Talk:Pratt family

Relationships tree, etc.

unsourced material should be removed

WP:RS is clear on this - and WP:BLP requires removal of unsourced claims about living people. Also Wikipedia is not the place to engage in genealogical research - there are plenty of commercial sites for that stuff. Also sources which are not "reliable sources" should be removed as well. Collect (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Question - Lede, as sourced, defines the family as descended from P.P.Pratt, so what would justify removal of him from ensuing list?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps because you give no source for the material in the claim other than that he was P.P. Pratt! In short, you could well say he existed, but without a source you can not say who his children were, where he came from, etc. That is what WP:V means. Collect (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why do you phrase your rationale, above, "Because you give no source-- " [etc.]? Pratt was contributed in the article's very first edit in 2005, by User:Dr U and was there for over six years, until your deletion. IAC, I quote in the article's current references #s 2 and 3 (Reuters use of info from Mormon studies scholar Brooks and the article by historian Bowman) reference to notable familial descents from Parley Pratt.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Um -- "longevity" is not a reason to violate WP policy. As I have iterated, Wikipedia is not Ancestry.com. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(1) Stop removing sourced material. (2) Stop removing the pedigree chart noting relationships among notable families' members; if you believe a member there is not notable, go to the template page and boldly edit it.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Unsourced" includes material not using any "reliable source". Get better sources, and there should be no problems. "jared-pratt-family.org" is clearly not a "reliable source" per WP:RS. Collect (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The Pratt Association was founded by mathematician and scientist Orson Pratt in the late 19th century. The organization's historian, Matt Grow, is the co-author (along with preeminent Mormon studies scholar Terryl Givens) of the book about P.P. Pratt, published by Oxford Univ Press in 2011. Per the guidelines, an entity is a reliable source about itself. Yet, in this case, the Association is not publishing the items in question. The items in question were actually published in the 19th century by the Improvement Era magazine and within the Deseret News newspaper. The Pratt Association merely hosts an additional view of a transcription of these original publications. One can access the original or one can access the archived version via the links in the citation: viz., both the orig- .. -inals are accessible via the citation along with the transcriptions. How can you delete photographs of 19th-century newspaper articles and an official Improvement Era webpage that hosts a copy of the magazine's old article--merely because the Pratt Association also provides a copy of this information? Is the Pratt Association some kind of tar baby for you that forever mars anything it touches? Things that were valid sources suddenly become invalid merely because the Association also hosts a transcript?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:RS. Books may be RS, but a "family association" is not intrinsically RS. Better yet, ask a professional genealogist how "reliable" the late 19th century genealogies published in profusion were. I did not delete the refs this time - but suggest that they are not especially "reliable." Also note that Wikipedia vastly prefers verifiable soures. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Collect, those are convenience links. Don't be obtuse. What exactly on this page do you think is unverifiable? Fences&Windows 00:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Material which is not backed by RS sources has been discussed vis-a-vis the "genealogies" on WP:RS/N. Please apprise yourself of those discussions. Wikipedia is not Ancestry.com. Really. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't be patronising. That thread was wholly unenlightening, it contains no real discussion of sources. Give detail here of exactly what needs better sourcing and why, or else leave this article alone. Fences&Windows 03:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"Unsourced" maens that ZERO sources were given. Sources which are SPS are not WP:RS. Other sources which are not WP:RS are not WP:RS. In most cases the issues were raised at WP:RS/N which is a proper venue for discussion about sources. "familysearch.org", for example, was discussed there. In other words, the discussions were absolitely held, and in the proper venue. Unfortunately, one editor has repeatedly gone to Jimbo's UT page etc. seeking as many venues as possible. Tkank you. Collect (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrt "...zero sources..." [blah blah blah]: Is this hyperbole, to your mind, especially "scholarly"? Or do you subcribe to the donald trump school of rhetoric? As for my pinging my buddy Jim:

wp:CANVASSING: An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message...On the talk pages of...editors...who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it.

Please make a note of it.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Where there is no source given for a claim (that is there is nothing with a "ref" tag given for the claim), the term "zero sources" is a common term. As for CANVASS, the use of messages to people you expect to agree with you is, indeed, improper. Posting at RS/N, and on wikiprojects (as for the one on Genealogy), as I did, is absolutely not improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The very model of modesty in assertion, you feel maligned by any suggestion you ever resort to hyperbole, then. OK, fine. <rolls eyes> Point two. I've no--um, zero--idea which way mi amigo Jim would feel about iffy matters of editing theory (keeping aside, for sake of the argument at hand, whether in actuality I feel that the dispute between us is really "iffy"). But, hey, if the founder/co-founder man should choose to chime in, I do indeed hope he'd perceive an application of the principle of wp:DUCK here in this matter of the removal of Mitt, Ann, George, and Lenore soon after an AfD of the "R fam" article closed Keep. But anyone would--who'd followed what transpired rather than merely lend an ear to errantly hyped absolutes.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The other problem is the huge "family tree" appended which included in it vast amounts of OR and unsourced claims. If a claim is unsourced if made in text, it is still unsourced if made in a "family tree." Collect (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, the template has its own page, where any specific issues can be addressed.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Beyond all the arguments about the relevance and proper sourcing of genealogical information, this article contains assertions which are plainly false. The idea that the Hartford, Connecticut settlers William and John Pratt were sons of the Rev. William Pratt of England was alleged by F. W. Chapman's The Pratt Family in 1864, and completely demolished on grounds of chronological impossibility by Donald Lines Jacobus and Edgar Francis Waterman in their survey of early Connecticut settlers, Hale, House and Related Families, published by the Connecticut Historical Society in 1952. The pertinent pages are 719-720. Donald Lines Jacobus's credibility as a genealogical scholar can be demonstrated by the fact that the American Society of Genealogists' award for scholarship, given since 1972, is named after him. The Pratt family and their many descendants are indisputably important in American history; they don't need their reputation propped up with long-refuted 19th-century genealogical claims. pnh (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Helaman-Pratt-daughter Anna marries Gaskell R.; Anna's brother is Rey

• Society of American Archivists (1973), The American archivist, vol. 36, Society of American Archivists,

  the Ray L. and Helaman Pratt collection containing four volumes of diaries (1877-97) and correspondence with family, friends, and church leaders."

• Pratt, Parley Parker (1874), Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, New York: Russell Brothers,

  Parley Parker Pratt, the subject and author of these sketches, and third son of Jared and Charity Pratt, of Canaan, Columbia County, New York, was born April 12, 1807, in Burlington, Otsego County, N.Y.

• Beecher, Dale (1975), Rey L. Pratt and the Mexican Mission (PDF), vol. 3, BYU Studies, p. 2,

  Although [Rey] Pratt[...]had grown up in Mexico. His father, Helaman Pratt, had been with the epic 1875-76 expedition that explored[...]in Mexico[...]. In 1887 the family was called to settle in Colonia Dublan[.... ...]. Rey learned to speak Spanish like a native.

  --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Mahoney, Tom (1960), The story of George Romney: builder, salesman, crusader, Harper, p. 52-52,

  Heading a Mormon mission in Mexico City at this time was Helaman Pratt. He had been born on the march from Nauvoo to Utah and was a son of Parley Parker Pratt.

  ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

  The arrangement lasted long enough, however, for one of his sons, Gaskell Romney, who had been born September 22, 1871, in St. George, to become acquainted with Anna Amelia Pratt, one of Helaman Pratt's ten daughters.

• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Historical Dept (1981), Deseret news church almanac, p. 116,

  Rey Lucero Pratt - Born 11 Oct 1878, in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake Co., Utah, the son of Helaman Pratt and Emenline Victoria Billingsley. Ordained a Seventy 23 Sep 1911, by Rulon S. Wells; sustained as one of the First Seven Presidents 29 Jan 1925, and set apart 7 Apr 1925, at the age of 46 [...].

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just be wary of using only the material directly found in the sources. You might also wish to note WP:PRIMARY when using some of the sources you give. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

See also [1] where the position that the "tree" must be reliably sourced is voiced. Collect (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Third-party viewpoint requested

The relationship chart (family tree) is desired to be deleted from the article altogether by a single editor and a single editor has argued that the tree should stay and any defect should be addressed in specific at the template itself. Cf. the tree for the Coppola family, the Bush family, etc., etc. By the way, the members of this tree of the Pratt-Huntsman-Romneys are individuals with WP bios and the indicated relationships with each other are noncontroversial. Some discussion of the matter has also taken place at the Talk:Romney family (US). (Also a somewhat related article is Jared Pratt Family Association but its talkpage is empty.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

3OR

Response to third opinion request:

I have taken a third opinion request for this page and have reviewed the issues. I have made no previous edits on this subject and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. If you feel that my answer is not appropriate, or not thorough enough I may be contacted to add to it, or an additional third opinion may be sought by replacing the {{3O}} template! Thank you, and I hope this, and I, have been of assistance. Hello, I've picked up your request from the third opinion noticeboard and have thoroughly examined the pertinent elements of this somewhat heated discussion. The table / tree provided is a very functional manner of presenting data and is currently used on many pages; I would say that it should replace the indented point form element above it which is unsightly, unmanageable, and far less informative in approach (albeit it allows more citation and detailing, this could however be done in a footnote style to the table). I understand that there are questions regarding the reliability of sources, the sources as listed are corroborated elsewhere. I would recommend that the alternate sources from a more reliable page be opted for, although I do understand that the page in question whilst about the family is still an acceptable source it will potentially avoid irate situations in the future. Further I would hazard to say that, as in many instances, if the time and energy spent debating a minor issue were focused on betterment of the article to appease all parties in quality, verifiability, et cetera, then Wikipedia would be a much better place! So perhaps instead of reverts, removal, readdition, and debate that citation elements requiring further examination be given the cite template insert and editors move forwards together on the subject.—BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This has been argued on at least five notice boards and HSG has found no support for using his unsourced template, nor has he even tried to source it after it was noted on the template talk page. An unsourced template is unsourced and is not valid in any article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you implying the data within the template needs to be sourced? Verifiability of the cell data I examined in brief had correlation within their articles back to the table. However I would agree that more sourcing would be beneficial, although I noted in other examples of the same table being used for other families that the same style of approach was used. This is by no means saying that is a right or acceptable way to go about things, but it is definitely something that could be improved with further sourcing correlating elements therein. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Carl B. Pratt

How does Carl B. Pratt fit into this family. That is not discussed either here or in the article on him. From the 2010 LDS Church Almanac I know his parents were Carl Barton Pratt and LaVern Whetten. I am fairly certain he is related to Robert J. Whetten, who I mainly like because he is an ethnic American born and raised in Mexican married to Raquel Lopez, an ethnic Mexican born and raised in the US. I am thinking Carl Pratt probably descends from Heleman Pratt and maybe even Rey L. Pratt, but we need sources and statements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Pratt family

Category:Pratt family is currently being discussed. The fact that it is not this Pratt family is going to cause confusion. Up until I commented they were ignoring that this article existed, and that the related Category:Pratt-Romney family exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 22 November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Pratt family → ? – Hi, I'm requesting a move/retitle for this page or an edit to add other branches of this family. As it is written, "The Pratt family is made up of the descendants of the Mormon pioneer brothers, Parley Parker Pratt and his brother Orson Pratt, whose father was Jared Pratt (1769–1839)" it is misleading and ignores the first ~150 years of Pratts in America. The Mormon branch of the Pratt family is not the only Pratt family, and they are not the first Pratts in North America/the United States. I realize the page goes back in time further down, but in general the page is largely limited to one branch and excludes other people with the Pratt surname. The first Pratt settlers in North America were Joshua and Phineas Prattwho arrived in 1620 on the Sparrow, and subsequently settled in Plymouth Colony. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Phineas_Pratt I'd like the "Pratt family" page to be inclusive of both the New England and Mormon people who hold this surname, as well as creating room for the UK branch of this family and those located around the world. Thanks. Darcyjae (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - The article is clear it is about the descendants of the mormon family not all Pratts in the world, this is encyclopedia not a genealogical website. There is nothing in the article that indicates the Pratt family are particularly noteworthy so it may actually be better to propose it for deletion on the grounds that wikipedia is not a genealogical website. If any Pratts are that notable then they can have a page of their own. MilborneOne (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per MilborneOne. עם ישראל חי (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.