Talk:1838 Mormon War

removing opinion

"The church was persecuted for religion, which is against the constitution, the people in missouri were wrong.[5]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterGumby (talk • contribs) 22:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the cult was not "persecuted for religion." Note that the Saints had been robbing people, selling fake stocks, passing counterfeit bank notes and USA Treasury notes, taking land from the owners, and preventing free trade to the point where food produced by non-Saints sat in warehouses rotting. The Saints also set up their own government, with their own laws, and refused to pay taxes on USA government services they used such as roads and bridges. The victims wanted the Saints out of their lives and out of their region. In year 2009 the LDS published for public review over two million private letters written by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other Saints, explaining why they were "persecuted:" it was because of their crimes. Desertphile (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I have been reviewing LDS-related articles and noticed that many contributors have expressed concerns about the quality and neutrality of this particular article. This prompted me to join this talk page discussion.

Firstly, I must point out that both contributors in this debate seem to be struggling with significant WP:POV issues, Mormons faced persecution and that's a fact. 12 It is essential to adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy to ensure that the article presents a balanced and fair representation of the events. Calling the church a cult is not fair to bring up in this discussion.

The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri is a complex war and I understand that. On one hand, the Latter-day Saints did face religious persecution, which included hostility and violence from non-Mormon settlers who were wary of their growing influence and distinct religious practices. On the other hand, it is also necessary to acknowledge the actions and policies of the LDS community that contributed to the tensions.

If you ask me I feel like this article is decent but I could use other editors options. LuxembourgLover (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

changed the text

I changed the text about Governor Boggs back, but I softened the writing by saying "a degree of" and "somewhat" and this sort of thing. This change "Boggs had shown fairness" --- where does that come from? I think historians --- not just Mormons --- agree that Boggs didn't show fairness. If anyone has a source that says otherwise, I would like to see a reference. --John Hamer 04:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Inaccurate Changes to Daviess Expedition Removed

The section on the Daviess Expedition was changed to include information that is not accurate. The text was changed to read:

Splitting into three companies, the Mormons marched on the three major non-Mormon settlements in the county under the direction of General Parks and as official state militia. The purpose was to disperse the mobs forming to attack Adam-ondi-Ahman and restore order to the county. Apostle David W. Patten led the attack on Gallatin, Lyman Wight headed the troops assigned to Millport, and Seymour Brunson led a smaller detachment against the Grindstone Forks settlement. Fleeing, the mobbers set fire to their homes and fields and blame the mormons later.

[Changes in bold.]

While it is true that apologists for the Mormons used to make the preposterous claim that the Missourians set fire to their own homes, no reputable historian would ever repeat such a thing today. See the two key current sources on the Mormon War:

• Stephen C. LeSueur, The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri, University of Missouri Press, 1990.
• Alexander L. Baugh, A Call to Arms: The 1838 Mormon Defense of Northern Missouri, BYU Studies, 2000.

I will look up the exact references when I have them in front of me. Using the term "mobbers" to refer to the Missourians who were being driven from their homes is rather the opposite of NPOV. In fact, it is the Mormons who were acting as a "mob," in that they illegally entered the county, drove out the Missourian settlers, stole their chattles and burned their homes.

The article as written was neutral. It acknowledged the wrongs and injustices of both the Mormons and the Missourians. I've reverted it to the way it had been. --John Hamer 00:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was quoting journal selections from some of the members of the expedition. It was compiled in the history book that I have at home and I'll quote when I get back. Jgardner 21:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know by what means you claim no historian would claim that anti-mormons would set fires to their own property. They were murderous rapists bent on driving the mormons from the state and taking their property. Mormon records indicate that no property was taken except to feed the army. No property was burned by the mormons. When the mormons would arrive at a burning property, they would put the fire out. They weren't driving them out - they were disbanding the mobs!

I'd also like to state for the record that what you are arguing has no effect on the other change. The mormons were assembled at the order of the state militia. They fought as legitimate state militia. They were ordered by the general to disband the mobs. The mobs were threatening to drive out the mormons from Daviess with physical force, while the mormons were peacefully co-existing with them, even submitting to the duly elected judge of the county. The term "mob" is especially appropriate because they were not pacifists - they were assembling and conspiring to do to Adam-ondi-Ahman what they had recently accomplished in De Witt! Jgardner 21:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Missourians in Daviess County were "murderers and rapists," were they? Who did they murder? Who was raped? I'm sorry to say that you seem unaware of the facts. Your use of the highly partisan term "mobbers" implies to me that you are an apologist. I suggest you read BYU professor Alexander Baugh's work, A Call to Arms: 1838 Mormon Defense of Northern Missouri."

Baugh states: "On October 18, Mormon companies made up of men from Caldwell and Daviess Counties, and comprised of both regular militia as well as members of the Danite society, visited the three settlements" [Millport, Gallatin, Grindstone Fork]. He continues, "The attack on Gallatin, the county seat, came as a surprise to the townspeople..." He quotes Joseph H. McGee, saying "150 [Mormons] came into Gallatin and finding but 17 men in the place they run them out and took possession of the town. The removed the goods out of Stolling's store and burned the house. They then took the goods to Di Ammon" [Adam-ondi-Ahman]. (p. 86)

Baugh concludes: "Gallatin was nearly completely gutted. The only structure left unscathed was a small shoemaker's shop owned by a Mr. Borwell. The effects of the Mormon destruction at Gallatin could be seen for several miles." He states, "Similar activities were conducted at Millport as well as a smaller settlement known as Splawn's Ridge." (p. 87)

Baugh corrects your error in claiming that the Mormons only took property for the needs of the army. He states: "During the days following the assaults on Gallatin, Millport and Grindstone Fork, Mormon soldiers brought into Diahman wagons loaded with furniture, household items, bedding, clothing, foodstuffs, and bee-stands confiscated during the raids." (p. 89)

I've discussed the claims about mobbers burning their own houses in my revision of your revision.

Your statements about General Hiram G. Parks are confused. You are conflating a legitimate movement of the non-Mormon state militia to Caldwell and Daviess Counties in mid-September with the illegal movement of the Mormon militia from Caldwell County to Daviess County that occurred in mid-October. The Mormons did not fight as legitimate state militia. To do so, they would have to be so authorized to act outside their county. They were not. As such they were a "mob." The residents of Daviess County whose homes were burned and whose property was stolen by the Mormon "mob" --- which term, though accurate, I am not using in the article, please note --- included many people who were not involved in any anti-Mormon vigilante activity. The Mormons expelled the entire non-Mormon population from the county. --John Hamer 03:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wrote you off so quickly. I've been trying to research out this period myself and I am constantly amazed by how much misinformation and misrepresentations there are made about these events. It seems that there are two sides to the stories told during this period. They are irreconciliably different. My interest, ultimately, is to get to the bottom of it and find the truth of the matter. I am an apologist. I can't deny that. But I have a sincere interest in discovering the truth because I believe at the bottom of it all is justification or at least a good rationalitization.

I hope my naivety doesn't put you off. I am not a historian by training. I don't think that matters, however, because even in my field I have seen experts who haven't had much training either. Let's write this article in three facets: The facts as near as can be told; the representation of the facts by LDS apologists; and the representation of the facts by Missourian apologists.

For starters, I think the most reliable source of information is going to be found in the letters of the generals themselves. For an LDS view, we can turn to church history books and to the journal of Joseph Smith. For the Missourian view, I think Joseph H. McGee is a good representation.

Here is my list of facts as near as I can tell:

• Joseph Smith went with Lt. Col. Hinckle with about 100 men. Joseph Smith rallied the troops. Lt. Col. Hinckle led them. General Doniphan ordered it to be done. The purpose was to protect Diahman from the reported 800 people gathering from neighboring counties. These 800 were beating Mormons; driving away their flocks and herds; stealing their goods; burning their houses. The 800 had a cannon with them.
• General Parks was sent by Governor Boggs to investigate the Mormon conflict in Daviess. Upon arrival, he orders Col. Lyman Wight to raise troops and put down the assembling mob.
• The 800 flee when they hear of the Mormon militia forming. They bury the cannon in the road.
• The Mormon militia spread out into the county; they plunder the county; they burn houses. Some of the 800 also burn houses to blame the Mormons later. The cannon is discovered by a sow digging in the road.
• No fighting takes place. No one is injured or killed.
• The goods taken are given to the church. After the Mormon War, people go to Diahman and Far West to recover their stolen goods.

We can talk about the apologetics' explanations and rationalizations later.

Does this agree with what you understand? Which aspects are in dispute and need further clarification? Have you read the letters in the RLDS History of the Church? Have you read Joseph Smith's account? I have read through McGee's account. Jgardner 05:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I was hasty too. I'm glad that we share a common goal of getting at the truth. I see now that you are doing a lot of digging into the sources and so I'm not put off by you and I hope that we can work together, (see my note below). Here's where I disagree with your above working notes:

• I don't agree with the number "800" — people in the past often exaggerated numbers. How would the Mormons know how many people were in the opposing vigilante group? If there were that many, why would they flee? They'd outnumber the Mormons. I prefer to say "groups of Missourian vigilantes." There was more than one group of Missourian vigilantes. The ones with the cannon had come up illegally from Carroll County, I think. I'll have to check. That group did bury the cannon and flee and the Mormons confiscated the cannon.

• Doniphan did not order the Mormons to Daviess County. As Smith's lawyer, he cautioned that it would be illegal for the Caldwell militia to march under arms to Daviess County. Parks did not authorize Wight to "put down the mob." LeSueur has this to say about the sources you are relying on: "The Mormons later tried to justify their activities in Daviess County by asserting that General Parks had ordered them into the field during his visit to Diahman. This claim, like the assertion that General Doniphan authorized their expedition to Daviess County, is misleading. First, Parks did not arrive in Diahman until after the Mormons had begun their activities, including the sacking of Gallatin. Second, Parks did not report ordering the Mormons into the field. Finally, although Parks probably advised the Mormons to fight in self-defense, he certainly did not instruct them to drive Daviess settlers from their homes." (LeSueur, p. 123).

• I agree that the Missourian vigilantes burned Mormon houses. For any account of beatings, I would like to have a witness or a victim's account cited --- not just general hearsay that there were beatings. I'm not denying that those occurred. Like you say, this is a pivotal event and so we should be careful that specific crimes are well-documented.

• The goods stolen by Mormons were called "consecrated property" and were given over to the bishop and stored in the bishop's storehouse. All of the property was supposed to be given over to the church in this way, but some was kept by individual Mormon vigilantes. --John Hamer 15:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By the way, this source: History of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is completely out of date. The Community of Christ recognizes that it was filled with partisan errors, which is why they commissioned a newer, less partisan history: The Church through the Years by Richard Howard. A new official history has just been commissioned to replace Howard's book and it will be published in 2007.

Were the letters quoted false? Jgardner 05:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've made corrections based on more recent scholarship to your expansion of the Daviess Expedition. The article is now accurate again, but I think that the expansion unfortunately emphasizes this part of the Mormon War. The fact is that Missourians acted as vigilantes and attacked Mormons in De Witt and elsewhere and later acted illegally when the Mormons were expelled from the state. But it's also true that the Mormons acted as vigilantes and attacked Missourians, e.g. in Daviess County and at Crooked River. Because you've required so much evidence to back up the latter reality, I think it overemphasizes the Mormon crimes. --John Hamer 04:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you are overquoting Baugh. What sources is Baugh relying on? Not even McGee mentions farms being plundered by Lyman Wight. He told only of the smoke rising from Gallatin. I can only find references to farms burning in the reports made to Governor Boggs by the anti-Mormons.

Why would Joseph Smith write the following? "About this time William Morgan, sheriff of Daviess County, Samuel Bogart, Colonel William P. Peniston, Doctor Samuel Venable, Jonathan J. Dryden, James Stone, and Thomas J. Martin, made communications or affidavits of the most inflammatory kind, charging upon the 'Mormons' those depredations which had been committed by the mob, endeavoring thereby to raise the anger of those in authority, rally a sufficient force around their standard, and produce a total overthrow, massacre, or banishment of the 'Mormons' from the State. These and their associates were the ones who fired their own houses and then fled the county, crying 'fire and murder.'"

Are we to discount Smith's testimony of the events?

I believe the Daviess County event is the pivotal event in the war. It is because of this and the reports of this that the Extermination Order is signed. We should document every atrocity committed by every person as accurately as we can. It is also the first time people felt that they were really at war. Jgardner 05:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that I over-referenced Baugh — I did that to show you the conclusions of a believing LDS professor as published by BYU Studies, i.e., to try to show you that this is not some "Anti-Mormon" conclusion. The same conclusions could be referenced from LeSueur's work. There are a host of primary sources from the Latter Day Saint and Missourian sides that make it clear that it was the Mormons who burned the Missourians' homes in Daviess County. (I will look several up and give them to you. I will also change the article to cite the primary sources.)

Note, however, that you yourself even admit that the Mormons burned homes above, although you want to hold out and say that some of the homes were burned by the Missourians themselves. Unfortunately, yes, we are to discount Smith's testimony. The testimony that Missourians were burning their own homes does not hold up. (It doesn't even past the smell test — people don't generally burn their own homes just so they can blame their enemies for the crime.) Why would Smith write that? Perhaps because there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest on charges relating to these activities. You may not want to believe that Prophets are imperfect and do both good and bad, but Smith would have been the first to correct you. These were trying times, Smith and the Mormons felt threatened and decided to respond to that threat with their own aggression. In doing so, they became just as guilty of mob activity as their perceived persecutors.--John Hamer 15:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's try to work together

Jgardner --- I'm likewise sorry that I dismissed you quickly and reacted hastily. When I read the change about "mobbers" burning their own houses, I thought you were just a Wikipedia vandal. I would have reacted the same to someone claiming that the Mormons burned their own houses in Jackson County in order to blame the Missourians. You'll note that I reacted similarly when some Anti-Mormon vandal tried to change this article to say that Boggs had always treated the Mormons fairly. That's simply not true — Boggs clearly acted with negative bias toward the Mormons.

I agree with you that the primary sources are the most important sources. There are a great bulk of primary sources for this period, and yes I have read many, many of them. However, many of the primary sources are partisan. You have to consider them all and weigh them against each other. For many of the events, much of scholarship has reached a reasonable consensus on many issues in the past 20 years. The accounts in both Baugh and LeSueur match on almost all the issues — I've been referencing Alex Baugh for you to show you what believing, practicing LDS scholars have now said.

My goal is to tell this story in a neutral way. I am not an Anti-Mormon in any way. My ancestors lived in Far West; their property was wrongly appropriated and they were illegally expelled from the state. I am having an article I wrote on this period published in a compilation by the LDS church's Deseret Book (which I mention to illustrate that my research has not been viewed by the LDS church as "anti")

Let's work together here, if we can. Quote specific sources and references and I'll do my best to answer. --John Hamer 14:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Johnston's Army

Could I suggest a disambig at the top to the page to Johnston's Army? Growing up Mormon (there's a title!), the only "Mormon War" I heard about was the US action against the western LDS Settlements. The Missouri troubles/persecutions were not labeled a "war" until college history class. So, our readers might need direction. WBardwin 15:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I wrote a little something, see if that works for you. --John Hamer 01:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Supplemental Articles

I've been expanding this article --- it was actually one of the first I wrote, and it really needed some flesh on its bones (especially references) --- but I don't want it to be too long, so I've started to expand some of the supplemental articles. I just made a massive expansion to the Battle of Crooked River article and I hope to hit some of the others soon. --John Hamer 01:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What happened next?

I understand that there are a great deal of Mormon articles in Wikipedia, its becoming something of the great saga. At the end of the articles such as this one could you enter a reference under 'see also' a link to the next part of the story. Such as that the Mormons are moved on to Illinois, but what happened there to end up seeing them go to Utah. I understand that these articles have been written, but I am wondering if you could link them up for us so that, if us readers come upon the story at any point we might be ushered on to the next installment or previous happening. Such seems the convenience of the almost linear development of the Mormon story, that it would be served well by this type of delivery.Danieljames626 05:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Merged content from Gallatin election day battle

Kville105125 00:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC) The article was a redundant stub. See its old talk page Talk:Gallatin election day battle

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Mormon War → 1838 Mormon War — There is no widely preferred usage for Mormon War. If any term has an edge in history books it is the more broadly significant Utah War. I propose that Mormon War become a disambiguation page leading to 1838 Mormon War, Utah War, and the redirect Illinois Mormon War. Another possible title for this page after a move is Mormon Missouri War (sometimes Mormon-Missouri War, Missouri Mormon War, Mormon War in Missouri), although it seems to have less currency. In any case, the name Mormon War is too ambiguous by itself, since there were at least three significant conflicts given this name. The principle of least surprise suggests that most readers looking for "Mormon War" will want information about the Utah War. For example, of the three entries for "Mormon War" on Answers.com, ours is the anomaly. —Dhartung | Talk 00:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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

This is BULLSHIT

Although tensions were indeed high there was NEVER any authorized killing by organized Morman Forces (Although they came close)66.41.186.212 (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Constant renaming of this article

This is the second renaming of this article. Renaming this article based on date is not helpful. There are three wars that are clearly identified by state -- Missouri Mormon War, Illinois Mormon War and Utah War. The Utah article at least keeps the state name in it. You have to be a hardcore historian to recognize the dates whereas the states keep it in perspective. Americasroof (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to also add that Missouri would be more appropriate since the war was actually in two parts - 1833 (the eviction from Jackson County) and 1838. Americasroof (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And I will add the Illinois war doesn't even have its own article -- it's a subset of History of Nauvoo, Illinois. Any search of "Mormon War" will produce the most results on the Missouri event.Americasroof (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No inline references

Holy cow! I can't believe I just added the only inline reference on this article! For an article about something that is very controversial, that is pretty pathetic! Americasroof (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Not pathetic -- just old. Almost all of this article was created before the current "fad" of inline cites. It takes a while for older articles to be rewritten and rereferenced. 71.219.150.164 (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in that the article is not materially different from its first significant contribution in January 2005 http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Mormon_War_%281838%29&oldid=9236065 It caught me more of a surprise considering the considerable debates and references on its parts. There is considerable controversy in some of the facts and inline references would help that. But you are right it takes time to do it properly.Americasroof (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The article uses Harvard style references. They just have to be converted into links using the appropriate template. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Consistent style, the citation style already established in the article must be followed. Therefore I have replaced the <ref>...</ref> style reference with one that is more similar to the style already used in the article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

The "cross" symbol next to David Patten's name is standard notation for US armed conflicts indicating death during combat &/or during the conflict; this is not a religious symbol in this usage, or some sort of a memorial. For another example please see War of 1812. This should not be removed again. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.mormonhistoricsitesfoundation.org/publications/studies_spring_01/MHS2.1Black.pdf}}
  • In 1838 Mormon War on 2011-05-25 02:04:40, 404 Not Found
  • In 1838 Mormon War on 2011-06-01 22:48:18, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Rename this article to Missouri Mormon War

This article was moved without discussion. The other articles refer to the state (Utah Mormon War and Illinois Mormon War). People do not easily recognize the year. But they will recognize the state. Even the disambiguation refers to it as "AKA Missouri Mormon War."Americasroof (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If we have citations that demonstrate that this is the most common usage, then I'd support this proposal. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV issues

All of the information here that discusses the forceful removal of Mormons appears to draw from sources affiliated with the LDS church. If the goal here is to inform a neutral audience, then there ought to be more effort involved. And is it really the case that there are no peer-reviewed sources on this topic outside of BYU? Rob Shepard (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I concur, this particular article, three years later, is still completely biased towards Mormons. It needs to be re-written to include as many counterpoint sources as possible. 24.49.173.118 (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Church name

NOT trying to start any kind of edit war here, but the change in the church name does have a bearing on this article. The name of the church is mentioned at the beginning of one section as the Church of Christ, which is correct--but by the time the war commenced, the name had officially changed to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. While I would agree that it has no major bearing on the outbreak of the war, it does represent the official name of this organization at the time the conflict erupted; hence I think this article should pay at least passing credit to that fact. There is no need for any extended discussion, but the article should at least give the name that was being used officially in 1838, somewhere in the article prior to the portion that details the beginning of the conflict. Just my opinion, though--as I said, I'm not trying to start any edit wars. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The name of the church has no direct bearing on the issues involved with the 1838 Mormon War; it was not an antecedent factor to the conflict, it was not an action taken during the conflict, nor was it a result of the conclusion of the conflict. The links at the beginning of the article to Latter Day Saints (which redirects to Latter Day Saint movement), Mormons, and especially to Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) all adequately describe the change in name in a far better way than the the awkward wording, and poor placement of the material you added. The edit in question does not add materially to a readers understanding of the 1838 Mormon War, and is off topic. If you feel a need to included the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" name in the article in order to avoid anachronistic naming usage, there are far better, less intrusive ways to do this than the way you have. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 15:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Have it your way. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not mean to cause offense; I myself make plenty of mistakes, and don't always word things in the most clear manner (see the repeat word issue in my reply above). It would have been better if I had not characterised the wording as being awkward, as that wasn't needed, and I should have foreseen that using that word could cause conflict. That was foolish of me, and I'm sorry. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 18:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

No worries; these things happen to all of us--me, included! I fully accept your apology, and also apologize to you in turn if anything I did or said was offensive to you. Have a super day. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1838 Mormon War. 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/20131224120338/http://www.jwha.info/mmff/mmtour.htm to http://www.jwha.info/mmff/mmtour.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

"Daviess County had been balanced between Whigs and Democrats": unverified

This claim is highly is questionable. The county itself was newly created, and its first election was scheduled precisely in 1838. Without historical voting records, how would it even be even possible to verify this assertion about a pre-existing political balance?

It's clear that the influx of Mormon settlers into the region did significantly impact local politics. It was the hot, new controversial issue that political candidates had to address. But this specific claim is just unsubstantiated. I have marked it as unverified and would appreciate if more work could be done on adressing the Mormons' disruptive impact on regional political dynamics. Gottagitgud (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1838 Mormon War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gottagitgud (talk · contribs) 13:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Penultimate supper (talk · contribs) 16:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd be happy to review this! It seems like a nice article on my first pass. While I'm not a member myself, I have an ongoing interest in Mormon history which springs from having lived in communities with many LDS members for many years, so I'm always interested in diving a bit deeper and supporting good content on the topic for the encyclopedia. I will try and get some initial comments by the end of the day, and complete a source review and provide more detailed comments over the weekend. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Gottagitgud, I'm still compiling the detailed review of all the GA criteria, but I have completed some initial notes and a review of +10% of the sources, and have added those notes below. I'll provide further comments as I go. As of right now, I have mostly good impressions of the article, and I think it's either close to or already fulfills most of the criteria, but I think the citations will need a bit of work; I'll provide more specific thoughts in the detailed review sections. Thanks for the work you've put in thoughtfully improving an article that so many people had already contributed to over the years, its nice to see that type of collaboration and quality improvement work still taking place on articles that have a long history, honoring the editors who've contributed before us. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)}

Hello, I've edited in my full review. Please accept my apologies that this took me longer than expected.

Overall this is a wonderful article, and I think it does a good job explaining a very confusing war that involves a lot of back-and-forth, and a lot of unclear motives. I think the background section is particularly well-written. As of now, substantial work is going to be required to bring the sourcing up to the standards of a Good Article, because many claims made are not easy to verify in reliable sources. That's the nature of an article built gradually and by many hands though, and I think some dedicated work with recent scholarly sources can get the article where it needs to be, although it'll be important to remember that that may require some content loss if reliable sources don't cover everything that's currently included, and that's OK.

I'm placing this on hold right now until December 9th. @Gottagitgud: if you feel like you can bring the article up to standard by then, awesome, if you'd like to extend the time a bit before reviewing changes, just let me know. I see you've already started integrating some of the fixes I've recommended, which is great. Thank you for your hard work on this article; it really shows. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello Gottagitgud (talk · contribs); would you like me to wait a few days longer on this? I see you've been working in-depth on the article in sandbox, so I feel like it's likely it'll be up to GA standards soon and am happy to extend the hold a bit longer. Also, if there are any issues I raised or suggestions I made that you don't agree with, don't feel like they 100% have to be made, I'm just one reviewer and unless somethings a major violation of the criteria I'm open to reasonable editors having different thoughts about what leads to the strongest article, just note it so we can discuss if needed. Cheers! — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello Gottagitgud (talk · contribs); I'm failing this GA review now, as substantial work needs to be done and I haven't heard back in quite a while. I think it can be improved to GA level, and I think the work you've been doing in your sandbox is likely to get it there, so I hope you renominate it when your schedule allows. Be well — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Overview

• The article has been around since 2004, and has seen contributions from 160 editors over twenty years.
• The nominator has contributed 15% to the article, contributing over the past year.
• The article has 5800 words of readable prose, with a total size of 348 kb which seems appropriate for the topic considering the number and depth of reliable sources available.
• The lead is well-written and informative, but there may be some room for improvement in terms of length (it's about 10% of the article), detail (it provides a pretty detailed timeline of events that may not be all needed in the lead) and establishing a bit more about the context of the war and why it is notable in terms of larger issues in either Mormon or Missouri history. I'll provide a few more detailed recommendations in another section.
• Claims are thoroughly cited throughout the article, but I do have some concerns about WP:RS issues and over-reliance on primary sources or sources that are too close to events chronologicaly where stronger, more recent, scholarly sources may exist.
• I haven't done a detailed image review yet, but the article is well illustrated on first glance.
• No glaring prose issues on a first read-through, it is readable and clearly written throughout. Will provide specific recommendations about prose in another section.

GA review

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: This represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria.
Key: = Pass; = Fail; = Questions; = On hold; = Unassessed.

Well-written

I think the lead section is a bit longer than it needs to be, giving a blow-by-blow summary of the article and taking up about 10% of the total length of the article. It could be reduced to focus a bit less on the internal events and just the conditions that led to the war and the conclusion/impact. It'd also be good to give a bit more of a sense of the context of the war in the larger events of Mormon and Missouri history at the time and to mention the legacy or later treatment of the war. I think context and notability could be well established by adding one or two references to the first few sentences of the Jackson County section and the content of the Aftermath section in the first paragraph of the lead and then shortening the following paragraphs to provide fewer details.

Overall, I found the article to be well-written and easy to understand. There are some specific paragraphs that become a bit knotty and hard to follow and some areas where details should be clarified; prose should be adjusted to increase readability' or unfamiliar people, places, or institutions should be defined.

The article adheres well to all the other MoS sections needed for GA.

I've listed a few specific issues with prose and/or breadth in the Content notes section below.

Verifiable with no original research

In the citation spot-check I reviewed 18 out of 121 citations and found 11 issues (not all of which impact the GA criteria), so I do have concerns about the article overall meeting the verifiability criterion. See the detailed citation spot-check section below for specific recommendations. At the least, citations that use the same sources as those where I found issues should be reviewed to make sure they do not share the same issues.

There are some sources named in the citation spot-check where the reference is relatively vague, and it would be difficult to find the source without the aid of the convenience link; these should be expanded to make it as easy as possible to locate the correct source.

There is one issue of WP:CLOP listed in the citation spot-check below that should be addressed.

There is a lot of good sourcing here, and claims that could reasonably be challenged are largely well supported. There are a few primary sources that I think should be used a bit less or excised entirely, and I believe most could be replaced by more recent, secondary sources. There's also a lot of thoughtful and appropriate use of primary sources, but to prevent the appearance of WP:OR and better support verifiability, I suggest subdividing the references list into lists of separate primary and secondary sources, but that's in no way required for GA.

Some of these issues came up in the citation spot-check below, but additional sources that I have concerns about regarding WP:RS or WP:OR include:

• Corrill, John (1839), A Brief History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Commonly Called Mormons), St. Louis, Missouri.
  • Where this is used for illustrative quotations, it's probably fine, but it's probably not good to use to support direct historical claims, as it's primary and written by an involved party without any specific claim to be reliable.
• Jenkins, James H., Casus Belli: Ten Factors That Contributed to the Outbreak of the 1838 'Mormon War' in Missouri, Independence, Missouri: CreateSpace, 2014.
  • This one doesn't seem to actually be cited, but AFAICT, it's a self-published book by someone who doesn't have established expertise in the field. A lot of these amateur history books are really great, but generally not appropriate for WP. I'd recommend removing it.
• Johnson, Clark V. (1992). Mormon Redress Petitions: Documents of the 1833–1838 Missouri Conflict. Religious Studies Center, BYU. ISBN 0884948501. OCLC 1005472124.
  • This is used pretty extensively, and it's a situation of reprinted primary documents from the event, letters, affidavits, etc., being used to support specific claims. I think that's a WP:OR situation that should be addressed everywhere this is used for anything beyond a quotation.
• "LDS Church History: LDS History, October 14, 1838".
  • This one only shows up in the notes list [62], not the references list. Blogs on blogspot are considered generally unreliable, and I don't see anything to suggest this one is one of the rare exceptions. See more details here.
• "LDSLiving - Porter Rockwell: 7 Unbelievable Facts and Stories You Didn't Know". ldsliving.com. Archived from the original on February 25, 2016.
  • This one only shows up in the notes list [121], not the references list. I don't think LDSLiving.com is a reliable source on matters of history.
• Lee, John D. (1877). Bishop, William M. (ed.). Mormonism Unveiled: The Life and Confessions of John D. Lee and the Life of Brigham Young. W.S. Bryan. OCLC 1127295640.
  • This is only used once, but it's not a reliable source and should be replaced.
• Peck, Reed (1839), The Reed Peck Manuscript, retrieved November 13, 2016.
  • This is technically being quoted, but in small pieces that are being used to construct claims that I don't think can appropriately be supported by such an old primary source from the time of events.
• Smith, Joseph; Rigdon, Sidney; Smith, Hyrum (1840), An appeal to the American people : being an account of the persecutions of the Church of Latter Day Saints, and of the barbarities inflicted on them by the inhabitants of the state of Missouri, Cincinnati, Oh: Shepard and Stearns, archived from the original on October 21, 2013, retrieved April 14, 2011.
  • This is something that could support quotations, but it's being used to support whole claims. I think it should be removed or replaced as a non-reliable source, and it seems to be largely used to support claims that already have another citation attached.
• "New Page 2". www.tungate.com. Retrieved July 26, 2024.
  • This one only shows up in the notes list [64], not the references list. This is a primary source that can't really be used to support any claim other than its own existence, and it's hosted on a personal site of dubious reliability IMO.

Broad in its coverage

The article does a great job covering all aspects of the war and has a particularly strong section describing the background and events leading up to the outbreak of violence. There are a number of Mormon terms used without explanation; they are usually wikilinked, but could use a brief explanation to make the article more clear. Additionally, some characters and locations are referenced without being properly introduced/contextualized. This makes parts of the article hard to follow, particularly with regard to issues of geography and properly associating individuals with a specific side of the conflict. I've listed a few specific issues with prose and/or breadth in the Content notes section below.

Neutral

The article does a very good job of remaining neutral. Complex issues are largely presented clearly, and where quotations are used to provide more detail, they represent a diversity of perspectives. A diversity of sources are drawn upon, and disagreements or differences of interpretation between sources are presented clearly in the article.

Stable

No concerns here.

Illustrated

The article has a good number of illustrations that do a good job enriching the written content. All the images are relevant to the content and have good captions. Adding alt text would be a nice enrichment to the article, not a GA requirement though. I just had two notes:

• • File:Destruction of the printing press, Jackson County 1833.jpg - Issue
    • Needs a Commons:Copyright_tags/Country-specific_tags#United_States_of_America
  • File:Daniel Dunklin.jpg - Suggestion
    • Seems a little odd to include Daniel Dunklin's portrait here when he isn't mentioned in the article directly and Lilburn Boggs occupies such a large role in the article. Not a GA problem, just a suggestion that maybe it should be supplanted or supplemented with a portrait of Boggs? Seems there's a good one available on commons.

Citation spot-check

I reviewed 10% of the citations, selected randomly from this revision. Because so many of them ended up being from LeSueur 1990, I added an additional five random citations to ensure my check reflected the diversity of sources included in the article. Somehow, none of the 18 citations I randomly chose came from Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling, the one source I actually own a copy of 🤷🏻‍♂️. Please take some time to review them and either take action or share some thoughts about why the article may be stronger left as is. For citations where I found an issue, it'd probably be good to check whether the same issue applies to other uses of the same source.

• • 3a - Hartley 2001, p. 6 - Verified
    • The convenience link provided for this reference is behind some sort of odd gatekeeping captcha alternative, and I couldn't access it, but I was able to find it here.
  • 24 - Quinn 1994, p. 94 - Verified
  • 25 - Baugh 2000, pp. 36–40 - Issue
    • I'm having trouble finding the 2000 version of this source, it doesn't seem to be available online or via any of the public or academic libraries in my state. The 1996 dissertation version doesn't support the claims in the preceding paragraph on pages 36-40 (although part of the content on those pages is about the same aspect of the events. Additionally, this is both a dissertation and published by BYU Studies, which has a stated aim of publishing "scholarship that is aligned with the purposes of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and the mission of his Church", so I don't know if it's the best source. I'm not saying it's not a reliable source, but since reference 22 and 24 already seem to support all the claims in the paragraph, it's got some marks against it, and it seems to be hard to get ahold of even as a reference professional with broad access, it may be worth removing. Alternately, it seems the author has published more on the topic since, further into their academic career (Baugh, A. L. (2019). “We Have a Company of Danites in These Times”: The Danites, Joseph Smith, and the 1838 Missouri-Mormon Conflict. Journal of Mormon History, 45(3), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.5406/jmormhist.45.3.0001, available here via Wikipedia Library) which may yield some stronger and more helpful cites.
  • 26 - Roberts 1965, Vol. 1, p. 438 - Issue
    • The text on p. 438 seems to be about the “Salt Sermon” addressed in the previous paragraph, while the information about Rigdon’s “Declaration of Independence” is on 440, at least in the 1965 edition I was able to access. This should either be changed, or the citation should be expanded to clarify the use of a different edition, so page number line up. Also, publisher information should be added to the citation, especially as this is a source published by the LDS church.
  • 34 - LeSueur 1990, pp. 77–85 - Verified
  • 40 - LeSueur 1990, pp. 70–71 - Verified
  • 42 - LeSueur 1990, pp. 85–86 - Verified
    • This is verified, but the information comes from a footnote citing another source, which you could make a little more transparent by using an approach like those described on WP:SAYWHERE, which appeals to my academic sensibilities, but is certainly not a GA requirement, nor neccesarily expected with any sort of consistency on WP.
  • 43a - LeSueur 1990, pp. 101–110 - Issue
    • Citing such a wide page range seems like it makes things a bit hard for someone to find verification, and since this same range is reused multiple times to support separate things, it may be good to break these out into more specific citations. Usage to support the claims in this paragraph is verified, but all the claims in this use come from p. 101. Additionally it seems like this may be a bit too close of a paraphrase—it's a small and direct sentence, but still probably worth reworking:
      • Source: On 20 September about one hundred fifty armed men rode into DeWitt and ordered the Mormons to leave the county within ten days.
      • Article: On September 20, 1838, about one hundred fifty armed men rode into De Witt and demanded that the Mormons leave within ten days.
  • 49 - Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1968. - Issue
    • This is a difficult source to track down, linking to a physical-only archival collection, which is inherently fine, but the citation also doesn't specify where in this collection this information could be found. It'd be best to either get more specific, so that a reader with access to that collection would be able to find and verify this information, or if that's not doable, to replace this citation with something more accessible that supports the same claims, which seems like it should be possible.
  • 52 - Office of the Secretary of State of Missouri 1841, pp. 43–46, 53–54 - Issue
    • I don't know if citing legal affidavits from the time of the events for a historical event passes WP:RS. Additionally, a span of five pages—including many discrete statements—are being used to support a small set of claims that already appear to have support from a more RS, secondary, source. Could this be removed and the sentences it supports be reworded to rely only on [48] Baugh 2000, pp. 85–87 or possibly the alternate Baugh source I included above?
  • 61 - Andrew Jensen (1889). The Historical Record, Volumes 5-8. p. 732. - Verified
  • 88 - Office of the Secretary of State of Missouri 1841, p. 73 - Issue
    • Same source as 52 above. Can this be removed, and the sentences reworked to rely on [87] LeSueur 1990, pp. 168–172 alone?
  • 89 - Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 1920, p. 13:450-451. - Issue
    • I had trouble finding a version of this source I could access. There's a convenience link to an open ebook hosted on Google Play, which I'd recommend replacing with a link to the Hathi Trust's holdings, but I couldn't get farther than the index in either without my browser crashing due to the size of the files. The citation also seemed to be saying that I'd find this on pp. 450-451 of vol. 13? If that's right, the index of vol. 13 indicates that those pages contain a listing of local historians, rather than explanatory text about the claims made in this article. I don't know enough about the source to be sure if it counts as RS, but I'm a bit concerned about an internal history journal from the Community of Christ not being RS, but I wouldn't fail on those grounds based on my limited info and the direct factual nature of the claims being made. At minimum I think the citation needs to be changed to make it more clear where verification of the claims can be found.
  • 93 - LeSueur 1990, p. 174 - Issue
    • Just a tiny issue, p. 174 isn't explicit about the overnight holding, so I'd expand this to pp. 174-175.
  • 94 - Robinson, Ebenezer, Autobiographical Remarks by Ebenezer Robinson (1832–1843). Reprinted Archived June 11, 2011, at the Wayback Machine by the Book of Abraham Project at boap.org - Small Issue
    • This is verified and an appropriate source for a quotation, but the first link on the citation is dead, and the citation is worded in a confusing way. Is this an excerpt from a book being mirrored online? If so, I think the citation should be reworked using {{cite book}} and the Internet Archive link can be retained as a convenience link. I wouldn't be able to find this source using the information currently in the citation if the second link were to die.
  • 98 - LeSueur 1990, p. 182 - Verified
  • 105 - Greene 1839, p. 27 - Issue
    • I don't think this is a reliable source; it's a seemingly self-published pamphlet from the time of the events written on behalf of the Mormons seeking to defend them, written by someone who presents himself as the "authorized messenger of the Mormons" and has no backing in history or journalism. I'd imagine there are more reliable, secondary sources that could verify the claims this source is used for.
  • 107 - Greene 1839, pp. 26–28, 34, 36 - Issue
    • Same issues as in [105] above.

Content notes

• Background
  • Jackson County, 1831-1833
    • Most Latter Day Saints were originally from New England, the Ohio Valley, and Great Britain and, unlike their southern neighbors, generally opposed slavery.
      • Should be cited, or the paragraph should be reorganized to clarify that an earlier citation already supports these claims.
    • The expelled Mormons sought refuge in the neighboring counties, especially in Clay County.
      • Should be cited, or the paragraph should be reorganized to clarify that an earlier citation already supports these claims.
  • Caldwell Compromise, 1836
    • The Mormons began establishing the town of Far West as their headquarters within Missouri.
      • Should be cited, or the paragraph should be reorganized to clarify that an earlier citation already supports these claims.
    • This arrangement allowed for a period of relative peace. According to an article in the Elders' Journal, a Latter Day Saint newspaper published in Far West: "the Saints here are at perfect peace with all the surrounding inhabitants, and persecution is not so much as once named among them...".
      • This needs a full citation that would allow a reader to identify the source of the quote.
  • Salt Sermon and Danites
    • Might be worth adding a note that the Danites are named after the biblical Tribe of Dan; it's clarified in the main article, but the name appears without explanation here, and that could make for a smoother read.
    • I like the timeline and think it is helpful to understanding the article, but its location here seems a bit random. I'm not sure where a better location for it, perhaps its own section?
• The Election Day Battle at Gallatin
  • The phrase vigilance committee shows up mid-way through the section and is obscure enough that I think it needs definition or a bit more context. Are these the same as the mobs blocking Mormons from voting mentioned in ¶1? If so, it could be used there to create a definition from context. If they're different, it should be clarified. They're mentioned again in the next section as vigilante committees, with the suggestion that these are organized institutions of some sort, not just mobs.
• Mormons expelled from De Witt
  • The citizens of De Witt sent non-Mormon Henry Root to appeal to Judge King and General Parks for assistance.
    • Who is General Parks, and why would he and/or Judge King be able to intervene?
• Daviess County expedition
  • The second paragraph is really hard to follow here. It needs to be clarified what locations are in what counties, what the different militia forces involved are, and which ones are able to go where. Each involved force or leader should be introduced clearly before their actions are described.
  • Either Adam-ondi-ahman or Diahman should be consistently used throughout; currently, both are used, so a reader can't understand the geography unless they know they both refer to the same place. It should probably be clarified in the first mention that this is a town in Daviess County.
• Battle of Crooked River and Mormon Extermination Order
  • The first paragraph would benefit from clarifying the geographic relationship of Ray County to Caldwell County, whether the citizens crossing the Missouri were Mormon or non-Mormon, and from whom they were seeking safety.
• Hawn's Mill Massacre
  • Thomas McBride surrendered his rifle to Jacob Rogers, who shot McBride with his own gun. When McBride held out a hand, Rogers cut it off with a corn knife, then may have further mangled his body while McBride was still alive.
    • Which of these men was on which side, and why is this incident being specifically described? Was it the inciting incident?
  • Other members of the mob opened fire, which sent the Latter-day Saints fleeing in all directions.
    • Should be cited, or the paragraph should be reorganized to clarify that an earlier citation already supports these claims.
• Siege of Far West and capture of Mormon leaders
  • This section starts by talking about General Lucas, and then General Clark is introduced. What is the relationship between these two, what forces did each control, and why the switch from Lucal leading things to Clark being emphasized in the end of this section and in Aftermath? The page on Clark suggests he was the executor of the Governor's executive order; if this is the case, that should probably be made clear earlier in the article, and Lucas should be introduced when he appears in this section.