Talk:Salamander letter

message: The final paragraph of the "Lasting effects" section seems a little, well, POV-ish. (It's a vast improvement on what was here before, however.) I realize that the folk-magic of western New York in the 1820's is still part-and-parcel of the non-supernatural explanations of the origins of the BoM, but the long-term effect of the Salamander letter is more that it made people think along those lines than anything else. It is well supported from documents not forged by Hoffman. I note that a pro-Smith source such as Bushman (p. 50) has no trouble in seeing magical folklore as part of Smith's background.  John Jenkins 02:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * As if the History Channel is an actual authority?  All you have to do is watch one episode of Ancient Aliens to see how they manipulate minor details and sensationalize anything they can for ratings all the while using "experts" who actually have no formal training in the fields they are representing.  Onto the book mentioned, written by Richard Abanes, who just happens to be highly tied in with Rick Warren (both known anti-mormons) - of whom I would consider dubious sources for use in this article.  While the claims of suicide may be true, it would seem that neutral sources should be used to explain the events.  68.108.135.15 (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV concerns

message: Given the inherent controversy of this topic, I'd have hoped to see a more careful job of footnoting. It's not clear exactly what sources back up what statements in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 18:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: The sentence beginning "Variously accepted and rejected ... " doesn't read right. It seems to suggest that Rendell did both. Perhaps it should read "Accepted by some document experts and rejected by others (including....)" Myrvin (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Machine guns in the United States are sold in semi-automatic mode. They can only fire one shot for each trigger pull. They do have to be converted to fully-automatic mode to be true machine guns. The sentence describing this is accurate. Padillah (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Fully automatic machine guns 

message: Removed the following from the "Purchase and publicity" section:
 In a Church News release on April 28, 1985, he stated, "No one, of course, can be certain that Martin Harris
 wrote the document. However, at this point we accept the judgment of the examiner that there is no indication
 that it is a forgery. This does not preclude the possibility that it may have been forged at a time when the
 Church had many enemies."
According to Turley, this is attributable to Hinckley, not Christensen. Richigi (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text removed 

message: Lupin VII, just reversed my 17:43, 20 September 2019‎ edit. I know we don't always have time to read the articles, every time we encounter a suspected bad influence on an article. I was just bringing the opening line "The salamander letter is a document about the history of the Latter-day Saint movement" into agreement with existing content (below) in the article, so readers wouldn't think that the forgery was authentic (a common problem with such well known documents later proven to be forged, even many decades later)...I don't relish a battle of reversions ... if everyone's OK with it I will re-store my 17:43, 20 September 2019‎ edit to "The salamander letter is a document forgery purported to be about the history of the Latter-day Saint movement"?
I agree. This article would be a lot better if it clearly indicated that the document was a forgery. This isn’t disputed, so one has to wonder about the motives of those who keep removing this key aspect from the introduction. If the nature of the document was disputed today “controversial” would be a key aspect of its nature. As it is, the document is fairly non-controversial today (except as it relates to the ongoing embarrassment of those who acted on a belief that if was/might be real).  Laconist (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading opening line 

message: With the release of a new Netflix series on this subject, this article will be receiving a lot of interest and scrutiny from Wiki users. It is important that all sourcing in the article is accurate and integrity driven. I've removed the text from the first sentence of the introduction which stated the letters are a forgery citing an uncorroborated source. It is my opinion that until a definitive source(s) can verify the claims of a forgery, the Wiki article should not make a claim one way or another.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.155.222 (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject of Forgery and Netflix  

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Is anyone aware of a reason to discredit the Western Forensic Document Examiner? There was a reference to a paper they published declaring the letter to be a forgery but the reference and the citation were removed. Can anyone shed light on why this publication is not citable? Padillah (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was the cited line removed from lead?