Talk:Mormonism and violence

message: I'm not sure in understand the concern of , as expressed in this revert (with an edit summary of: "Reverting last two edits. References have many problems including possible malware"), so I thought I'd open a this discussion.
*Malware on LDS.org? Really? What is your evidence of this? The LDS.org domain is the principle authoritative source for material that can be cited as coming from the LDS Church, and there are literally thousands of pages on WP that use it. How is it that you are the only person that has ever reported malware at that site? Are you proposing a ban on LDS.org, starting with this article?
* http://www.lds.org/manual/god-loveth-his-children/god-loveth-his-children?lang=eng is the current url for God Loveth His Children at LDS.org, after the LDS Church redesigned their website a few years ago; why is it unacceptable to simply substitute it for the old, very long url?
* Do you seriously think that this...
::
:... is a better formatted reference than this ...
::
:... for this exact same source?
* You believe that it's better to use the "|publisher=" parameter for a newspaper instead of the "|newspaper=" parameter (which properly italicizes the newspapers name)?
*I agree that the Oaks quote as it formerly appeared on this article had a lot of off-topic padding, but in it's latest form (before your revert) it specifically addresses the LDS Church's position on gay-bashing, which is the core subject of the previous two paragraphs. Additionally the quote from God Loveth His Children pinpoints the church's official position on the situation which can cause the scenario described in Packer's antidote. How is this not directly pertinent?
If you could clarify, it would be greatly appreciated. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Full disclosure: I also posted this note to the talk page for WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, to try to get some other editors involved who seem likely to have a general interest in this topic. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

text: So we can be specific, (1) which of the two URLs you removed is the one that you feel caused a malware report on your PC, (2) what software were you using that generated this report, and (3) what exactly was the details of this malware report? LDS.org doesn't have ads, or comments sections. Also, I see no issues if you wish to invite the LBGT project to this discussion. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the claim that there is malware to be the easiest thing to work thru first, as either there is or there isn't, and with a sufficient level detail this should be able to be resolved rather quickly. The "LDS articles use too many primary sources" discussion has happened so many times that I've lost count, and they often blow-up out of proportion, so please let's deal with that second. I'm a wiki-gnome (well maybe more of a wiki-hobbit), so I'd rather deal with black & white facts first, please. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It was reference 26, The Mormon Worker website with a "Web Attack Mass Injection Website" from IP (208.109.181.140,80). I removed it and the section that depended on it that seemed to be little more that promotional and possibly worse.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Firefox blocked me from themormonworker.org as well, apparently because Google reported it as an attack page that installs stuff on your computer without permission. It's odd, because we have an article on The Mormon Worker. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of possiblities including them as the recipiant of an attack from a post or ad etc. But it is very odd.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The section was added here..--Amadscientist (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

text: The article had notability issues that hadn't been addressed - so I deleted it. --Trödel 18:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits to ''Violence related to LGBT people'' section

message: There appears to be a flaw in at least one thing- There is no mention of current church doctrine, or how the church today views the violence in it's past or the split between LDS and the FLDS with more radical views. All churches and religions go through this and an encyclopedic article would surely have a section devoted to analysing what academic secondary sources say about that. What's the mainstream thought on all of this.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article does not seperate LDS and FLDS 

message: So I've been doing a little research into this article, and it looks like the scope of this article changed pretty drastically back in June 2009 with little consensus on the talk page. Here's what the article looked like before. It looks like the article has been stripped of anything that mentions violence against Mormons and only talks about violence committed by Mormons. So my question is: What is the scope of this article? It's titled Mormonism and violence but makes no mention of the violence in Ohio, Missouri, Nauvoo, and later Utah that shaped so much of Mormon culture. Could somebody please explain this to me? ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm. First of all, there was a discussion...a pretty good sized one. But the issue of what the article was about had more than just silent consensus. The fact that the only mentions of violenece aganst the LDS church seemed politicaly motivated and pushed as POV and used as unduely weighted balance, as well as there being very little of it meant that it could be used in other articles. Right now those sections are included in Anti-Mormonism.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the original version. I dispute that the article has changed drasticly. The biggest change is the LGBT related section and as I recall when it was added and the LGBT Studies Project added to this talk page, that was a bigger argument of consensus as editors attemtpted to remove the LGBT Studies Project from the article even though it is up to the project to make that determination. As I recall that was a scope discussion as well. So here is the recap: in 2009 the article had out of context information about Prop 8 in an unrelated section. Since that was about all there was the information was transfered to other pages and the article's scope remained about Violence and how the LDS church has used it in the past. Is this article, as it stands on that level worth keeping?--Amadscientist (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the discussion from June, but I'm not entirely convinced that there was consensus. Either way, I think the scope of the article is ill-defined, as violence committed by Mormons is often closely tied with violence committed against Mormons. For instance, Mountain Meadows was at least partially a reaction to previous acts of violence against Mormons. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree but it was weak and silent. Now that you have merged the information you have (accept for what I removed as a POV and BLP issue and nothing but an accusation) you will need to do a dummy edit to link back to where you copy pasted the information from and include and fill out the  template for this talkpage. At minimum you were supposed to link back in your edit summary to the articles you are copying from.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Thanks for pointing that out. All of the copied text was from this very article, from June 2009 version that I linked at the top of this section. Do I still need to fill out the copied template, or am I good? (It actually wasn't a direct copy/paste, as I made a few changes myself.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if the Prop 8 stuff originated in a different article. I do not believe it started here, however if it did then you not need to do any of that.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Violence to Mormons stuff as I remember, started here and was transfered and then moved again and the article redirected.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the scope of this article anyway? 

message: Can be used but it should be in direct context so instead on having the quote in the Packer section I propose a possible subsection itself along with the official church doctrine on homosexuality. Oaks comments touch on two points:Gay Bashing and programs to "cure gays".--Amadscientist (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole issue has WP:Undue weight issues, this is an anecdotal story that can't be traced to any specific acts of violence that resulted from it. --Trödel 19:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

text: To wit - regardless of the Packer anecdote, the Oaks quote quite clearly (and almost surgically) addresses gay-bashing, which is directly related to the overarching topic of this article. I can't think of any form of physical gay-bashing that would not be considered a violent act, and Oaks is specifically stating the Latter-day Saints should not engage in it. He also says that LDS should not engage in non-physical gay-bashing, but I don't see that as a reason to exclude the quote. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

text: OK, they why did you remove it, instead of just doing what you just described? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't fit where it was or how it was included and is going back (expnaded on a bit actually) along with some other information and references from BYU.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a side note: It would be nice if you would leave clear detailed edit summaries when you're making edits to the article. It's often hard to tell what you're doing, especially when you're adding and removing multiple paragraphs. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true. Sorry. A bit ill.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I appreciate that. There seems to be somewhat of a disconnect between discussion here on the talk page and edits in the article. It seems like the POV and weight issues are being ignored, while the section on LGBT issues seems to be growing and growing. I think the section needs to be cropped back down to size, taking out the lengthy quotes and the picture, and giving it a brief overview. I plan to make some edits to the article, but I'm a little short on time at the moment, so I may not get to it until Monday. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: First, you can't make assumptions like that. Edits are not directed by the talk page discussion, but edits discussed and ways to improve the article. To say one is ignoring other issues while expanding another part is hardly a good argument and I dispute the need to edit the section down to fit your weight issue to the size of the page. Please explain how you feel the section with reliables sources for claims ontop of primary sources and all speculation attributed properly per Wikipedia policy is undue weight. To the article? That is not what the policy of weight is. The section of quotes is needed as this section deals with the printed word of each of the subjects being quoted. Weight given to the controversial nature of Packer's words in print in "To young men only" and Quinn's for his highly published opinion against it. I can see reducing the last quote box to standard quotes as being more encyclopedic for the "Other LDS pamphlets".--Amadscientist (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Second...what POV issues?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oaks comments 

message: The Hardy reference is a seperate reference and I mistakeny removed it as not finding his name with Quinn. So the two are seperate crticism's of the Sermon and pamplet. I will try to get better information on the exact information.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardy 

message: I have reverted and edit by Amadscientist that removed all references to the white powder mailings of 2008. The edit summary stated that there was a BLP issue with the paragraph. I don't see why WP:BLP is an issue, because there is nothing biographical about the paragraph, and no "living persons" are even mentioned.
For reference, the paragraph reading:
In November 2008, the United States Postal Service delivered envelopes containing white powder to two LDS temples (one in LA and one in Salt Lake City), prompting a hazardous materials response and a federal domestic terrorism investigation.  The LDS Church blamed opponents of the marriage ban for sending the hoax mailings, while a group that also supported the measure condemned "acts of domestic terrorism against our supporters." LGBT rights groups, such as Equality Utah and Equality California, have spoken out against the use of violence in protests, and note that the source of the "white powder" mailings has not been determined.
was reduced to:
LGBT rights groups, such as Equality Utah and Equality California, have spoken out against the use of violence in protests.
~Adjwilley (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: BLP is the main issue as this is an accusation with no basis. The LDS church is not a person, but an actual bishop or apostle made the accusation someone did something and another person accused another. Police confirm no evidence. It is a BLP issue. But, it is also a POV as this is JUST the pint of view of this person or the "church". This is not the National inquirer and Wikipedia is not a Newspaper. Removing per policy. But thank you for discussing this.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph essentially says "Organization A said that Organization B was behind attacks on Organization A. Organization C, which sympathizes with B, said there was no proof." The logic "These organizations are not persons, but are made up of people, therefore BLP applies" doesn't make sense to me. Could you please name the living persons you say are being accused, and explain specifically how the paragraph violates BLP? It's certainly not a lack of sources, since The Sacramento Bee, the Deseret News, USA Today, MSNBC, KCPW-FM, and the Associated Press are all being cited. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Nope, It is pure point of view. The church believes it is an LBGT person, they think and then they accuse. How is this violence and incontext to LGBT or the Mormon church. There is none. It is pure speculation with no basis but guess work on the part of the person within the church that made the statement. Just becuase you make no mention of the person you are citing the sources and repeating the accusation in Wikipedia's voice of authority. It is a BLP issue when one group is accusing another of what even investigators have concluded to have no relation to any LGBT group or person. Under BLP policy even groups fall under this.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are saying directly contradicts WP:BLPGROUP. Besides, as I pointed out earlier, the sources used are reliable.  ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources are not the issue and no, nothing I have said contradicts WP:Group.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I said you contradicted WP:BLPGROUP, not WP:GROUP. You seem to be taking a group composed of an unknown number of unnamed people, and trying to say WP:BLP applies. That goes against WP:BLPGROUP, and even if it didn't, the paragraph would still be fine, because it's sourced to six different sources. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed here that you used WP:BLPGROUP to support your position that the white powder mailings should not be included in the article. As far as I can tell from the discussion above, you have not shown why this group of unnamed activists should be treated as a living person so that BLP applies. Also, BLP states, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." We have at least six reputable newspapers documenting the white powder incident, and whether or not the allegations are true, BLP says we should "document what these sources say". ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Found this discussion via the AfD, and thought I would comment on the BLPGROUP/BLPGOSSIP issue specifically.  It is extremely rare for BLP-related policies to be interpreted to protect groups unless they're made up of only a couple individuals.  As a result, I don't see how it could apply here, in a case where the allegation is kinda pointed at one or a few out of tens of millions of people. The text of BLPGROUP seems clear enough on this point, too. While I would personally prefer that WP had stronger protections in this area, as a matter of policy and precedent, I don't believe we do.)  WT:BLP might be a place to gather additional views on this point.  Have a great week, folks!  --joe deckertalk to me 06:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  White powder 

message: Adjwilley has suggested that there is a problem with text that presents Mormon doctrine regarding violence and cites primary sources (e.g. the Book of Mormon).  He is right that there is a problem but that doesn't mean the text should be removed unless it is disputed or otherwise incorrect.  If the text presents an accurate exposition of Mormon doctrine, then the problem is that the text should be cited to a secondary source such as a book on Mormon doctrine.  This could either be an LDS book or a non-LDS book.  The key is that Wikipedia editors should not take on the role of interpreting primary sources such as sacred scripture.  We should report on what others describe Mormon doctrine to be.  There may, of course, be more than one view of what Mormon doctrine is and, if that is the case, WP:NPOV dictates that we present all notable, verifiable POVs. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no absolute prohibition to citing primary sources. It's just that they have to be used very carefully. It is quite possible to use citations to the Book of Mormon appropriately. But the article just has to be careful not to take sides on any issue of interpretation of that text on which there are multiple prominent views. In some cases, it might be that we are using non-controversial interpretations of primary sources, and that is not necessarily a reason to delete the text, but it would be better to find secondary sources. COGDEN 19:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. I've seen citations to the Book of Mormon used effectively, and I've also seen many problems.  From what I've seen in this article, the citations to the Book of Mormon are ok, however I don't think they'll be stable, because I've seen editors who would automatically delete such information, not because they think it's incorrect, but because it's cited to a primary source. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: To unstable at the moment to say anything is OK exactly. I have seen some uses of the primary source information not used in context to secondary claims. As long as a primary source is being used for basic information that is fine when in proper context and making no claims. Use of primary alone in many instances is quoting and when we are being asked to remove quotes from even secondary information, the use of primary sources with quotes becomes a valid concern.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary vs. secondary sources 

message: If you want to be neutral, maybe it should be mentioned that Utah has the 4th lowest murder rate in the United States. Gtbob12 (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mormonism and nonviolence 

message: This article is strongly biased against Mormons and the views that their religion represents.  Blanket generalizations are a writing fallacy very common to unsound writing, and this article is full of false information to go along with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.125.170 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 5 July 2013‎
:It is also biased towards the church in many ways. The article needs more inline citations, some copy editing and checking of references. There has been a lot of editing going on without sourcing that appears to be strictly original research. The article needs cleanup.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  while I can see the good intent behind this edit, it has several problems. I understand the desire to have a "balanced" article, but in this case, history itself was not "balanced". Anyone familiar with the subject can tell you that early Mormonism got a really rough deal, and were on the wrong side of American vigilante-ism. Of course, there are instances of violence on both "sides", but to suggest that it was balanced is simply inaccurate. Moreover the claim you added that "Mormon adherents have...used significant violence throughout much of the religion's history" is simply false. There may also be some misunderstanding as to the scope of this article. This isn't about violence committed by and against Mormons (otherwise it would be titled "Mormons and violence"), it is about violence in Mormon theology (i.e. Mormonism) and how that has been influenced by and manifested itself in a few selected examples of violence. I agree that the article has a lot of problems, but these changes to the Lead aren't solving any of them, and are creating new ones. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a link to a couple pages from a source, so you don't have to take my word for it.  (The excerpt is from Mormonism: a very short introduction (2008) by Richard Bushman, something I think we all can agree is a reliable source.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with must of what you said. A lead section is for the summary of what is in the article and as I stated is not for the summary of the sources themselves. The article is supposed to be that. I also disagree with the over narrow definition of theological violence. That, again is not what the article is about...strictly. We have both been working on this article a while and I believe you know me as User:Amadscientist. I never agreed with the attempt to define this article in the manner that you and another editor attempted some time ago. I do not believe there is a consensus to define the article. I do believe the article lacks secondary sources in many places. I also believe that primary sources are being misused and are being used to quote scriptures in context to a specific subject or context for the article and that is an analysis of the primary source. The article needs some work...still.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Oh, I remembered the name Mark Miller being familiar, but I hadn't made the connection. Forgive me if I seemed to oversimplify things...I thought you were a complete newcomer to the article. My statement about the scope of the article reflects what I was saying before in our previous conversation as well as statements by User:COGDEN who created and wrote most of the article (and who I view as an expert in the subject area). Perhaps it is time that we sit down and decide what we want for the scope of the article, and that will help clear up some of the other problems. By the way, did you read the pages I linked? (I've got them in Dropbox, and I figure this is fair use, but I'm eventually going to break the link.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: At a glance of that source you provided above, my first question would be if I could see the previous pages only because it appears to discuss the LDS church in the South Pacific and that is a sub interest of mine. I have a relative I discovered in research had helped translate The Book of Mormon from English to ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi for the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in 1898 and he was of a different faith. I'll read through them now.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

text: OK, I see the direction you are taking and how the source used here emphasizes the violence in reaction to and of Mormons but even that is not what you are stating when you say that this is "about violence in Mormon theology - how that has been influenced by and manifested itself in a few selected examples of violence.".  I love that COGDEN came back to edit and discuss, but being the originator of the article in no way influences what it somehow manifested itself into during a pretty controversial period while Proposition 8 was still a young and hot topic. The reason why the LGBT section has survived this long is because it is a part of the history of violence that was very well known, notable enough to mention and demonstrated both Mormonism and violence, both by and to the group as a church and its "beliefs" and that belief system. Mormonism is not a theological subject it is about the religious traditions of the Latter Day Saint movement throughout its history. The church has many traditions but this isn't about specific a ideology or theology. It should take a neutral view of the belief system itself and should not put the LDS Church on trial by the article or be a loving tribute. There should be sensitivity in wording not to be offensive. It should neither support or bash the subject.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good opportunity to revisit this article, given the LDS church's recent apologetic response on this topic. I think the article needs a clean-up and the addition of good secondary sources. One of my main concerns with this article has been, how do we keep it focused on something we can clearly define, and how do we keep it from becoming a repository for stuff like vandalism of LDS churches? I think the focus should mainly be on institutional or doctrinal connections between Mormons and violence. I don't think that overly restricts the article. It still could go into violence with an indirect or incidental connection to Mormon theology or institutions. COGDEN 07:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased article 

message: Please see here, by a new editor. Seems a bit POV to me. 220 of Borg 04:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinging  as a frequent contributor to this page. 220 of Borg 04:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contentious edit? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Mormonism and violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808055434/http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/EstZion/zionch11.htm to http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/EstZion/zionch11.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613164224/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u/?%2Fdialogue%2C14730 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdialogue%2C14730
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613164239/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u/?%2Fdialogue%2C4312 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdialogue%2C4312
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121215103706/http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?/deseretnews1,175293 to http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdeseretnews1%2C175293
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927051038/http://byustudies.byu.edu/Shop/PDFSRC/11.4Jessee.pdf to https://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/PDFSRC/11.4Jessee.pdf
*Added archive https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20131021185159/http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?/deseretnews3,156707 to http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdeseretnews3%2C156707
*Added  tag to http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdeseretnews6%2C14057
*Added archive https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20131021171120/http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?/deseretnews1,3298 to http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdeseretnews1%2C3298
*Added archive https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20131021171144/http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?/deseretnews3,150800 to http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdeseretnews3%2C150800
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: RE:Violent Acts committed by Mormon members
First, Accesscrawl, Just because a newspaper is quoted does not mean you should delete a whole subheading (addition) that took much time, work and effort.  You might not like the information but that doesn't prove that it is not fit for an encyclopedia.  Please provide proof.  Referring to] does not justify your deletion. Please provide evidence why it is not fitting.   As mentioned, "news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics."  Please talk about this before you delete added content.  03:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Such incidents happen everyday and they should be notable enough to be included here. Read WP:NOTNEWS. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Are you sure that separate articles can be created about each of the incidents that you want to be included? I don't think so. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section on Mormon Violence 

message: Poderias traduzir caso queira e possa? 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:6CC9:6D70:438D:1B98 (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{Ping|Luizpuodzius}} 

message: I'm working on drafting a page on this topic, but the section here is largely scriptural citations and the work I can find on it is largely apologetic (or anti-Mormon). Does anyone have a good author or resource to consult for analysis of BoM violence that doesn't rely on the reader's bias or the text itself? I've been doing research so I should have enough to start but I'm trying to broaden my scope.
Thanks! BenBeckstromBYU (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violence in the Book of Mormon 

message: The phrasing above is vague/inaccurate, and probably needs to be changed. It implies Mormons deliberately or premeditatedly targeted an individual.
But the Battle of Crooked River, which the phrase links to, was an expedition aimed to rescue hostages held by a militia unit, rather than targeting the militiamen. The Mormons were even unaware that the captors were members of the state militia. Gottagitgud (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "attacked and killed a member of the Missouri state militia"