on the fact that a single hypothesis she advocated was falsified, that her entire work is flawed as a whole. You need a secondary source making that intuitive leap. And you can't cut corners and imply that Perego's research has something to do with the overall quality of Brodie's work, because an unsourced implication is just as bad as an outright unsourced statement. Based on the reliable sources that we have identified in this article, there is no reason to link Perego with the quality of Brodie's work as a whole. The best we can do is link Perego with one minor hypothesis in Brodie's work that is not even currently deemed of sufficient importance to be mentioned in the book summary section. If you can find the reliable source, and make the link, I support adding this to the article, but I don't think that has happened yet. COGDEN 22:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

But now it should be included and mentioned in the book summary section because there is evidence it was a false claim. Just like we wouldn't mention some criminal before, but now that it turns out he's innocent it should be mentioned. --Trödel 03:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you and COGDEN that we would need a reliable source stating that the DNA evidence casts doubt on Brodie's "research and writing methods." But Perego's work doesn't speak to either Brodie's research or her writing methods. He brings into evidence new information she did not know and could not know. In this matter, at any rate, Brodie did the best she could with what she had.--John Foxe (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that Brodie's "evidence" could be considered a "false claim". It would seem obvious that children born to some of his wives would be speculated about and included in her book. It also seems obvious that at least some Mormons now consider the fact that at least some of these children have turned out to not have been fathered by Smith is further "proof" that Brodie's book is not accurate. But as a non-Mormon, or perhaps even if I were a Mormon, I see little relationship between the two and agree that this article is not the place to discuss the recent DNA evidence. Gandydancer (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Trödel, I could conceive of adding the paternity hypotheses to the book summary section at some point, but we can't simply add it to the section as it currently exists. We would have to do a large expansion of this section, so that mention of the paternity hypotheses is not unduly prominent in comparison to all the other elements of her book. Either that or, as I said, find a reliable secondary source linking Perego to Mormon allegations about the quality of the book as a whole, in which case the material could be included in the Mormon Reactions section. COGDEN 21:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is not accurate when it states that this book as been the motivation for genetic testing. The source states "Historians and critics have struggled for more than a century to identify children Joseph Smith may have had through polygamous marriages in the 1840s" and "These were people who wanted to join the association because they had read references in books like Brodie's that listed their ancestor as a possible child of Joseph Smith." Only a descendant of Moroni Pratt is mentioned in connection with Brodie's book. I believe that the discussion on this page suggests that the DNA evidence should be removed from the article. Gandydancer (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't say the book has been "the motivation" for testing, but has been "a motivation" for testing; big difference. I've been following the discussion about this DNA stuff since the day an IP user first mentioned it in the article. I haven't said anything thus far, but I will now. I like the way it has turned out. I feel a single sentence about DNA testing is perfectly acceptable in the article. Part of the "academic reception" has been to test her theories, and in reality few can be tested with the exactness of DNA profiling (most of what we "know" is only how we interpret historical documents, statements, etc). Anyways an entire paragraph on the author's Wikipedia page—Fawn M. Brodie—is devoted to how DNA testing has shown that her theory about the father of Eston Hemings has a possibility of being true (as Eston carries the Y chromosome from the Jefferson family). If we can devote an entire paragraph to how DNA has helped her theory about Thomas Jefferson, we can devote a whole sentence to how it has proven wrong her theory about 3 possible children of Joseph Smith.--Mangoman88 (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If you believe the book has been "a motivation" for the DNA testing, then you need an reliable source that says so. In the Brodie article there are plenty of reliable sources about the Jefferson DNA.--John Foxe (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

@Gandydancer - Mangoman88 beat me to it: I intentionally included "a motivation" and not "the motivation" because there certainly were others. The two journal articles themselves also often refer back to Brodie's book for the rationale for including Buell and Pratt as case studies, so I wasn't just basing the edit on the newspaper article. I'm open to motivation not being the right word, but I disagree with you that the DNA stuff should be removed entirely. It is an academic response to a well-known published work. And to satisfy WP:WEIGHT, we limit the discussion to only a few sentences, we push most of the details into the footnotes, we don't place it at the top of the list of academic influences, and we present it as neutrally as possible without playing up any "gotcha" or apologetic factor (which none of the three reliable sources play up). From the above discussion, there are editors who don't think the DNA belongs, but there at least as many editors who think it does belong here. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

We're not nose counting. There's no reliable source on which to base the statement "The book has also been a motivation for genetic genealogy studies to identify possible children of Smith from polygamist relationships." That's your own idea. And without that sentence, the rest of the material falls. I challenge you to find a reliable source. Or if you'd like, I'll be glad to join you in taking the question to another forum of your choice.--John Foxe (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That sentence is supported by both the news article and the journal articles themselves, where, like I stated above, Brodie's book is used to provide the rationale for including Buell and Pratt in their case studies. ...Restoring. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

From the second Perego reference: "...we explore the question of the biological paternity of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock based on historical sources that support a close association between Joseph Smith and the mothers of these two individuals." In the case of Buell, the historical source is No Man Knows My History (see Figure 1 and the first paragraph on pg 131 in the journal article). --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That's synthesis. You're intuiting both Brodie and "basis." To be legitimate, the mental connection you're making must be "explicit" in the sources themselves. I'd be happy to join you in taking the question to another forum of your choice.--John Foxe (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This may be of help: In Perego's 2008 FAIR conference presentation he quite clearly states that it was learning of Brodie's theory of Joseph Smith fathering Moroni Pratt, that caused him to do DNA testing on Mr. Pratt: "After learning of Brodie's reference I agreed to look into this case since I already knew Joseph Smith's Y chromosome profile." Also in this Deseret News article Perego makes mention of Brodie's theories in the book.--Mangoman88 (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Perego's statements on the FAIR website are not a reliable source. Also, the link above does not work anymore. As to mention of Brodie in the articles, the article refer to Brodie's work as referring to the paternity hypothesis, but Perego's articles cannot be described, at least on their face, as responses to Brodie or criticism of Brodie. Certainly, the works are not responses to Brodie's book as a whole. Not being a historian, Perego would not be qualified to do that, so any paper he submitted along those lines probably wouldn't get published. He is a scientist, so he scientifically addressed a particular hypothesis that many historians, including Brodie, had previously posed and expressed opinions about in light of then-existing evidence. It's a big step to say that he went from answering a very specific question posed by Brodie and other historians, to say that his work is a challenge or reaction to Brodie's work as a whole. COGDEN 09:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason why Perego's statements on the FAIR website are not reliable. Perego is stating in his own words his reason for the DNA tests on Moroni Pratt. Perego doesn't need peers to review his reasons for performing the tests; they are his own. What other way is there to get a transcription of his presentation at the FAIR conference other than the FAIR website? I was simply helping FyzixFighter to find where Perego is saying there was an "explicit" connection between Brodie's theories found in the book, and some of the DNA testing he performed (as John Foxe was requesting). I also fixed the link!--Mangoman88 (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

What it comes down to is that its a citation to something that was put up on the internet without having it go through some reliable process. We can cite most mainstream news articles because they are safeguarded by journalistic standards. You can cite journals because they have peer review. You can cite books because they have the backing of a mainstream publisher, and there is usually editing and fact-checking involved. This speech has not gone through any of that. No mainstream academic or journalistic organization has backed the article, and there is no evidence that the article has been accepted in academia as something scholars might cite. Plus, the article has no permanence: there is no guarantee that the article will still be accessible 10 years from now. COGDEN 10:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't like edit wars, but I don't know what else to do when referencing guidelines are not being followed. Gandydancer (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to move on to another forum where we can attract additional opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

@Gandydancer - which referencing guidelines do you see not being followed? The two concerns that I've seen be raised are about WP:WEIGHT and WP:OR. For the former, I (and as noted above, other editors) think this is a significant viewpoint published in reliable sources, although I wouldn't agree that it is not a major aspect of the subject of the page. Because of that, the mention was trimmed down to a few sentences. For the latter concern, again I disagree with you and I've given my reasons above. Have you read the two journal articles? What part of the current wording do you see not being supported, and how would you change the wording to better match with the sources? --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You continue to choose to ignore the issues that John and COGDEN have brought up. Rather than just keep saying "I don't agree", or asking me why I am not in agreement with your position, why don't you first answer some of their objections? Gandydancer (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter, this controversy isn't about wording. FAIR is not a reliable source; no scholarly works or mainstream newspapers have mentioned a connection between Perego's research and Brodie. Therefore the paragraph does not belong in this article.--John Foxe (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree that FAIR is a unreliable source, in this case anyways. I totally understand that FAIR is not a reliable source for many things, but that reliability depends on what kind of information you are citing. For example if someone wanted to know what FAIR was (a apologetic, pro-Mormon research group) the website would most definitely be a reliable source for that kind of information. So, we are looking for somewhere that says Perego did some of the DNA testing because of Brodie's work. In his own words, in his FAIR presentation he says exactly that. Now FAIR sponsored the conference, and Perego agreed to speak at it, he also likely agreed that FAIR would own the rights to reproduce that presentation. Very rarely are presentations published in transcript form, word-for-word, other then on the website or in the journal of the sponsoring organization. Just because the sponsoring organization is FAIR does not mean what Perego himself said at that conference is unreliable. Just because FAIR hosts that transcript it should not be considered unreliable too. It is not FAIR who is making the connection, it is Perego and his reasons for the testing don't require any kind of review, they are his own. It doesn't matter that mainstream newspapers haven't picked this up. The "mainstream" doesn't need to accept Perego's reasons either.--Mangoman88 (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

FAIR might be a reliable source for say, a discussion of Mormon doctrine; but it's not a reliable source for this subject. I've posted a response on the Administrators noticeboard.--John Foxe (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have an additional source for the same information and conclusions.

• Jane Gitschier (January 13, 2009). "Inferential Genotyping of Y Chromosomes in Latter-Day Saints Founders and Comparison to Utah Samples in the HapMap Project" (PDF). The American Journal of Human Genetics. Cell Press: 255 and 258. Retrieved August 15, 2011.

This author published in a Scientific peer-reviewed journal, works for the University of California, came to the same conclusion as Perego, and even references the fact that, after she reached her conclusion, she found out about Perego research and found that they reached the same conclusions in different ways. She then goes on to "source" Perego research in her final Journal submission, that was accepted by the The American Journal of Human Genetics on January 13, 2009.
As to WP:Synthesis two independent DNA researchers did independent study on this subject. WP:Synthesis say "This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.". Since this is no longer "original research" WP:Synthesis dose not apply.
As to WP:UNDUE, I don't see how this applies. This is no longer a "Minority" viewpoint. As I pointed out in the past even the Anti-Mormons Jerald and Sandra Tanner have referenced this "Point of view". There have been Journals, news article, and even websites that discuss this specific research. WP:UNDUE no longer applies since the "Majority" viewpoint is that Bodies conclusions were incorrect.
--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Gitschier refers only to discovering the Smith haplotype in descendants, not to excluding non-descendants. To have duplicated Perego's research, she would have had to have excluded the putative descendants such as Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock. She doesn't.--John Foxe (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it duplicated Perego research. I said it came to the same conclusion as Perego research. Gitschier says "Of particular note, during revision of this manuscript, I was informed by Scott Woodward and Ugo Perego of SMGF that they had previously reported a haplotype, involving a subset of the markers described herein, for Joseph Smith [Jr.] in a Mormon historical journal; the haplotype they reported is identical to the consensus prediction herein.". Then She even then goes on to cite his research. Perego said, when disucssing Gitschier report, "Our methods were different. However, we obtained the same exact Y chromosome profile." Her research back his.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I also find it odd that, here you are willing to accept a statement by Perego, when it came from FAIR, when it backs your POV, but you are unwilling to include a statement from that same conference that shows that he did the work in response to Brodie's claims, because it comes from FAIR.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 20:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The article we're discussing concerns Fawn Brodie's biography of Joseph Smith, and Gitschier refers neither to it nor to Oliver N. Buell or Mosiah L. Hancock, the putative sons of Smith claimed not to be his by Perego. Making the connection between Perego and Gitschier is WP:Synthesis on your part. Even if Perego or someone else should explicitly eliminate Buell and Hancock as Smith's sons in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, we still couldn't intuit a connection between the scientific evidence and a critique of Fawn Brodie. We'd need a reliable secondary source to make that connection, and a conference of Mormon apologists is not a reliable source except in so far as it demonstrates that Perego is a Mormon apologist.--John Foxe (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Since John Foxe refuses to accept anything from FAIR, unless it fits his POV, I have place a request for clarification at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. To find out if the FAIR statement made by Perego and his motivations is considered Reliable.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with that reference so long as it's prefaced with a statement such as "At a conference of the Mormon apologetic organization FAIR, the Mormon geneticist Ugo Perego said....." Of course, that identification wouldn't address the WP:Synthesis or the WP:UNDUE problems with the paragraph.--John Foxe (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That is not the issue at hand. Dose this establish that Perego did the research in response to Brodie claims? We are not attempting to quote him or his statements only establish he did the research in response to Brodie as you keep demanding. To include your statement is inappropriate and bias, since that is not what we are sourcing. As to WP:Synthesis and WP:UNDUE we have supped at last 5 sources that, at a minimum, cite Perego, even if you choose to ignor them, they prove that Perego is no longer "original research" so WP:Synthesis and WP:UNDU no longer apply.-ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 12:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Perego's statement at the FAIR conference is not a reliable source. But the fact that he took part in the conference demonstrates that he's a Mormon apologist and so therefore has a conflict of interest when he presents scientific evidence not documented in a peer-reviewed scientific publication. Your attempt to connect Perego to Brodie's book is both WP:Synthesis and WP:UNDUE.--John Foxe (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This "source" has nothing to do with "conflict of interest" or "scientific publications". You are the one insisting that we link the idea that he did the research, "because" of Brodie's claims before they can be included here. That is what this source is being used for.

I would think it would be a reliable source when what he says (ie the same article) can be found at josephsmithdna.com, a website owned and controlled by Ugo A. Perego himself. He is reprinting it himself on his own website. How can you say it's doesn't reliable source that, as Perego himself says "After learning of Brodie's reference I agreed to look into this case..."--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Additionally "WP:Truth is not the criterion for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article, even if it is on a scientific topic". Your instance that it be a "peer-reviewed scientific publication" is not Wikipedia policy. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." The fact that these are "Historic" journal and if Perego is bias, is irreverent. The sources supplied can have "already been published by a reliable source", even if it is of a historic nature. If you wish to "disprove" them find a WP:V source that says he is wrong.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs)

Sorry, I've lost the thread of what you're arguing here. My point was that we needed a reliable secondary source to make a proper connection between Perego and Brodie and avoid WP:Synthesis.--John Foxe (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Things seem to have quieted down, but I thought some might be interested in a source I found. Mr. Perego has written an essay/chapter in The Persistence of Polygamy: Joseph Smith and the Origins of Mormon Polygamy (Volume 1), which was published in November 2010 by John Whitmer Books. In his essay, one section (which begins on page 242) is entitled "Case #1: Moroni Llewelyn Pratt." I only quickly skimmed the section, but Perego basically talks about Brodie's speculations of Smith fathering Moroni Pratt, and his [Perego's] subsequent DNA testing because of those speculations.--Mangoman88 (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I to have seen that book. The issue is John Foxe has a 10 day block due to his use of a sock-puppet, so it's going to be a few days before he chimes in about this. I agree that it is a good source, but, I'm not sure Foxe would.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

years old? (at publication time)

Hi John Foxe, (re diff)

I can't be totally sure how I would read it the first time through because I had already calculated her age at publication time from birth year and publication year before I got to this part of the article.

IMHO (generally), it's not enough to just be a meaning that someone would likely derive from reading the text. We also should avoid cases where a reader may not get our meaning the first time and has to go back and reread or find other clues to figure out what we meant. Better if they can read straight through and not think about what it means.

It's easy to search for the phrase "years old" but not so easy to search for statements of age that don't say "years old". (or at least I don't have in mind a good way that would work with cirrus)

That problem applies both when searching mainspace for examples as well as when searching within the MOS.

your edit summary said I think that's understood from the context.

That's a matter of opinion unless someone can find a scientific study or a relevant past discussion. Any other opinions?

--Jeremyb (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You admit you weren't confused. I'm wondering who would be?--John Foxe (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think either phrasing is acceptable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No, "admit I wasn't confused" is not a fair statement. Rather, I gave an explanation for why I may not have been a neutral test subject. (I read infobox and made a calculation before reading the relevant part of the article). In any case, are there any objections besides you think it's already obvious? do we have any guides/manuals that cover age as number without "years old"? as stated above I already tried searching WP:MOS but didn't have good search terms to use. --Jeremyb (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Planning to expand/rearrange Reception section, add to Lead, and standardize references

Hello, Wikipedians.

It's always nice to see an article about a book that is more than a blurb. I want to add some additional context in the Lead and Reception that I think is warranted for a book as influential yet also as old as this one. I propose calling the Reception section "Reception" and splitting it into two subsections: Influence and Criticism. Influence keeps most of the current Reception section while Criticism starts at the Vardis Fisher paragraph and is expanded to include additional criticism that contextualizes the book. That information would also be added to the lead so that it remains representative of the article as a whole. Because this could entail large changes for the article, I wanted to bring it up here on the Talk page so that other editors can be apprised and see my reasons and references I have so far without being surprised.

At present, criticism of the book is couched as being from "some scholars," but I think the page as-is understates things. No Man Knows was influential and significant in its time, but a reader might come away from this article with the impression that it remains a singular work on Joseph Smith and early Mormonism even though that is not so much the case and much significant scholarship now in many ways supplants the book's "irreligious fraud" model. There was Jan Shipps's "Prophet Puzzle" challenge, and since then there have been Dan Vogel's "pious deceiver" model, Richard Bushman's "cultural biography" model, and Ann Taves's "skilled perceiver" model (the latter two which challenge Vogel's model, though in two different ways—one indirect and the other direct, and each with different theses and emphases—much as Vogel challenged Brodie's model). Most recently, there's been William Davis's Visions in a Seer Stone, which I don't have a concise description for but is another history that distances itself from Brodie's "irreligious fraud" model. (This book review describes some of that).

The article at present also doesn't mention the misunderstanding of History of the Church authorship and the lack of access to church archival material, both significant drawbacks for the book that Vogel and Marvin Hill have pointed out and which led to Brodie making some stumbles that mean readers generally ought to avoid reading uncritically.

And there's the matter of the book being psychobiography/psychohistory, which has a controversial place in academic history as Michael Shepherd talks about. Since that is part of some criticism of No Man Knows My History, I intend to add some mention of that in the article.

Like I said above, too often book articles are just short blurbs, so it's very encouraging to see this one so fleshed out. I hope to make these edits in the near future so that readers can get an even better idea of the book in the context of Mormon studies and Latter Day Saint movement history.

Oh, this is a bit of an afterthought, but I'd also like to standardize the references. Some of them are rendered in non-standard ways, and in a few cases it's not clear which Bringhurst book is being referred to. If I can identify the Bringhurst references, I'll try to clarify some of that as well. P-Makoto (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)