Talk:Children of Joseph Smith

Death date of Joseph Smith Murdock
According to the HISTORY OF THE CHURCH by Joseph Smith Jr., Vol. 1, pg. 265, the adopted son (and twin of Julia Murdock Smith), Joseph S. Murdock, died from complications of a cold and measles on 29 March 1832. The footnote says he was "one day less than eleven months" old at the time which would place his birth as 30 April 1831. Since I don't have a birth date source in front of me I won't edit that. Ok, here it is: Vol. 1, pg. 260. "[Joseph S. and Julia] were born in Orange, Cuyahoga county, Ohio, April 30, 1831.  Emma Smith, the Prophet's wife, had given birth to twins, a boy and a girl--on the same date." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.80.41 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 18 October 2008‎

Allegations of children born to alleged polygamous wives Table
In the section above A Sniper makes a point that the Table in the "Allegations of children born to alleged polygamous wives" section is probmatice. The issues (as I read them from his comments are)


 * 1) For those people listed that have had DNA testing done the DNA showed to a certainty a negative finding.  The DNA testing was done by the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation used Y-DNA testing.  This testing is has been submitted in court.  Those kids are not decedents of Joseph Smith.  So there inclusion in a list of "Children of Joseph Smith" dose seem inappropriate.
 * 2) For the rest, they'll remain rumor and speculation forever, and that really isn't bona fide enough for an encyclopedia.  As the sections opening section says "No children of Smith's alleged polygamous relationships has been shown, to a scholarly consensus"

To play devils advocate, Wikipedia is not Truth. Just because it isn't true that some of all of them are not JS decadents is it V that, at some point in time, some scholars and individuals believe that they were. It is verifiable that they were "Alleged" children. It can also be said that it is WP:POVish to remove them. There is a POV that polygamy started with Brigham Young and not JS. It can be argued that removing the Allegation is pushing that POV.

Personally, I think that A Sniper is correct that this page is not the place for this section. Unfortunately I don't feel qualified to make that call. So I will leave it with A Sniper and others to decide if Removing the table is correct or not.

However, I do have one idea that may solve this issue. What about renaming the page List of children of Joseph and Emma Smith and moving the Allegation table to List of the wives of Joseph Smith. That page is entrialy about "Possible" wives of JS. Even the four "source" of the possible wives don't agree on all. The table can be put at the bottom of that page as "Alleged of children born to alleged polygamous wives" and that table probably has more to do with that page then this one--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ARTEST4ECHO, I appreciate your suggestion and would ask that you implement it. Thanks so much. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't think the page needs to be renamed, but agree that the table is un-encyclopedic and should probably go away. I would recommend re-writing the second paragraph of the Lead, combining some of those multiple (primary) sources, and then adding the names of the alleged children in a footnote. A new paragraph might look something like this:


 * There is evidence that Joseph Smith, Jr. taught and practiced polygamy, and had a number of wives sealed to him. Some scholars have suggested that Smith may have fathered children in some of these polygamous marriages, and there is ongoing genetic research to determine if any descendants of alleged children have Smith's genetic markers, but so far all tests have been negative.
 * Note: I have deleted four primary references in my shortening of the paragraph. I also named all nine children in the second footnote with their DNA testing status. Also, I'm neutral on moving the table to the Wives article. I hope this helps. – Adjwilley (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Adjwilley has some good input, but I have to say that I really think the name should be changed for another reason. This is a list, so it should be name such.  For example, JS father, ie. List of descendants of Joseph Smith, Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 22:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have completed the Table move (as this seems to be the consensus), minus the rename of this page (no consensus). However, if Adjwilley would like to address my comments on 6 December 2011 regarding the name possible name change I would love to hear from him.  I still think that this should be List of children of Joseph and Emma Smith or even List of descendants of Joseph and Emma Smith.  My making it "descendants" we can even including more people similar to List of descendants of Joseph Smith, Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 20:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)