I didn't initiate the attacks, just responded to them in turn. Calling them nuts was euphemistic. I could have called them turkeys as well. Obviously, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia only people with proprietary interest in an article can edit. You're part of the problem. Underwood had an effect on the church, or at bare minimum is an 'in-joke' therefore there should be mention of him in the article. I can see your mind is made up though, so I'll save my breath, there's no point having integrity when surrounded by folks determined to enforce their bias and other folks too busy to research the subject properly (it took you several minutes to research hundreds of posts and relationships between church members and Underwood). I'm done. Your arrogance is plain as day. I didn't claim to have made a perfect edit, I even suggested re-editing in the talk page. However Underwood's effect is plain as day, and as such should be mentioned. The reason I'm leery of the 'custodians' of the page is because in adding the Bob Black bombing I encountered the same kind of opposition. I'm not opposed to the Church, I just think that articles deserve more than custodial opinions by caretaker editors who have a vested interest in the outcome of the article. You were just in too big a hurry. I have a fair amount of experience editing, and know that a mention shouldn't require a full-on assault to accomplish when there is proof of association. I'm not trying to make the Church look guilty, just trying to keep accuracy on a topic that (if you research the Underwood article) often has been edited less than veraciously and is a continuously recurring discussion topic in alt.slack even 5 years after the murders. As I indicated in some of my edit summaries, rumor control, not hostile edit, just hostile to those determined to obscure data to save Church face. 71.102.18.173

Toxicity label: other