Talk:Brian David Mitchell/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Because

the federal trial is soon to start (Nov 10) I think Wikipedia could use a more detailed reference biography on Brian David Mitchell.

Updates welcomed following Wikipedia practices. Wombat24 (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Brian David Mitchell

He is referred to more commonly as Brian David Mitchell, so says Google. Maybe moving the page is right. Also, the dab page (Brian Mitchell) entry "Brian David Mitchell" goes to Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. Finally, don't guidelines call for this to be a section in the Smart article as that is really the subject? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the "Brian David Mitchell" page is locked redirecting. But there is more about him as a subject than just the Smart kidnapping eg his links to Mormonism and the issues surrounding it, his religious manifesto and first attempts at polygamy etc plus the several trials on competency are themselves a separate subject. Also considering that there are separate articles,bio's, on other criminals like Curtis Michael Allgier or Ottis Toole then surely there should be a bio article on Mitchell Wombat24 (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds notable enough for his own article indeed. Let's ask an admin to move the page. If you don't know one, I will ask. Let me know. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've asked caknuck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Caknuck#Re_Brian_David_Mitchell) already but there's no answer yet, but its only been a week or so. If it is unlocked then I can add much more information , properly sourced off course. Wombat24 (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Smart case barely mentioned

If it weren't for the Elizabeth Smart case, Mitchell wouldn't be notable enough for an article. She's mentioned briefly in the Lead. Then there are sections about his early life, allegations of child abuse, his marriages. Then it moves abruptly to his being found "incompetent to stand trial" (trial for what?), without anything at all about Elizabeth's disappearance, her being found with him, his arrest. She's mentioned again briefly as a witness, as are her mother and sister.

I know we have to be careful with a BLP, and while the trial is going on, we can't say that he kidnapped her. But from the point of view of the flow, it doesn't make sense to leave out so much about the case. It's the only reason he's famous. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The article can be corrected and expanded anytime; trying to be neutral and verifiable isn't easy to achieve quickly. But as with many criminals here on wikipedia Mitchell is know nationally and internationally because of this one crime however there is more to him than just that crime. The struggle to declare him competent to stand trial for the kidnapping is almost an article all on its own but that hasn't been expanded on here because the trial processes are ongoing. Also there are separate articles on the "elizabeth smart kidnapping", which does cover the trial, as well as one on her bio only so those issues are well covered elsewhere. But as I keep saying, if there are bio articles on Curtis Allgier or Bruno Hauptmann or Ottis Toole for example, then surely there should be a bio article for someone who is, today, as well known as Mitchell. Wombat24 (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Such expansion was deleted by Wombat24 with there not being left so much as a summary. Both guidelines and talkpage wp:CONSENSUS indicate a need for this material, thus care should be taken NOT to remove some semblance of the same. (See: wp:REVERTING; wp:PRESERVE.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Mitchell's sentence

is there any evidence anywhere that he has received two life sentences? All I've seen point to a single life sentence.

RE last edit: (On the "Elizabeth Smart (activist)" page, it states that Mitchell was sentenced to two (2) life sentences; page updated for consistency) (undo)

If there isn't any evidence and reference added soon, I'll change it back to a 'life sentence' only. Wombat24 (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge?

The rationale is here.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Rationale for NOT MERGE are the same arguments to Keep a separate article for Brian Mitchell we have already discussed here. I think that if the page was not deleted nor merged back then into the ES kidnapping article then we can safely assume that it shouldn't be merged now and this headings should be removed, right? seems to me to be redundant arguing to go into a new discussion for Merge after the discussion to Delete/Merge we have already been through, would it not? Wombat24 (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the 'Merge' banner because we have already discussed this and a decision was made by an administrator to Keep that separate Mitchell page. If there were any doubts during that discussion they could have Merged it then but choose not to. I hope you can see the reasoning behind this rather bold move Wombat24 (talk) 08:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I've boldly merged the kidnapping here for the following reasons

1. The victim is also known now for things done in her life subsequently and the name of the crime page should utilize the now-convicted criminal and not hers, per the best impulses behind the BLP guidelines
2. To fully understand the crime, details from the Mitchell biography are needed. Many people who come to one page or the other never find the way to its partner and so when possible, such as in the present case, it is good to have both the person-known-for-one-event and the event, itself, combined; see wp:PERP and wp:CFORK.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This is somewhat dishonest in my opinion. We had the debate about merging "Mitchell-Kidnapping" articles and the result was not merge. Now trying to argue that a merge of "Kidnapping-Mitchell" articles isn't the same issue is somewhat patronizing too. Please stop and put it back the way it was decided that it would be by the administrator after the debate on merge. Wombat24 (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned, wp:CRIME (i.e., wp:PERP/wp:VICTIM) says not to have essentially duplicative articles. If one should become needed IMO it would be due to considerations of wp:LENGTH (which recommends subs at "30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose")--and which point, per wp:SUMMARY, the kidnapping would need to be summarized in the Mitchell blp, which it hasn't been to date.

When someone enters "Malia and Sasha Obama" into the search window, WP goes to a section of the main Family of Barack Obama article covering the Obama kids. Nothing is lost to enter or click on "Elizabeth Smart kidnapping" on Wikipedia and be sent immediately via the madjic of the Internet to the pertinent section of the Brian David Mitchell blp: a person notable for one event. (Btw, Wombat24, if you or someone else does the work of creating a summary of the kidnapping for the Brian David Mitchell parent article, I would not then vociferously object to there being a reversion to a separate child article about his notable crime. Unfortunately, only the two of us are working on it at the moment and I myself think it works better undivided.)

Finally as for the wp:rfd, it was closed prematurely (it hadn't been properly listed when I'd opened it and had only been up for 1-2dys) and the closer didn't address the proposed merger in his closing remarks in any case, I don't think. I would challenge the close of the Mitchell rfd but the fact is that I now do favor a biography for the convicted kidnapper-rapist.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

C'mon Hodgson, you can't get away with this. We had a debate on the merge, the result was to 'Keep' separate which you should respect or appeal somehow. This article is a biographical one about the famous criminal Mitchell but the other one was about the famous crime ES Kidnapping ie the crime and both shouldn't be identical or significantly overlapping. But we covered all this before and reached a decision to Keep and admins rarely give reasons for the results. By the way I don't think Obama's daughters should have separate articles because they are just the presidents daughters, not the case with Mitchell! Wombat24 (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel like I may be in a Woody Allen movie! lol: I've contacted the administrator you keep referencing: here. Perhaps he can chime in to speak for himself?

In any case, I feel there must be a sincere misunderstanding of procedure here. True, a bold move can be reverted but it also is to be discussed. Such discussion does not properly entail claims that a certain form is, quote, approved by An Administrator. After all, by very definition, whatever is in mainspace on WP at any particular time is according to community consensus, is it not? the project being crowd-sourced and a Wiki and all. As it is, to continually harp on such procedural issues rather than address policy considerations is a breach of wp:Wikiquette.

Again: WP:CRIME clearly states that single-topic criminal events should be contributed if possible to a single article until wp:LENGTH leads to the creation of a wp:SUBARTICLE. According to wp:SUMMARY, when two articles are to be created, the parent article is to contain a summary of the child article--which has not been done, nor has my having pointed this out even been responded to or even as much as acknowledged. Consider: Insisting on procedural issues rather than engaging with citations of guidelines is tantamount to insisting on mere personal preference, per wp:DONTLIKEIT, is it not?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is. Mainly because we discussed both 'deletion' and 'merge' further up this page and the community consensus was to 'keep'. Re-discussing what has already been debated and decided doesn't help any cause, I believe.Wombat24 (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And remember Hodgson that you proposed "Keep but merge/turn into redirect ..." yourself but the result was to Keep as separate articles, as documented in [Mitchell] so why do you keep insisting in arbitrarily changing the communities consensus here. (I liked the Woody Allan analogy though, I should use it too; and sure an admin can speak for themselves, no problems there) Wombat24 (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, Hodgson, your efforts would be of better use if you find more references for the Kidnapping article to remove that "This biographical section needs additional citations for verification" tag as soon as possible. Wombat24 (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: The admin in question has now suggested we seek further comment from somewhere. (See here.) I've put in a formal requenst to find a third party to offer his/her opinion, if possible to find such an editor.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What about the communities decision? We choose to keep these separate not just delete the page as you requested both matters, ie delete the page and if not delete then merge both articles. But now only you insist otherwise. You're acting in bad faith here; because you lost the original debate you start looking for other ways to get your own way...ie by merging the other one into this page, now a merge tag half way down the page, and now a third opinion. But this issue was settled in Dec. Not cool Hodgson! Wombat24 (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Trying to find a fresh set of eyes here I'm going to try wp:ani. I'll be back with a link.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It's here here.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Third party opinion: Having reviewed the articles and the policies I agree that the policies are compatible with merging the article. However, the policies are also compatible with not merging the article. Additionally, as it stands there seems little gained from merging the article, the articles in aggregate are already reasonably long and may grow further, and the AFD came back as a keep, further the policies are mainly intended to not increase victimisation by creating separate articles for victims, but that doesn't seem to matter so much for the perpetrators. On balance, I think that a merger is very much not indicated in this case, and the question was recently tested at AFD anyway.Rememberway (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I read wp:BLP1E, wp:N/CA, wp:CFORK and wp:SPINOUT as discouraging separate articles for individuals-known-for-one-event and for that event unless necessary--but concede that my interlocutor above's arguments apparently sway the 3rd-party I was able to attract to this dispute. (Note, however, that the 3rd-party's citation of wp:CRIME actually works the opposite way than argued: I hadn't advocated the addition of details of an event to the bio of a victim-known-for-one-event (cf. Death of Neda Agha-Soltan) but to that of a perpetrator-known-for-one-event.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hodgson, "individuals-known-for-one-event"; Mitchell is now know for more than one event only. He is also know in media coverage for the allegation of abuse by his second wife, also testimony on both media and court of sexual abuse by a step-daughter and other abuse by another step-daughter; and Dr Welner and others are placing Mitchell in their descriptions of the extreme Mormon fringe. He isn't only know for the kidnapping (although that is the main issue in his life and certainly the main story he is know by but not the only one) that crime is more the culmination of a series of events in Mitchels life. We also haven't added here some info on the battle to declare him competent which in and off itself could be a separate article on insanity and or competency issues, seeing this guy got away from justice for some 7 years all based on his religious belief, beliefs some professional health practitioners saw as 'delusional' and 'unreasonable' even though there are many other people just like him who share the almost exact same beliefs. Wombat24 (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Mitchell had multiple court cases where the only question was his competency to stand trial, not even a discussion of what he did to Miss Smart but a discussion of what his mental state at the time of the hearing was. This was done independently in both state and federal court, and multiple times in state courts. These hearings were not in any way directly related to the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping and their existence would seem to justify a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sentencing

Should there be references to Mitchell's sentencing in the article?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I have created this section. If people have other relevant and useful information to add that is adequately sourced I would invite them to do so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Argumentative statement of LDS church policies

I romoved this statement: "The practice of polygamy and the rejection of the medical profession were clearly against the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The rest were clearly attacks on the Church as a whole about matters that in principal members of the Church would agree they have a duty to do but would disagree with Mitchell's assessment of the standing of the Church as a whole in relationship to them. Beyond this, it is contrary to the teachings of the Church for someone in Mitchell's position to receive such guidance. The person who has the authority to receive such counsel and direction according to the Church is the president of the Church, at the time Ezra Taft Benson, and to a lesser extent his counselors and the Quorum of the 12 Apostles. Thus even if Mitchell had not included the two claims that directly go against the teachings of the Church his claim to have the right to receive revelations for the whole Church by itself but him in conflict with the teachings of the Church". Whilst I agree that this is true and accurate according to current church practices, it is still unsourced. We´d need to add sources and also find a more appropriate section for this.Wombat24 (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Immanuel

The term "Immanuel" is mistakenly defined as "The Chosen One" in the article. This is incorrect. The term is correctly defined as "God with us". ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.140.166 (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

True. Changed it today Wombat24 (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is a mess

I've spent some time looking at this, and setting aside that it is wildly disorganized and horribly written, a coatrack for everything from Mormon splinter groups, mental illness, self-aggrandizing media whores, and half a dozen agendas I can't even discern, the sourcing is about the worst I have ever seen. Substantial material is completely unsourced. Other material is sourced to self-published sites, blogs, court documents and other sources specifically barred from use in a BLP. And still more material appears to be sourced, but when you actually compare the text to the citations, the sources have nothing whatsoever to do with the text to which it is appended. I've taken a cleaver to the most obvious bits, but this needs to be completely reworked and rewritten. Fladrif (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you are way out of line here Fladrif. Using a term like 'media whores', really? Dr Welner is a respected and well know professional who doesn't deserve that pejorative term. And I believe you are simply incorrect about sourcing. The text is probably too close to what the sources say....Now this man was taken to court by the state and then the Feds. In this second trial, matters of Mormon Splinter groups and especially mental illness -since his lawyers entered a plea of insanity- were central issues to his case and therefore his life's story -BLP. There is a need to correct the writing style and grammar, I agree, which you should do to improve the article but simply deleting information isn't the way to improve wikipedia, which we are all trying to do here Wombat24 (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Reinsertion of transcription of interview

There are some serious WP:OWNERSHIP issues going on here with the principal author of this article. An extensive quote, from the conclusion of an 8-minute courthouse-steps interview with Michael Welner, has been repeatedly restored, without discussion. There is no transcript of the interview, it has been created by the editor from a video. The transcript is inaccurate. It contains numerous ellipses which omit parts of the statement. First of all, I would regard this unedited video as a primary source. No secondary source has referenced this video. No-one, other than the wikipedia editor who keeps adding it, has transcribed it or edited it in that way. Second, the video itself it comes at the end of a self-promoting, self-aggrandizing grandstanding monologue by the witness, going on about his experience, and why his fee was so high, and how the defense "never laid a glove on me", when asked to summarize what his testimony in the case was. The testimony of that witness is already addressed in the article. And, he basically said it was impossible to do so in 30 seconds...but does anyway. To devote an entire paragraph to that, as an extensive quote, that the witness himself would indicate is inappropriate, incomplete and misleading, is to assign ridiculously undue weight to it. This is wildly inappropriate in a BLP. Fladrif (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Again you seem to be more belligerent than helpful. There is no WP:OWNERSHIP issues at all. Why not argue only the problems here? If you think the transcript is inaccurate, the 30 seconds transcribed, why not just correct that transcription instead of just deleting the entry? True there is no transcript but the video is still available for all to see and in it, amongst other things, Dr Welner (he does have a PhD by the way) is asked to summarise BDM's behaviour and he does so. He never indicates that it is inappropriate to do so, so what's the problem? It is still information whether it comes from a newspaper clipping or a book or a video posted online. Actually since it is a video we can all see what he says and doesn't say. The quote you added here, "never laid a glove on me", is simply part of an answer to a journalist's question on the defences tactics and that part is irrelevant to the BLP. If there was a secondary source, all the better. But there isn't one so far so for now we only have that video which, I repeat, you could help improve if you find errors in the transcriptionWombat24 (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's get down to brass tacks. First, this video is a primary source.WP:PRIMARY Primary sources are not to be used in BLPs.WP:BLPPRIMARY Second, you have taken this primary source, and created an edited transcript. Setting aside the errors in transcription, what you have done is original research.WP:OR Original research is not to be used in a BLP. Third, the quotation is unnecessarily repetitive of extensive text already in the article, which discusses at length the testimony of the various experts, including Welner, whose conclusions are already given the most pagespace by far. Apart from beating a dead horse, what is the point of repeating it yet again? And why quote this witness's courthouse steps characterization of his testimony exclusively as opposed to anyone or everyone else who testified? Finally, from a MOS standpoint, extensive quotations like this are to be avoided. Do you seriously dispute any of this? WP:BLP precludes this extensive quotation and source, and the burden is on you to prove that the material should be re-inserted. WP:BLPDEL Given that this page gets virtually no traffic or pageviews, it's probably going to be necessary to go to BLPN to get anyone else to comment. Fladrif (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

See discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Brian_David_Mitchell Fladrif (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

(Coming here from BLP noticeboard) I think Fladrif's points are credible, re: primary sourcing, extensive quoting and undue weight. Welner's notability and involvement in this matter make his thoughts relevant, but the quote can be severely cut and summarized with a reliable source. As well, if other interpretations exist they'd be welcome. 99.149.87.54 (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

On WP:Primary one can argue that Dr.Welner is the primary source but KSL's published video in KSL's website is the secondary source. KSL is reporting on what someone else says and not their own opinion nor advancing a new position which by strict definition makes them a secondary source. Or one could argue that Dr. Welner is primary, the court secondary and KSL's video is third. Either way that video, not Dr,Welner, can not be a WP:Primary.But you deleted the entry based on 'grandstanding' and 'media whore' basis. Second, an edited transcript isn't original research but just a transcript from video to text. Again you could correct any errors there. But it's a weak argument to claim that transcribing a video from a news site is OR since there is no new position advanced something which is a required characteristic of OR. If a transcript is OR then one could argue that all text in wikipedia is OR since we don't just cut and paste words. But then if we could just Embed the video into the article there wouldn't be an issue here. KSL allows embeding of their videos but the problem is that a new ad would show up with each run. Thirdly, there is some repetition between what Dr Welner and other, true, but the video is there as a summary of the pathology Brian David Mitchell and that's why it was added about two years ago. If you followed both state and federal court cases you'd realize that the Fed's convicted BDM based mostly on Dr. Welner's testimony in what was then a novel way to prosecute (bringing in lay witnesses and so on) and that's why the summary is there from this witness and not the others. Now the page does get consistently between 200 odd to peaks of 1500 odd visits since an administrator allowed it to be published, was locked before, which may be small compared to some Wikipedia pages but it isn't virtually no traffic as you claim. Have I missed anything?Wombat24 (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that you were quick of the mark to get an administrator involved and taking this to the noticeboard, which you are entitled to do, but why not do this differently? Cool down, wait a week or two for answers here, keep arguing your points with me at least and then we can all work out what should stay in and what shouldn't? 99.149.87.54 record is interesting isn't it? Wombat24 (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Changed my mind. I've deleted that paragraph so that your energy can go into fixing the article's problems instead of arguing here with me (as either Fladrif or 99.149.87.54!!) However your points on Primary source and OR are incorrect I believe, still do, as argued aboveWombat24 (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that I'm the same user as Fladrif. It ought to be clear that my above comment attempted to strike an objective balance. 99.149.87.54 (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

A sensible approach. Thank you. But, to be clear on two points: (i) I did not contact the administrator who warned you about edit warring. Your own editing pattern was more than sufficient on its own to attract administrator attention and a warning. (ii) I am not editor 99.149 etc..., and have no idea who he or she may be. If you doubt me, you are free to take it to WP:SPI where checkuser will quickly disabuse you of your notion. Please refactor your baseless accusation. Fladrif (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, yeah. I've never before engaged with either of the above accounts. Several admins and editors are familiar with me as '99' IP. 99.149.87.54 (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record I simply do not believe you. Please don't thank me, its patronizing, and I didn't do that for you but to move on and improve the article instead of weeks of mediation and ultimately an admins ruling, seeing you were quick to run to mediation. I've been around here for years by the way. I 1) did imply that you are the same person and 2)if my edits draw an administrators attention without your prompting then yours would have done so too since you were deleting just as much. 3)Checkuser wont work since you're using two IP addresses obviously. But that's just how things run in wikipedia. Now what have you done to actually improve the article? apart from all this arguing to and froWombat24 (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, and precludes the effort to assume good faith. It also amounts to an unjustified and unwarranted accusation of socking; it is entirely possible for two separate users to disagree with another's edit. As I've already noted, my interpretation above was different in tone and conclusion than the thoughts offered by Fladrif--though I was sympathetic to their points, I didn't see a need to remove the entire section, nor did I attempt to edit the article. My purpose is not to convince Wombat; it's futile to argue someone out of a conspiracy theory. But the accusation does merit review. 99.137.210.244 (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

There's been an absence of good faith ever since Fladrif started just deleting what he/she doesn't like and accusing editors of unsourced material when she/he doesn't read the source at all, and used words like 'media whore' and so on. However I called for calm several times but received patronizing responses here. The accusation of socking will be looked at by WP:SPI but if two fixed IP's are used I really can't see how wikipedia can determine socking but I'll try the process anyway tomorrow. Now your comment was balanced and fair at first, no issue there, just suspicion as to why it all came so quickly and you went to a notice board first after some three years of inactivity. Seems odd to me and suspicious that merits investigation but that isn't proof off course. Hope you can contribute constructively to the article here and elsewhere on wikipedia, whoever you are and where ever you areWombat24 (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

There has been nothing in the tone or intent of my statements here that can be confused with those of Fladrif; my coming here, as explained above, was the result of reading the issue at the BLP noticeboard. That you'd insist on a interpreting a perceived coincidence as evidence of socking--in essence smearing several users in the process--despite the assurances of two administrators, ought to be a red flag. I've contributed constructively here for years. My conclusion is that a reading of WP:HUMAN would be beneficial. 99.137.210.244 (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The IP was 99.149.87.54, Your number is different 99.137.210.244; so which one are you? the first was inactive for some three years and showed up yesterday going to a BLPN first (16:44, 8 March 2013, then 15:25, 8 March 2013 previous edit was 11:03, 13 April 2008) Strange choice of first page to visit after some 3 years of inactivity. More than enough reason to suspect wrongful doing here, which will be decide on by SPI in due time. And which Administrators do you mean? strange also that they become so active over a very obscure page such as this bio talk page isn't it? But there is no smearing going on just suspicion. I suspect wrongful doing, read up on the process, lodged a SPI and they can decide. That's it. If there is no wrong doing you have nothing to worry about. If there is it is not up to me to correct anything, they decide. After that this is done with and I'm not arguing with you anymoreWombat24 (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It's too late. You've said more than enough, I'm afraid. 99.137.210.244 (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

"Mormon fundamentalists"

I know I don't know much about this topic, but I have to ask a question. Was Mitchell a Mormon fundamentalists?

The reason I'm asking is, this section seems to be saying that, after his excommunication from the LDS Church and divorce (1985) he converted to more of a Hebraist (Jewish, Hebrew and Hebraic) then remaining a "Mormon".

By definition, "Mormon fundamentalism" requires a "belief in the validity of selected fundamental aspects of Mormonism as taught and practiced in the nineteenth century, particularly during the administrations of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young." If he no longer believe in Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, or the Latter Day Saint movement as a whole, and became a Hebraist, he cannot be called a "Mormon fundamentalist."

I'm not sure if his brand of polygamy was Mormon in nature? While I agree that he was once a member of the LDS Church, that doesn't necessarily make his version of polygamy "Mormon" in nature. To put it in another way, lets say someone was kick out of say a Buddhism sect. He then creates his own polygamist Judaism sect. You wound not call him a fundamentalists Buddhist. The fact that he rejected Buddhism all together, would make him at most a "Former Buddhist".

I guess the basic question I'm asking is, did Mitchell leave the Latter Day Saint movement altogether after the LDS Church kicked him out to become something else. If that is the case Category:Mormon fundamentalists should be removed.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 15:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that the answer is in the following sentence in the article (and more importantly, the ref that supports it): "According to Daniel Petersen, a scholar of religion, including Mormon studies, Mitchell's revelations were "logical," falling within the traditions of breakaway Mormon groups" (emphasis mine). Here we have an expert in Mormon studies say that he classifies Mitchell's works as part of the continuium of breakaway Mormon groups, specifically Mormon Fundamentalism, which has polygamy as a core characteristic. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 16:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)