Talk:Children of Joseph Smith/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

OR and SYN

Attempting to state that we don't know of Joseph Smith's children because of abortion violates two policies: original research and synthesis. The edit draws a conclusion with facts not in evidence. More importantly, the source is currently being discussed for not qualifying as a reliable source. Please see discussion on the Joseph Smith, JR. page. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete this page

This page has no relevance whatsoever. If proving Smith's polygamous children is the reason it exists, it is a house built of old paper. Since the RLDS Church no longer follows a lineal presidency, it makes this doubly irrelevant. Best, A Sniper (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

POV Deletions Based on No Evidence or Good Reason

The content on this page is well cited based on reliable sources, including genealogical research appearing in the Deseret News and Perego, Ugo A.; Myers, Natalie M.; Woodward, Scott R. (Summer 2005). "Reconstructing the Y-Chromosome of Joseph Smith, Jr.: Genealogical Applications" (PDF). Journal of Mormon History. Vol. 32, no. 2.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link), so at the very least these deletions violate WP:PRESERVE, as well as these reliable sources:

• Newell 1994, p. 111
• Smith 1971, p. 113
• Wymetal 1886, p. 61

Newell 1994 and Smith 1971 have been used as a reliable source on several Smith and Saints-related history pages. It is revealing that this scholarship is characterized as "pulp fiction" and "National Enquirer" on this single point. Please stop the POV campaign of deleting and attempting to suppress these highly relevant facts reported in numerous reliable sources, as well as the discussion on this talk page. Finally, here are the relevant passages from the reliable sources cited, which clearly state eyewitness allegations from Sarah Pratt that Dr. John C. Bennett performed abortions on Smith's single wives, from Zeruiah Goddard that Bennett told Pratt he performed abortions, that Smith ordered an ineffective public relations campaign to rebut Bennett (as reported in the newspaper record and published histories), and that both Smith and brother Hyrum Smith were aware that Bennett was performing abortions [my emphasis in bold]:

"Bennett had learned of plural marriage, maybe from Joseph himself, and plunged in with alacrity. But, unhampered by any moral or theological framework, Bennett approached women with his own rationale: where there was no accuser, there was no sin; pregnancy would be taken care of with an abortion. When refused, Bennett stated that he came with Joseph's approval. He and his friends called their system of seduction “spiritual wifery,” a term that had been used in the early establishment of plural marriage. The city rocked with tales that connected Joseph with Bennett's scandals, and Emma undoubtedly heard the rumors." Newell, Linda King (1994). Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith (2d ed.). University of Illinois Press. p. 111. ISBN 0252062914.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

"Bennett was also charged [by Joseph Smith] with performing abortions, or “embryo infanticide,” a charge that was likely true. Hyrum Smith alleged Bennett seduced women with the promise “that he would give them medicine to produce abortions, providing they should become pregnant.” Zeruiah Goddard claimed Bennett told Sarah Pratt “that he could cause abortion with perfect safety to the mother at any stage of pregnancy, and that he had frequently destroyed and removed infants before their time to prevent exposure of the parties, and that he had instruments for that purpose.” Pratt amplified these comments years later in Salt Lake City. According to Dr. Wilhelm Wymetal, Pratt related that when Joseph Smith had intercourse with women, “Dr Bennet was always on hand, when anything happened.” Bennett had a long instrument that was made “of steel and was crooked at one end” that he used for inducing abortions. In late August 1842 Joseph Smith called on many elders in Nauvoo “to go on missions and rebut Bennett's lies and disabuse the public mind.” More than three hundred elders fanned out from Nauvoo, “heavily laden with such certificates to rebut the statements of Bennett.” The elders tried to encourage editors to insert these statements and affidavits into their newspapers. Few succeeded, but many newspapers mentioned that these anti-Bennett certificates had been published in the Mormon press." Smith, Andrew F. (1971). The Saintly Scoundrel: The Life and Times of Dr. John Cook Bennett. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. p. 113.

"[Sarah Pratt recounted that Bennett was en route to do] “a little job for Joseph [because] one of his women was in trouble.” Saying this, he took [out] a pretty long instrument of a kind I had never seen before. It seemed to be of steel and was crooked at one end. I heard afterwards that the operation had been performed; that the woman was very sick, and that Joseph was very much afraid that she might die, but she recovered. [Sarah Pratt recounted a conversation with Joseph Smith III], “I saw that he was not inclined to believe the truth about his father, so I said to him: 'You pretend to have revelations from the Lord. Why don't you ask the Lord to tell you what kind of a man your father really was?' He answered: 'If my father had so many connections with women, where is the progeny?' I said to him: 'Your father had mostly intercourse with married women, and as to single ones, Dr. Bennett was always on hand, when anything happened.” Wymetal, Wilhelm Ritter von (1886). Joseph Smith, the Prophet, His Family, and His Friends: A Study Based on Facts and Documents. Salt Lake City, UT: Tribune Printing and Publishing Company. p. 60–61.

Finally, Wymetal's scholarship is preceded by the testimonials of several high ranking and notable persons attesting to his character and judgment, such as this one from the Governor of the Territory of Utah, Eli H. Murray,

TERRITORY OF UTAH, EXECUTIVE OFFICE, SALT LAKE CITY, May 2, 1885.

To whom this may come:
Dr. W. Wyl, a representative of the Berliner Tageblatt, and who is commended to me from a high personal and official source as a "highly cultivated and thoroughly reliable gentleman," has for four months assiduously labored in the investigation of the questions involved in Mormonism. I am satisfied that he has given the subject careful study, and is therefore qualified to write advisedly of the situation, past and present. Respectfully,

ELI H. MURRAY,
Governor. link

Certainly, Wymetal satisfies Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source. Claims about WP:OR, WP:SYN, and relevance above are fatuous and, I believe, part of a POV attempt by these editors to suppress verifiable facts from these reliable sources. Also see Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.. That this has continued to this page may be regarded as a violation of WP:EW. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 04:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please keep the conversation to one article

Ecrasez, as you know this topic is being discussed at the Joseph Smith article. Everything you wrote above appears to be a copy of the same arguments you made there. We try not to be redundant and it would be best to handle the topic in one article; does that make sense to you? I suppose we could all just copy every edit on every article that you have carried this same topic to, but that seems senseless. What do you recommend, we all copy and paste or just keep it in one article?

Also, this appears like another redundant article. We have talked about this concept before, but you seem to want to create more and more articles and copy the same material to each one. Wouldn't naturally be found on the polygamy article(s) or at least one of them? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A complete misrepresentation. That discussion is about a single sentence in a summary article. This article contains extensive background, details, and genealogical research. Do not WP:REMOVE. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments on sources and allegations of POV forking

A couple of comments based on the edits I have seen here and the comments by other editors:

1. After looking over the content, it appears well sourced on the surface. For those that allege that these are not reliable sources, can you back up your claims? Otherwise I tend to lean on keeping the information.
2. I agree that the abortion stuff might be POVforkish - but the other information, such as the list of possible children born to polygamous wives is perfectly appropriate for this kind of list article, and it would definitely be incomplete without it. I don't think the article as a whole is a POV fork, and most of the information should be able to stand on its own as is.

--Descartes1979 (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of this information is being debated right now. In addition, the page is up for quick deletion. The creator of most of this stuff is losing the argument being mediated ably by one intelligent user. Info based on hearsay or rumor shouldn't be given a forum without being qualified as such. Allowing this to be read by Wikipedia readers having no background in the subject matter is us failing as competent editors. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I just posted my opinion on the debate at the other article. I will edit accordingly. (That is, I will seriously consolidate the abortion section, but the list of alleged children should probably stay as long as the references are credible). --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Descartes for seeking a middle ground. I agree that the article as a whole is not a POV fork, just the abortion stuff as you point out. I wonder if giving the abortion allegations their own heading is undue weight, when the subject has been trimmed down to two sentences and when no other historian even comes close to presenting these as historical fact. I'd suggest just merging it with the preceding section. I also took the liberty to make a few other changes: removed Newell - the reference does not support the claims in the text; consolidated a lot of redundancy in the footnotes; and removed the full quotes of Pratt - they didn't add anything really new to the text and it seemed a little weird having three separate footnotes in a row for the same reference. I was almost tempted to remove Wymetal as redundant since Smith (a modern historian) is quoting him, but Smith does not mention Pratt's comment to JSIII so in that Wymetal is not redundant. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolute silliness

What on earth is the purpose of listing people already disproved as Smith's offspring? To further discredit the Smith family for no reason other than POV? Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you to a certain extent - I would say if there have been allegations made that a child was the offspring of J.S. and disproved later, he/she should probably remain on the list - however, after looking over the list, I wonder if some of it is original research in that Ecrasez just pulled a list of children of these wives, and made the assumption that they may have been J.S.'s children. Lets work to add a reference to each alleged child. Just because they were disproved by DNA testing does not mean they should escape mention altogether. Ecrasez, can you comment on where you got the listing? --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sniper, one of the benefits of such a list to demonstrate those allegations that have been made in the past, but have no basis in fact and have been disproved through scientific research. It would probably be helpful to refernence the groups or individuals who have been making the claims that have been proven false so that their "scholarship" is appropriately credited. After all, if the purpose is to belittle, which it appears a lot of the this editing seems to be about, then what is good for the goose is good for the gander. When readers can go to an article and see facts, it tends to shed light on just how much junk is bandied about about Joseph Smith. I do not support hearsay, innuendo, etc. being treated as appropriate for any article unless it is clearly labeled as such. Does that sound reasonable to you? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thanks again. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Protected

The page is now protected for 5 days days. During this time, please try and find common ground and arrive to a version that all can live with. If you cannot, this is a good time to pursue dispute resolution such as third opinions or requests for comments. If you are ready to resume editing or to contest the protection, place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

References removed

I notice that all bona fide references from the 1840s re: Bennett have been removed. As soon as the protection is gone, they will be placed back. Obviously the facts from the time conflict with the user's POV obsession to base everything on hearsay forty years after events supposedly happened, instead of reading the affidavits and publications of the period. A Sniper (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are sources about which there are no disputes that need re-adding, please make a request via placing a {{editprotected}} template here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please also note, that primary sources, if used at all, need to be used very cautiously: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. Better, make use of reputable published secondary sources instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you would please scroll up a short way you'll see a post by FyzixFighter. He notes that the single user who has created the atmosphere of an edit war, as opposed to joining in with the consensus of regular contributors, reverted a version being built by that consensus. Best, A Sniper (talk)

Rather it is you that is waging an edit war that attempts to delete or supprress of this reliable source history based upon a slanderous attack on Sarah Pratt's reputation. Furthermore, you misrepresent your own edits in your edit war as minor ("m") ones. You have had numerous opportunities to WP:PROVEIT and document your claims by citing reliable sources and have failed to do so every single time. Instead you simply regurgitate calumny from Joseph Smith's mouth against the character of Sarah Pratt, allegations that are dismissed as "highly improbably" and "slander" by the Mormon historian Richard S. Van Wagoner link. If you can support your claims by citing reliable sources, then WP:PROVEIT. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A slanderous attack on Sarah Pratt's reputation? Is this your whole POV spin: to clear the name of Pratt? And in the process to disregard any sources from the 1840s - sworn affidavits, church meeting minutes, church publications, newspaper articles, etc? I would think that your edits are so obsessed with using hearsay against Smith that you're willing to disregard the statements, some of them sworn, of (literally) dozens of Nauvoo folk. Your allegations are in every way fringe. A Sniper (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am impressed that you are so concerned about a slanderous attack on Mrs. Pratt. To be so offended at an injustice is an admirable quality. What is so surprising is how willing you are to use any means to slander the character of Mr. Smith. That seems like a moral conflict that is not logical. Vous pouvez seulement écraser quelqu'un avec la vérité, pas avec des mensonges, n'est ce pas? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Pratt

[Inserted before the dump of unreliable sources by User:A Sniper below]. As already detailed by citations to reliable sources above, this regurgitated calumny from Joseph Smith's mouth against the character of Sarah Pratt is dismissed as "highly improbably" and "slander" by the Mormon historian Richard S. Van Wagoner link. If you can support your claims by citing reliable sources, then WP:PROVEIT. You have also ignored ≈ jossi ≈'s note to you above that, "primary sources, if used at all, need to be used very cautiously: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. Better, make use of reputable published secondary sources instead." Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Here is a citation and link to Richard S. Van Wagoner's journal article on Sarah Pratt and her experiences with Joseph Smith and John C. Bennett, in which Van Wagoner dismisses charges against Pratt as "highly improbable" and "slander."

• Van Wagoner, Richard A. (1986). "Sarah Pratt: The Shaping of an Apostate". Dialogue. 19 (2): 79.

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[Inserted by User:A Sniper]. From original sources of the time:

Original sources

In the spring of 1841 Dr. Bennett had a small neat house built for Elder Orson Pratt's family and commenced boarding with them. Elder Pratt was absent on a mission to England. (Ebenezer Robinson, The Return, 2 [St. Louis, Missouri, 1891]: 363) John C. Bennett became suspected, and...He was accused of selling offices in the military organization [the Nauvoo Legion], to certain men who would help him win the good graces of some of the young sisters, and that he became intimate with Orson Pratt's wife, while Pratt was on a mission. That he built her a fine frame house, and lodged with her, and used her as his wife....He said that the Prophet gave him permission to do as he had done with Mrs. Pratt. (Lee, J.D. Mormonism Unveiled: or The Life and Confessions of the Late Mormon Bishop, John D. Lee [St. Louis, 1877], 147–148) Affidavit of J. B. Backenstos. State of Illinois ss. Hancock County Personally appeared before me Ebenezer Robinson acting Justice of the Peace, in and for said county, J. B. Backenstos, who being duly sworn according to law, deposeth and saith, that some time during last winter, he accused Doctor John C. Bennett, with having an illicit intercourse with Mrs. Orson Pratt, and some others, when said Bennett replied that she made a first rate go, and from personal observations I should have taken said Doctor Bennett and Mrs. Pratt as man and wife, had I not known to the contrary, and further this deponent saith not. J. B. Backenstos Sworn to, and subscribed, before me the 28th day of July, 1842. E. Robinson, J. P. (Affidavits and Certificates Disproving the Statements and Affidavits Contained in John C. Bennett's Letters, August 31, 1842) Alas, none but the seduced join the seducer; those only who have been arraigned before a just tribunal for the same unhallowed conduct can be found to give countenance to any of his black hearted lies, and they, too, detest him for his seduction, these are the ladies to whom he refers his hearers to substantiate his assertions. Mrs. White, Mrs. Pratt, Niemans, Miller, Brotherton, and others. (Nauvoo Wasp 1 [October 15, 1842]: 2) July 23,1842. Mr. Orson Pratt, Sir:—Considering a duty upon me I now communicate to you some things relative to Dr. Bennett and your wife, that came under the observation of myself and wife, which I think would be satisfactory to the mind of a man could he but realize the conduct those two individuals...I would have been glad to have forever in silence if it could have been so and been just. I took your wife into my house because she was destitute of a house, Oct. 6,1840, and from the first night, until the last, with the exception of one night, it being nearly a month, the Dr. was there as sure as the night came, and generally two or three times a day—on the first three nights he left about 9 o'clock—after that he remained later, sometimes till after midnight; what their conversation was I could not tell, as they sat close together, he leaning on her...whispering continually or talking very low—we generally went to bed and had one or two naps before he left. After being at my house nearly a month she was furnished with a house by Dr. Foster, which she lived in until sometime about the first of June, when she was turned out of the house and came to my house again, and the Dr. came as before. One night they took their chairs out of doors and remained there as we supposed until 12 o'clock or after; at another time they went over to the house where you now live and come back after dark, or about that time. We went over several times late in the evening while she lived in the house of Dr. Foster, and were most sure to find Dr. Bennett and your wife together, as it were, man and wife. Two or three times we found little Orson lying on the floor and the bed apparently reserved for the Dr. and herself—she observing that since a certain he had rather sleep on the floor than with her. I am surprised to hear of her crying because Bro. Joseph attempted to kiss her as she stated, even if he did do it; for she would let a certain man smack upon her mouth and face half a dozen times or more in my house without making up the first wry face. I will not mention his name at present. There are many more things which she has stated herself to my wife, which could go to show more strongly the feelings, connexion, and the conduct of the two individuals. As to the lamb which Dr. Bennett speaks of, I killed it, and kept a hind quarter of it for my own use, and saw the Dr. and Mrs. Pratt eat of the balance; The Dr. told me he would like to have me save enough blood to make a French pudding, which I believe Mrs. Pratt spoke of afterwards and said it looked so that she could not eat it. I had not instructions to save the entrails, and the Dr. was not present to sacrifice them himself, consequently his statements that he burned them on twelve stones is a falsehood, for the hogs eat them. Your friend Stephen H. Goddard I certify that the above statement of my husband is true according to the best of my knowledge. Zeruiah N. Goddard. Sworn to before me July 23d 1842. Geo. W. Harris, Alderman of the City of Nauvoo. (Ibid., August 31, 1842) Dr. Bennett came to my house one night about 12 o'clock, and sat on or beside the bed where Mrs. Pratt was and cursed and swore very profanely at her; she told me next day that the Dr. was quick tempered and was mad at her, but I have no other reason. I concluded from circumstances that she had promised to meet him somewhere and had disappointed him; on another night I remonstrated with the Dr. and asked him what Orson Pratt would think, if he could know that you were so fond of his wife, and holding her hand so much; the Dr. replied that he could pull the wool over Orson's eyes. Mrs. Pratt stated to me that Dr. Bennett told her, that he could cause abortion with perfect safety to the mother, at any stage of pregnancy, and that he had frequently destroyed and removed infants before their time to prevent exposure of the parties, and that he had instruments for that purpose &c. My husband and I were frequently at Mrs. Pratt's and stayed till after 10 o'clock in the night, and Dr. Bennett still remained there with her and her little child alone at that late hour. On one occasion I came suddenly into the room where Mrs. Pratt and the Dr. were: she was lying on the bed and the Dr. was taking his hands out of her bosom; he was in the habit of sitting on the bed where Mrs. Pratt was lying and lying down over her. I would further state that from my own observation, I am satisfied that their conduct was anything but virtuous, and I know Mrs. Pratt is not a woman of truth, and I believe the statements which Dr. Bennett made concerning Joseph Smith are false, and fabricated for the purpose of covering his own iniquities, and enabling him to practice his base designs on the innocent. Zeruiah N. Goddard (Ibid.) Joseph Smith Ill's Interview with Sarah Pratt I was visiting in the home of a retired physician named Benedict. In conversation with him and his wife, I mentioned Elder Orson Pratt, then deceased, and asked them if they knew the woman who was his wife when he lived in Nauvoo, and whether or not she were still living. They said, "Why, yes; she lives with some sons of hers only about two blocks from here, and we know her well." For certain reasons which I believed to be good, I was desirous of having a talk with Mrs. Pratt, whom I had known at Nauvoo. So I asked Doctor Benedict if he would go with me to call upon her. He consented to do so, and after lunch we repaired to the house and I was presented to the lady.... The latter part of my conversation with her revolved around the matters I had had particularly in mind when I sought the interview. I asked her, "Sister Pratt, will you allow me to ask you some rather personal and delicate questions?" "You may ask me any questions proper for a lady to hear and answer," she replied. I assured her I would use no language a lady should not hear and did not wish to ask any improper question or one she might not answer in the presence of Dr. Benedict who was with me. But I told her I felt there were some which referred to my father and herself which only she could answer. I asked her to consider the circumstances in which I was placed. I was the son of the Prophet; had been baptized by him; was a member, though a young one, at the time of his death, and thought that I had understood, in part at least, the principles the church taught and believed. But following his death certain things were said about him, his teaching and practice, which were at variance with what I had known and believed about him and about the doctrines he presented. Naturally I wanted to know the truth about these matters, for I assured her I would much rather meet here in this life whatever of truth might be revealed about those things, even though it were adverse to what I believed to be his character, than to wait until after I had passed to the other side and there be confronted with it and compelled to alter my position should such revealment prove I had been in error. She told me to proceed and the following conversation took place. "Did you know my father in Nauvoo?" "Yes, I knew him well." "Were you acquainted with his general deportment in society, especially towards women?" "Yes." "Did you ever know him to be guilty of any inpropriety in speech or conduct towards women in society or elsewhere?" "No, sir, never. Your father was always a gentleman, and I never heard any language from him or saw any conduct of his that was not proper and respectful." "Did he ever visit you or at your house?" "He did." "Did he ever at such times or at any other time or place make improper overtures to you, or proposals of an improper nature—begging your pardon for the apparent indelicacy of this question?" To this Mrs. Pratt replied, quietly but firmly, "No, Joseph; your father never said an improper word to me in his life. He knew better." "Sister Pratt, it has been frequently told that he behaved improperly in your presence, and I have been told that I dare not come to you and and ask you about your relations with him, for fear you would tell me things which would be unwelcome to me." "You need have no such fear," she repeated. "Your father was never guilty of an action or proposal of an improper nature in my house, towards me, or in my presence, at any time or place. There is no truth in the reports that have been circulated about him in this regard. He was always the Christian gentleman, and a noble man." That I thanked Mrs. Pratt very warmly for her testimony in these matters my readers may be very sure. I had constantly heard it charged that my father had been guilty of improper conduct toward Elder Pratt's wife, and I had long before made up my mind that if I ever had an opportunity I would find out the truth from her. The result [of this interview] was very gratifying to me, especially as she had made her short, clear-cut statements freely, just as I have recorded, in the presence of Dr. Benedict. It may be added that mingled with my pleasure was a degree of astonishment that such stories as had been told about her and her relations with Father should have gotten out and been so widely circulated and yet never met with a public refutation from her. However, I expressed my appreciation of her kind reception and her statements, and at the close of our interview, which lasted about an hour and a half, left her with good wishes. Doctor Benedict and I passed from her presence into the street in a silence which was not broken until we had gone some distance. Then suddenly he stopped, pulled off his hat, looked all around carefully, and raising his hand emphatically, said: "My God! What damned liars these people are! Here for years I have been told that your father had Mrs. Pratt for one of his spiritual wives and was guilty of improper relations with her. Now I hear from her own lips, in unmistakable language, that it was not true. What liars! What liars!" I was glad that before she died I had her testimony, and that it had proved, as had been proved many times before, that such charges made against my father were untrue. I have conscientiously traced statements made by various individuals inculpating my father in this wrongdoing, and in every instance I have failed to find evidence worthy to be called proof. It strikes me now, as it has for many, many years, that honorable men and women should absolve me from blame for pursuing the course I have taken, in steadfastly refusing to believe, simply because persons entangled in the evil meshes [of polygamy] wished to involve him in their wrongdoing, that my father was a bad man and responsible for doctrines which he himself pronounced to be "false and corrupt." (Saints' Herald, January 15, 1935, 80; January 22, 1935, 109–110)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by A Sniper (talk • contribs) 23:50, 6 July 2008‎