Talk:No Man Knows My History/Archive 2

FyzixFighter vs. Perego
FyzixFighter has twice removed a mention of Ugo Perego's Mormonism, complaining that it has nothing to do with the subject of his study. Nevertheless, in Perego's Mormon testimony (which FyzixFighter has twice removed), Perego says, "I gladly took the challenge of finding personal ways to reconcile theological and scientific truths....When asked for an opinion based on my personal research work about topics such as the biblical account of the creation, Adam and Eve, Noah’s flood, the historicity of the Book of Mormon, etc. I strive with all my heart to provide an objective and yet edifying answer that can help others know that a reconciliation between scientific and spiritual evidence is indeed possible."

At the FAIR conference, Perego said, "If you own a copy of Fawn Brodie's book, you can now write in the correct information and make history straight." Although he's really criticizing Brodie for living in the last century rather than for making an error, I don't mind a little gloating after all the work he's done. But those are the words of an apologist, not a scientist.

Frankly, I opposed inclusion of this material in this article because the subject is of interest only to LDS. I tried to find non-LDS references and came up dry. No one outside the LDS community seems interested, not the scientific community, not the mainstream press, not even those whom the LDS consider anti-Mormon. The whole subject's a sleeper except to Mormons. However, I realized that if the paragraph were written to emphasize Mormon apologetics, then references to say, coverage by FAIR could easily be accommodated. For those several reasons Perego needs to be identified as a Mormon.--John Foxe (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As for "only of interest to the LDS", this isn't really surprising, considering Brodie's work is a biography of Joseph Smith, you wouldn't expect a typical non-LDS scholar to take any interest in her speculation being disproven.
 * I don't see anything wrong with identifying Perego as a Mormon; I also don't see anything wrong with identifying the Deseret News or FAIR similarly. WP:LABEL does not apply: the word "Mormon" is not contentious, and additionally, the guideline clearly states, "Value-laden labels...are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". Deseret News is clearly LDS-owned, and FAIR is clearly Mormon. I do find the final sentence unusual: "The results were publicized by the [LDS-owned] Deseret News and the [Mormon] Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research." Why is this sentence in the article text? Perhaps it would seem more fitting if we made it explicit that these publications used Perego's study specifically to criticize Brodie's speculation. ...comments? ~B F izz 23:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Describing Deseret News as LDS Owned - it is not widely used by reliable sources to describe the newspaper. I agree that the entire sentance is not needed. Additionally, Perego's study was not specifically to criticize Brodie - but was to identify if claims of JS paternity were true - with willing participants who could be properly identified as descendants of the claimed children of JS. -- Trödel 01:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article on Deseret News says it's owned by "a for-profit business holdings company owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (colloquially known as the Mormon or LDS Church)."
 * I've made changes in the text to indicate that LDS apologists have used Perego's research in an attempt to criticize Brodie.--John Foxe (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither FyzixFighter nor Trödel have replied to my comments above nor to those of B F izz. (FyzixFighter is especially notorious for refusing to participate in discussions.) Please answer my objections below before you simply revert.--John Foxe (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While the study itself might not have been a "Mormon reaction", the two mentioned publications clearly were, so I think the paragraph fits well in the "Mormon reactions" section. ...comments? ~B F izz 19:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with Trödel and B_Fizz that the last sentence is awkward, and agree that the entire sentence is irrelevant if not wrong with respect to the final clause. I don't see either of those sources as truly using Perego's study "specifically to criticize Brodie's speculation", as B_Fizz put it above. John Foxe says he sees it - Do you see it B_Fizz? IMO the Deseret News article appears that it is merely reporting the results of Perego's research, which isn't really a "Mormon reaction". The FAIR reference could be a "Mormon reaction", but again I don't see it as criticizing Brodie's speculation, merely stating that with modern science her speculations have been checked and shown to be wrong. Saying that someone is wrong is not necessarily criticism. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm most concerned that the reader understand that this paragraph is strictly apologetic, that no one outside the LDS Church (not even the CoC, interestingly enough) cares about it. All the Mormon connections need to be labeled to make the apologetic purpose clear, not deliberately hidden in an attempt to prevent reader understanding.--John Foxe (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Trödel, those connections aren't clear to the casual reader; that's why you want to hide the information. Just ask the non-initiated in the Wiki community—which we will shortly unless you agree to allow those references to appear.--John Foxe (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree that, in general, the main people that care about Joseph Smith's children are members of the various LDS denominations; we should limit to reporting the facts that the result of the research was to show an example of allegations made by Brodie that were not true. If there was bias in the scientific approach, or the methods were in some way compromised or there were some question about the validity of the results, it would make sense to include a possible source of that bias. But in this case there has been no legitimate allegations of bias against Perego. By including a possible source of bias, we are implying that his scientific report is suspect and here is why. -- Trödel 17:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The research would never have been done if Perego had not been a Mormon. Deseret News and FAIR would not have publicized it unless they could make an (unstated) apologetic case for Smith's probity and against Brodie's—a weak case, in my opinion. The bias is obvious on its face, and you're trying to hide that bias from the reader.  The paragraph admits that Perego is correct in his DNA research, so there should be no question of its validity. (We can restate it if need be.) But the sentence should frankly state that Perego is a Mormon, that the research organization he works for was founded by a prominent Mormon, that Deseret News is owned by the Mormon church, and that FAIR is a Mormon apologetic organization. Then let the reader try to figure out why LDS heavy guns are being brought to bear on trivia that even anti-Mormons haven't deigned to dispute. My mental picture is of guys sitting around a key-chain flashlight and claiming they're getting warmer.--John Foxe (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Foxe. Foxe keeps saying that this research only matters to "Mormons" and is only published in "Mormon" magazines, and it was only done because Perego is a Mormon.  Anti-Mormon groups don't care only because Perego's research came out as it had.  The only reason they haven't "mentioned it" is because it came out the way it did. Additionally a large number of sects within the Latter-day Saint movement probably care.  For example, GateHouse Media, Inc. published in Independence, MO, a location with lots of Sects (most notably the Community of Christ), since this is something interesting to more then Perego brand of Mormonism.  I see no justification for adding the statement you have since it creates undo weight in suggesting that his research is flawed since he's Mormon.  Simply put his religion is irrelevant.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If all you can come up with outside Deseret News and FAIR is a letter to Gatehouse Media, you've proved my point that Perego's research matters only to the LDS. Perego would not have done his research unless he was a Mormon. References to his statements suggesting that fact have been removed repeatedly. You are deliberately trying to hide information that the casual reader of this article would like to know. We need to move to a forum where we can bring in non-Mormon opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

While Perego's motivations for performing the study are largely irrelevant to this article, I still see no harm in mentioning he is a Mormon. Mentioning he is Mormon does not necessarily undermine his study; the reader can determine for himself whether the results are believable. ...comments? ~B F izz 06:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

 * Hi there. I actually am a "casual reader" so perhaps my opinion is helpful.  I am a non-Mormon and highly critical of  many aspects of the church, however I see no reason to mention that the DNA testing was done by Mormons and I believe that to include it would suggest that it may be biased.  That information is provided by the links.  Gandydancer (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Gandydancer. That the very issue that most of the "Bias" Mormons here have been stating.  As to B Fizz statement about no harm being done, statements like "Mormons attempted to discredit.." and including a reference to the religion is in fact introducing an element of “Bias” into the article.  Would you see "no harm" if I changed the first line to  "....Anti-Mormon Fawn McKay Brodie...."? The harm is that the article is no longer WP:NPOV.  If Perego's motivations are "largely irrelevant to this article" then what reason should the be included, other then to introduce bias?--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, in attempt to show that more the "Mormons" care about this research, I went looking and found The Persistence of Polygamy, which cites Perego's DNA work regarding JS. I find this a really good example since it:
 * 1. Was written by Craig L. Foster, a Mormon and Newell G. Bringhurst, PhD, "a liberal bleeding heart Democrat" who "isn't a regular, orthodox LDS" and is a "Cultural Mormon" (i.e. a Mormons who no longer believe some (or many) of the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but who self-identify as Mormon).
 * 2. Published by the NON-Mormon owned John Whitmer Books, which is known for its focus on the broader Latter Day Saint movement, i.e., the history of denominations other than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
 * 3. Is found, and sold on the decidedly "Anti-Mormon" website Utah Lighthouse Ministry.
 * So this book was written by a Mormon and a almost not a Mormon, punished by a Non-LDS but Latter Day Saint movement interested publisher, and sold by Anti-Mormons. All three wrapped up in one book.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I'm not a geneticist, I have no reason to question the DNA testing done by Perego and associates. But the paragraph in question is Mormon apologetics nonetheless. That must be made clear.  One key to demonstrating Perego's apologetic motives is Orrison Smith. Who is Orrison Smith?  Perego does not tell us.  Who suggested he was a descendant of Joseph Smith?  Perego does not tell us.  What Perego does say is that he's proved that Orrison Smith is not a descendant of Joseph Smith. That sort of procedure is not scientific; it's not even good history.  But it's good apologetics; and Perego is a Mormon apologist. Don't hide that information from the reader; let him decide if it's important to the story or not.
 * I'm a patient guy, and until non-Mormons agree that I'm wrong, I'll continue to take this point up the Wikipedia ladder of dispute resolution unless we can agree on a compromise.--John Foxe (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I did a little more reading of the issues. I would agree that this edit was not appropriate:
 * Renewed criticism of the work came during the 2000s when DNA profiling was performed on the descendants of children—who were identified by Brodie as being fathered by Smith through polygamist relationships—finding that all the subjects tested were not progeny of Smith.[14][15]
 * From what I've read on this page this edit seems to have made a big deal "gotcha" out of something from the book (that I have never heard of) that would have left me wondering if the author was making other "wild" claims as well, when in truth (it seems) she merely questioned who fathered some children. But it is my feeling that the info now seems non-biased and I still do not believe that the scientist's religion should be mentioned.  If a Jewish or German American were doing Holocaust studies it would not be appropriate to specify that information.  As for the the news source, couldn't it be compared to The Christian Science Monitor, for instance? Gandydancer (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% that the OLD edit you have listed was "POVish", and it has correctly been changed. Therefor, this is not the question at hand.  Currently  the page reads and has read for quite some time:
 * 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."
 * This issue now is the constant attempt by John Foxe to push a "It comes from a Mormon so it must be bias" POV.  As it read here it is wp:NPOV, has all the information, reference and notes needed, and is complete.,  It should be left AS IS.
 * @John Foxe, info on Orison Smith is in the report Perego et al published in 2005: "Todd Compton argues that Fanny Alger was Joseph Smith’s first plural wife... Even though Compton reports that Fanny was probably pregnant when she left Kirtland in 1836, there is insufficient historical evidence to show that she had a child by Joseph Smith, or that she already had a child when she married Custer... During this research work, we came in contact with an individual who believed that his ancestor, Orrison Smith, could have been a son of Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger, according to family tradition." pp 51-53 - see footnote 17 pdf link. -- Trödel 17:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence that demonstrates Fanny Alger ever had a son. (If she did, she certainly wouldn't have named him "Orrison Smith.") My questions have not been answered: Who was Orrison Smith, and who was the individual who believed him an ancestor? Perego does not tell us. That's a cheap shot. Suppose I claimed that my ancestor "Ebenezer Alger" was the son of Joseph Smith and Perego decided to prove that wasn't so.  Hey, that's one more non-descendant of Smith he can brag about. As I said, lousy science, lousy history, great apologetics.--John Foxe (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmm. So Orrison Smith isn't mentioned by Brodie, so this becomes a major point of why we should include that he is Mormon? Not sure I follow you here, especially since there is plenty of evidence that Alger had a son - she had 9 children and died in the home of her son in 1889. So after all these allegations that JS had this son and that son, those aren't cheap shots but what exactly??? And then trying to identify whether the allegations are true or not is??? Seriously???
 * "Lousy Science" - I think that says it all - you feel that the science is lousy because Perego is a Mormon and that demonstrates bias; thus you insist that non-neutral descriptions of Perego are included to insinuate that he is biased. This despite the fact that there is absolutely NO evidence that the science is lousy and plenty of evidence that the Sorenson Molecular Geneology Foundation is respected in academic circles and quoted in matters related to genetice identification that have nothing to do with Mormonism. -- Trödel 01:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My use of the phrase "lousy science, lousy history, great apologetics" referred not to Perego's work as a whole but only to Perego's proof that one Orrison Smith was not a child of Joseph Smith, thereby adding to his total of males proved not to be Smith's children by polygamous marriages. Orrison Smith is an unknown person named by no authority I know of to be Joseph's child.  And where did Perego get the name "Orrison Smith"? From some descendant who he doesn't name.  At best that's "lousy science, lousy history, great apologetics."--John Foxe (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2
First. I am also going to Request Temporaty protection to stop this edit war. Second, since Foxe's desire is to push the POV that any "Mormon" who dose legitimate scientific research done, any news story written, or any Wikipedia edit made by a "Mormons" must be biased and therefore must be suspect, flawed and removed, and he refuses to except any consensus he doesn't like biased on a flawed (since not all the editors are Mormon) and prejudice view that any editor who disagrees with him must be Mormon and must be working together to build consensus against him, I have opened a Proposed community topic ban. He continues to attack people biased strictly on a flawed religious prejudices, and enough is enough.


 * Just to be sure I am understood, I am aware that the old edit is not currently an issue - I just wanted to point out the diff in what I felt to be a biased edit as compared to the current reading. John, I am a non-Mormon.  Many years ago a family member became a Mormon.  Since it was so important to her, I read the book, etc.  None of us (family) can understand it - she is extremely bright, talented, and successful and yet somehow she, in our opinion, seems to swallow, hook, line, and sinker what we all consider absolute rubbish.  I disclose this personal information so that you can understand that I have what could be called a personal bias against Mormonism.  But I do strongly feel that in this case you are of the wrong opinion. Gandydancer (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with your differing opinion although I think you might have better explained your reason for disagreement. In any case, one non-Mormon does not a consensus make.
 * BFizz (who is LDS) made this comment above: "While Perego's motivations for performing the study are largely irrelevant to this article, I still see no harm in mentioning he is a Mormon. Mentioning he is Mormon does not necessarily undermine his study; the reader can determine for himself whether the results are believable. ...comments? ~B F izz 06:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And Dougweller wrote the following on the Noticeboard: "I'm a bit concerned that this isn't published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, and puzzled why it hasn't been if the author is as prestigious as our article makes him sound. Ugo A. Perego has a PhD in genetics and has some respectable publications but he doesn't seem to have published this outside of Mormon-related venues." Dougweller (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * --John Foxe (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dougweller staments now no longer apply since I have shown they are infact "peer reviewed" by accredited by three "independent peer reviewed scientific" accreditation accreditation companies. They are capable of establishing familiar relations in a court of law.  A fact you conveniently ignore.
 * BFizz statement has been replied to by your precious NON-Mormons and he has said that there is infect a bias implied by mention it.
 * You missed on one other major point. I AM NOT A MORMON in any since of the words you use.  I do not belive in the Mormon doctine, or JS, not to I attend any LDS chruch, nor do I attend a Mormon sect in order to learn doctrine.  If I attent my sect, it's becuse my family gose and I enjoy the seeing frind I haven't seen in a while, and my family has History in the Latter-day Saint movement.  Again I AM NOT A MORMON.
 * So again I ask how many "Non-Mormons" dose it take, and why dose it take "Non-Mormons" in the first place. There are Two Non-Mormons that have agreeing with the others to reach the consensus that your comment imply your own personal biased against Mormons.  It shouldn't even take a Non-Mormon in the frist place, just like it should take "White people" to reach a consensus on "Black Research".  Demaining that only Non-Mormons can reach a consensus is bigoted religiously motivated discrimination.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 21:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * QUOTE "although I think you might have better explained your reason for disagreement" /QUOTE Frustrating - I did explain my reasons.  Did you read my previous posts? Gandydancer (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The are multiple problems with your logic above. First, similar to ARTEST4ECHO's comment above, the research has appeared in respected, independent, peer-reviewed scholarly journals. Second, it is actually common to not reveal the identity of living individuals who contribute DNA in genetic studies because of confidentially agreements and general research ethics in the field of genetics. Third, Perego is not an apologist - an apologist would not say (quoting Perego in the DN article): "I look at the data objectively. I don't care if the results are positive or negative. It doesn't affect my trust in religion or in science. If I were to find a child from Joseph Smith from a plural marriage, I would think that was cool because we would learn something more about what was going on." And finally, I have to agree with the above comment - it shouldn't even take a non-Mormon in the first place. That entire line of argument violates WP:NPA and WP:ADVOCACY and WP:RGW and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT etc.
 * @Gandydancer - welcome to dealing with John Foxe. Again, classic case examples of WP:IDHT. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3
ARTEST, putting this in terms of "mormons" versus "nonmormons" being like white and black is improper. The key here is "vested interest" and the (lack of) ability to analyze from a neutral point of view. "Non mormon" is not the same as "anti mormon". Outside opinions would be incredibly valuable here- editors who don't have a vested interest. This rules out vocally anti-mormon and vocally pro-mormon viewpoints. For instance, allowing only mormons to edit the page would result in a biased viewpoint. tedder (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I totally disagree with you and I feel I can argue the point. However, as a jester to Foxe I am going to temporally suspend my involvement in Mormon/Non-Mormon issue, until after I get a response to my message to Foxe, "Minor Olive Branch", per my part of the Olive Branc.  Please don't think I agree with you or don't think I can argue the point, I only want to take the first step in trying see if a minor agreement can be reached on the Mormon/Non-Mormon thing.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 23:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify my own position on the matter: I don't really think these details are a big deal; I would be fine either way on saying Perego is Mormon or not. I've tried to help make sure the text is germane to the article, and I think we've ended up with an acceptable sourced paragraph. I will leave the debate about minor variations up to the rest of you. I recommend you pinpoint the textual differences you are debating, and ignore the motivation behind other people's edits. ...comments? ~B F izz 21:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Tedder - what you describe is exactly what Foxe has been attempting to do - he wants the article to identify all the Mormons in order to setup a construct that the legitimate criticism of Brodie can't be believed because the criticizers are Mormon - thus distracting the reader from examining the merits of the criticism. He is also the one on here accusing everyone that does not agree with his version of the article as being Mormon collaborators. There should only be neutral viewpoints. The facts should be presented and the reader allowed to evaluate the merit of the information without ad hominem NPOV descriptive terms sprinkled throughout the article -- Trödel 02:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Cooling-off period
I am taking a self imposed "cooling-off period" until Monday. I admit I'm a bit hot. My absence is not meant to imply I agree with Foxe or that I don't think my argument are still valid. While not pare of the agreement, I would like to suggest a over all "cooling-off period", on this page only, as a gesture of good will by all parties. The page is protected so Foxes edits are safe, but I think it would show a true willingness to cooperate as claimed by Foxe and other. The aruging can wait for a little bit. However again, if you don't, it doesn't matter, to me, nor will I complain, however, I wont be editing until Monday.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 23:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)