Talk:George Q. Cannon

Welsh speaker?

There has been some back-and-forth with adding Category:Welsh-speaking people to this article. Cannon did not speak Welsh, even though he was briefly the editor of a Welsh periodical. From welshmormonhistory.org: "Although George Q. Cannon, president of the Church in Great Britain, was the official editor, he spoke no Welsh, and so twenty-nine-year-old William Ajax was assigned to move to Liverpool and take the responsibility of publishing Udgorn Seion." Hopefully that resolves the issue of whether to add the category, and no one will violate the 3RR over this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Either he edited it (and spoke Welsh), or spoke no Welsh and didn't edit it. It's as simple as that.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not really as simple as that. One can be an editor and give most of the responsibilities that require language comprehension to a speaker of the language. That seems to be the approach he took here. Editors are also involved in issues that require no language comprehension. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but bollocks. I've edited various different magazines in my time, and all of them in languages I understood. You can't edit something in a language you don't understand. You can do the layouts, but that's about it.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I acknowledge you have strong beliefs about what should have been true, but I believe it is clear from the source provided, that (1) Cannon held the title of editor of the magazine, but (2) he did not speak or read the Welsh language: it says explicitly that Cannon "was the official editor, [but that] he spoke no Welsh". You can think whatever you want as to whether that made Cannon a "real" editor or a "figurehead" one who did nothing substantial, but you cannot add Category:Welsh-speaking people to the article based on the fact that it says that he was the editor of a Welsh-language periodical. That's all—and that's really the point of my initial comment. I personally don't care much about the side issues you raise as I don't think they have any effect on this article or on what actually was the case in Cannon's life. (Really, a simple "my mistake" or "thanks for the source" would be fine on the category issue; I'm not sure why it needs to be extended into this kind of discussion.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If he couldn't speak Welsh, then he wasn't actually the real editor. It's as simple as that. I can't edit a Swahili newspaper, because I don't speak that language.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the sources say otherwise. I'm sorry that that conflicts with your view. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not "my view", as you put it. That's an attempt to reduce this to the personal level. You cannot edit a newspaper in a language that you cannot speak. I would like to see you try. -MacRusgail (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

From my perspective, I feel that I have consistently been attempting to stick with what the sources say about Cannon. I have additionally felt I needed to point out the difference between sourced information and personal opinion, which you have advanced several times above. If this is unclear, let me explain: This entire discussion was started by your adding Category:Welsh-speaking people to the article, which directly contradicts what a source says about the matter. The sources also state that he was the editor of the periodical in question, and that the periodical was published in the Welsh language. So, I'm not sure why you seem intent on dragging this discussion out, but do you have anything to add about the proper categorization of the article, rather than general comments about how difficult or impossible it would be to properly edit a periodical in a language one does not speak? In other words, are you happy with the current categorization, or are you still of the opinion that Category:Welsh-speaking people should be added? Or is it just more important to try to have the last word generally on a tangential issue? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Either he edited it, and could speak Welsh, or he didn't edit it at all, since he couldn't speak Welsh. Despite what sources say. You can't edit something in a language you don't understand. Someone else does the editing, you just direct them. No es posible.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the source itself addresses your concern: "Although George Q. Cannon, president of the Church in Great Britain, was the official editor, he spoke no Welsh, and so twenty-nine-year-old William Ajax was assigned to move to Liverpool and take the responsibility of publishing Udgorn Seion." From my reading, this makes it relatively clear that Cannon was the official editor but that he delegated most of the editing responsibilities to others, particularly Ajax. This conversation seems to be going in circles, so I'm not sure what the point is. I assume you have no problem with the current categorization, since you did not address that question. If there's no problem there, I assume things are now OK with the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

I noticed that Cannon has in the "S-Box" the title "President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles". However, according to that page

At the beginning of [Brigham Young, Jr.]Young's tenure, George Q. Cannon was the second most senior Apostle in the Church. However, Cannon was a counselor in the First Presidency and was never called as President of the Quorum. (If today's practices had been followed, Cannon would have been called as Quorum President and Young as Acting Quorum President.) When Cannon died in April 1901, Young remained the President of the Quorum despite the fact that First Presidency member Joseph F. Smith was then the second most senior Apostle.

While I understand the reason behind it being there, I would then think, since he is not listed as a "President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" on that page and he was never called to that position, it is inappropriate to retroactively give him that position. I think it needs to be removed. However, perhapes the above section may be added to the page to clarify what happened. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that he shouldn't be retroactively made one of the presidents. It seems to be an issue of a quirk of change over time in the way the president was determined. In Cannon's day it was the senior apostle who was a member of the quorum. I suppose the above note could be added—it may be a bit of original research, but it does help clear up some possible confusion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Mormon Richelieu

The lede alludes to his time as the church's political mastermind, but the body provides no elaboration on it. The only real discussion of his time(s) in the First Presidency is about the controversy of the 1880 congressional election and about his prosecution for polygamy. Binabik80 (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in George Q. Cannon

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of George Q. Cannon's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Nauvoo Roots":

• From Wilford Woodruff: Smith 1994, p. 16
• From Joseph Smith: Smith, George D (Spring 1994), "Nauvoo Roots of Mormon Polygamy, 1841-46: A Preliminary Demographic Report", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 27 (1), retrieved May 5, 2007

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Number of children

The box claims that he had 43; the body states 32.

Drsruli (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)