Talk:Evan Stephens

Alleged homosexuality section
There seems to be a desire to counter every one of Quinn's points in detail in this section. I don't think that's necessary. The section sets out Quinn's views, and then sets out the counter views — both in a fairly general, summarised way. We don't need to get into the minutiae of the details, IMO. Quinn wrote a ton about it and it generated a ton of material rebutting it, and this article can't possibly reproduce it all. That's one reason there are references, so people looking for more information can read them. It needn't be the focus of the entire article. Snocrates 03:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Interviews?
This article states that in interviews conducted in the 1950s and 1990s, Stephens said.... But Stephens died in the 1930s! This needs to be clarified.ukforever (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Homosexuality and Mormonism
This category has been removed a couple of times. The category does not categorize him as a "homosexual Mormon". It indicates that the topic is one that has been significant in the topic of "homosexuality and Mormonism", which the section on his alleged homosexuality indicates. It's the controversy/debate over his sexuality that makes the category applicable, not his actual sexual orientation (which for him can never be proved one way or the other in any case). For example, James O. Mason is clearly not a homosexual Mormon, but he is included in the category due to his promotion of therapy for gays within Mormonism that wish to decrease or change their same-sex attraction. A similar rationale applies to this article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No it does not. There is Zero evidence that Stphens ever had any connection to homosexuality.  Stephens never made any public statements about homosexuality.  He was engaged to a woman and then chose at her death to replace his connection with her with a connection to music.  Those who have tried to use his lack of marriage to prove homosexuality have failed to ever engage with his actual cultural background.  There is no credible evidence that Stpehens was a homosezual, and no reason to use polemical attacks published over 50 years after his death, that among other things used a statement about "gay New York", that was neither in his voice nor in anyway at the time a mention to homosexuality to try to tag him as such.  If Quinn's book alone was enough to tag articles, we should also tag the article on Joseph Smith because Quinn made similar assertions that Joseph Smith was a homosexual.  However those end up being equally as based on unreliable sources.  There is no reason to categorize based on such tendentious, unsupported attacks that rely on misrepresenting what English actually meant in the 1910s.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The issues you address miss the point, I think. One of the primary reasons Stephens is notable is because of Quinn's analyses in his book. The same cannot be said of Smith—Smith is not notable primarily because of Quinn's allegations of homosexuality. Stephens doesn't get all that much coverage otherwise  in sources, especially outside of Mormon publications. The question is not whether or not he was homosexual—you seem to think not, but I don't think at this stage any of us can really know. The question is: what topics are relevant to his notability? (Frankly, the idea of a sexual orientation didn't really exist in Stephens's time, so asking whether or not he was gay is kind of like asking if Joseph Smith was a Darwinian.) For instance, do a google books search of "Evan Stephens"—Quinn's book is the first result. I'm not saying that this is all he is notable for, but I am saying that there is enough of a connection to include a category. He is discussed prominently in Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for instance. Categorizing him in this category does not mean we are categorizing him as a "gay Mormon"—the category for that is —see my comment about James O. Mason above. The same applies to A. Dean Byrd and Carol Lynn Pearson—they are definitely not homosexual Mormons, but they are related to the topic area enough to include them in the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No, the reason Stepens is notable is because he was a major composer and choir director, the preeminent Mormon musical leader in the late 19th and early 20th century. There was at least one full-length biography of Stepehens published well before Quinn's book.  Stephens was clearly and without question a notable person.  Google search results should not be used to back up theories.  Byrd and Mason have clear undisputed connections with homosexuality.  Stephens lacks any such connection.  Stephens is notable because he was a major composer and music leader, not because of disputed claims about his personal life.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I suggested above, that is one reason he is notable. I hope you can also agree that another aspect of his notability is the controversy that Quinn kicked off with his book. Notability can be assigned to a person on a new issue even after they are dead, you know. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

And again
Can we get a consensus on this before Category:Homosexuality and Mormonism is removed again? As I've suggested above, whether Quinn is right or not and whether Stephens was gay or whether he had any desire for sexual relations with men is not really the point. We're not categorizing Stephens in, nor would it be appropriate to do so in the circumstances. What is the point is that Quinn and others have written a significant amount about homosexuality and Mormonism in the context of Stephens's life. Thus the person is relevant to the overall topic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

And again
OK, this is getting repetitive. I'll just repeat my comment from the above section. Can we get a consensus on this before removing Category:Homosexuality and Mormonism again? If needed, we can have a RfC. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Trouble archiving links on the article
Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.
 * https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/content/uuid:344c048a-3f8d-4791-a135-c2cae59f74ed (link updated 2/2/2017)
 * http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=27086&CISOSHOW=27002&REC=12

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Evan Stephens. 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070808011644/http://farms.byu.edu:80/display.php?table=review&id=280 to http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=280

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Sarah Daniels
This article states that Sarah Daniels was Stephens' "great niece", meaning the granddaughter of one of his siblings. However she was just 10 years younger than him, making it virtually impossible for her to have such a familial relationship with him. In fact, both her parents were born in 1838 while Stephens' oldest sibling, Helinor, was born in 1831. Also the ancestry of both as shown in the LDS Church's own "Family Tree" at FamilySearch.org shows they had no common ancestry and no close biological relationship at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekerilaz (talk • contribs) 22:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)