Talk:Fanny Alger

Revert
Please explain the reversion of my edits. You're edit summary mentioned only two things which could have easily been fixed without wiping out everything else. --ErinHowarth 21:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -See my subsequent edit summaries -- Trödel 22:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your edit summaries help me better understand what you're attempting, but offer little opportunity for discussion. At Help:Reverting, it has been suggested that:
 * "Be sure to add the word "revert" (or "rv") to the edit summary, along with a short explanation if it is not obvious.
 * Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism.
 * What's important is to let people know why you reverted. This helps the reverted person because they can remake their edit, but fixing whatever problem it is that you've identified..
 * A nice thing to do is to drop the note on the Talk page first, and then revert, rather than the other way round.
 * If a user makes an addition which you consider POV or generally bad, rather than revert them and hope not to be reverted again, a more productive option is to move their content to the article's talk page where it can be discussed.
 * In that spirit, I should like to discuss the following items:
 * This sentence was deleted because it was found to be too similar to a sentence by another author"The undocumented wedding of Fanny and Joseph is suspected to have taken place in Kirtland, Ohio sometime in 1833 when she was sixteen years old and Joseph was 28. At that time, Fanny was living in the Smith home, perhaps helping Emma with house work and the children."However, the year in which it may have occured is important, as well as the place it occured and the age of the participants, and the fact that she was living in the Smith home at the time the event is alleged to have happened. So this information needs to be worked back in.
 * Fannie Alger's family background is not clear. Althought the following informaiton is referenced: Alger's parents were neighbors of the Smith's  another author quoted in the same work identifies Fannie as an orphan.  Another contemporary is quoted as saying that Fannie went to live with her "relatives" rather than her parents.
 * Why is the LDS template inappropriate for this article?

LDS Template
The following copied from User Talk:Trödel "Generally navigation templates like LDS are only used on the pages that are links in the template itself, and, sometimes, other major articles. We generally don't include them on articles related to the topic which are not central. Thus I removed it from Fanny Alger, but left it on Kirtland --Trödel 02:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)"
 * I disagree that this is how such Templates are used. I would point to Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and List of Coptic Orthodox Popes of Alexandria as pages with the Eastern Orthodox template but are not listed on the template while Byzantine Empire is listed in the template, but does not appear.  Your reply itself indicates that your selection of on which to place the template is discretionary.  I want to presume good faith, but it certainly appears that you are selecting these with an eye to which page portrays the church in a positive light.--Counsel 03:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am leaving the template off for now but would be interested to hear other opinions.--Counsel 03:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Major restructuring proposal in a related article
A major restructuring proposal for all polygamy articles related to Mormonism has been made at Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy. Please visit and give your two cents. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

First Plural Wife?
I believe that the statement at the beginning of the article, referring to Fanny Alger as the first plural wife of Joseph Smith, is misleading. This statement hints that their were more plural wives. Fanny Alger is actually the only known plural wife of Joseph Smith. I think that this should be cleared up in the article so as not to mislead people.--Fizzos98 (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Smith was sealed to many women. Whether they were wives in the traditional sense or not is debatable.  But Alger does not fit the pattern.  She would have been sealed years before sealings became known of, and the time frame between her and subsequent sealings are years.  No, more likely was that the rumor of an affair were simply false, and now anti-Mormons (and some Mormons) are claiming her to be a plural wife.  70.187.149.39 (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are both wrong - Alger is attested by many as the first polygamous wife, including several prophets, and church historians. You may dispute this, but you can't say categorically that anti-Mormons are taking hold of this for their purposes. --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fanny should not be referred to as a "wife" since polygamy was illegal. To the extent that sex was involved, this was an adulterous relationship not a "marriage."

Fanny Alger: to be deleted?
Whatever one's view on Alger, she does not meet the notability guidelines as I had on the deleted (by Descartes1979) tag. She is notable only based on her relationship with a person of notability. Any secondary source material mentions only this relationship. She did not invent anything, did not hold any office (including church), and is in no other way notable. Even the article is based on a couple of questionable websites. Discuss then... Best, A Sniper (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This was on my deletion request: With all due respect, I would submit that Fanny Alger is only notable for having been an alleged polygamous wife of Joseph Smith, Jr.. Although she has been mentioned in reliable secondary source material, it is exclusively re: the above noted relationship with a famous person. I am concerned with the deletion reasoning that relationships do not confer notability. Alger was not notable for anything else: she received no notable awards or honor, did not make a widely recognized contribution in any field, did not write anything that was published, or receive notoriety for anything other than the allegation that she was a (secret) polygamous wife of a famous religious figure, whom she did not live or have children with. Alger should not have her own article when she can be mentioned in others, such as the article on Smith, Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy or List of the wives of Joseph Smith, Jr.. Notability (people) states that if "person A has a relationship with well-known person B (it) is not a reason for a standalone article on A", yet "person A may be included in the related article on B", which is already the case with Alger. Lastly, I would note that the bulk of the article relies on three unreliable sources: a website with a newspaper clipping and two parts of a non-credible website. A Sniper (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - First, there are reliable sources on this matter - I tried to add a couple of them in, though some of them elude me since I don't have copies of In Sacred Loneliness and Mormon Enigma. Second, I think that Fanny Alger has special relevance to the Latter Day Saint movement as Smith's first alleged plural wife. There are some historians that think it was because of Smith's extramarital affairs such as the one with Alger that caused him to come up with the polygamy revelation in the first place - to placate his wife Emma. Sure, Alger would be unknown if Smith had not married her - but then Monica Lewinsky would have been unknown if she had not had her special relationship with Bill Clinton. Also, the guide WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not an official guideline of the Wikipedia - and the fourth example in the essay on this point is actually an argument for inclusion of this article - that is to say the following statement is a fallacy: "Fanny Alger cannot be notable because it's Joseph Smith which is notable, and notability is not inherited." --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Another quick note - if Alger had been an obscure cousin or other relative or associate of Joseph Smith I could understand how this would not be notable. However, the relationship itself between Smith and Alger is what adds notability to the article. She wasn't just his wife, and she wasn't just another polygamous wife, she was his first polygamous wife(I know I know - that point is disputed, but still...), and may have played a crucial role in the development of polygamy in the LDS movement. --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For me you just added fuel to the deletion bid: may have and disputed. You see, even her role as a polygamous wife isn't 100%...and what do we have left? Nothing. Did she write hymns? Was she a leader? Did she make a horrible pioneer trek and assist the elderly? Did she make Smith babies for the otherwise fertile JSJr? Nope. Even Eliza Snow is notable for writing hymns. Best, A Sniper (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Descartes1979, could you please clarify the G.D. Smith sentence that mentions Nauvoo? Alger's alleged marriage was a decade before the Nauvoo period - does this infer that the marriage was in Nauvoo or that people in Nauvoo ten years later attested to the marriage a decade before? I also added Foster's quote that there is no proof that JSJr. and Alger were ever married, even though he states there is evidence that the two had a sexual affair. If Compton and Brodie have indeed speculated that Alger was an actual wife, then certainly having a mere tryst with JSJr. doesn't qualify for an article - I mean, she was no Monica Lewinsky (writing books, etc. - in fact, Alger would never admit to the marriage, anyway, so this isn't even a reflection of her own belief or claim). ;) Best, A Sniper (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Orrison Smith
I've removed the mention of Orrison Smith as a son of Fanny Alger because I can't find him mentioned anywhere but in this Deseret News article, which I suspect may be an error. I'd be happy to learn differently if someone can enlighten me.--John Foxe (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Family tradition" is just too much of a stretch; it's like quoting a website. And the whole thing sounds hokey.  If she gave the boy away, would she have given him the name "Smith"?  If the child was not Joseph's, that would mean she had to have had another partner at least nine months before she married Solomon Custer, and the dates are almost prohibitive. You'll notice that I've left out all the gossip about a possible child.--John Foxe (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe I misunderstood for first comment above, but it seems like you just moved the goalposts from a question of a reliable source to a question of undue weight. The reference I provided is a reliable source in an actual journal (as opposed to a news article) and if that reliable source thought there was enough credible evidence from their background research to include Orrison as one possible case study, then I think that should be good enough for us. I do understand the concern of undue weight and don't think that it deserves a full section given the single reference. I'll try be reducing the section to a single or a couple sentences and add it to the existing section. --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your edit. I wasn't trying to be promotional, but it certainly sounded like it once you cut the sentence.
 * I don't currently have access to JMH. It would be helpful if you could track down the reference and see what the article is actually claiming about Orrison Smith. Who is this fellow?  When and where was he born?  And why would the descendants think he was a son of Fanny Alger and Joseph Smith? Is there any evidence that he's the son of Alger and not Smith?  Obviously these sorts of questions influence how much weight is given to him here.  I do think that if you mention this fellow in the text then the gossip about the Fanny being pregnant has to be mentioned as well, and personally, I'd like to steer clear of that sort of thing.--John Foxe (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Afd
I've been around Wikipedia for more than half its history, and I've never seen something as odd as what I've just witnessed. After I completely rewrote this article using reliable sources, A Sniper eliminated all my edits and restored the old, poorly sourced article. Then he got an AfD tag. If the article's going to go through the AfD process, the decision should be made on what's there instead of what used to be there.--John Foxe (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)