Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:31, 27 January 2015

This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for Apologetics/Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for Apologetics/Polemics at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Latter Day Saint movement Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Missouri Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on October 27, 2008, October 27, 2011, and October 27, 2013.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Deaths as a result of the order

While it may be fairly stated that no one was killed (i.e. by the militia, or others) as a direct result of the issuance of Boggs' Extermination order (as there is no proof that the militia at Haun's Mills knew of it; they never cited it as a reason for their actions, at any rate), it can't be stated that no one lost their lives as a result of it (which is how I've changed that part of the article to read). Boggs' order was the direct catalyst for the mass expulsion of the Mormons from Missouri; it gave it a "legal" (though actually it was very illegal) covering, and to say that not one Mormon died as a result (when the articles make clear that several died of exposure and other conditions related to the season and conditions surrounding the forced move) is going too far. This is why I reverted the recent edit, and changed the wording of that section accordingly. - Ecjmartin (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I am rewording for clarity that no one was killed as a direct result of the order but that some lost their lives as a result of the mass expulsion. Tripleahg (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the introduction to its previous wording prior to a couple of revisions ago. I reiterate what I said above in 2013: there is no proof that any of the militia at Haun's Mill knew of this order; they never cited it as a reason for their actions, which we would expect them to have done as it would have given them a legal 'cover' for their savage deed. Furthermore, there is no need for the lengthy rehashing of what happened at Haun's Mill in that section at all, or anywhere else in this article, as this is an article about the Order, not the Haun's Mill Massacre, which has an article of its own. The fact that there is no proof that the militia didn't know of it (cited by the previous reviser) doesn't mean that they did. The wording here should reflect this. - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems this is quite controversial. I'd like to remind Keepitreal2 (as well as any other new editors who would like to contribute to this portion of the article) that this area is the place where we discuss controversial changes so we can reach consensus about how this portion of the article should read. I am reverting the paragraph to something similar to what it was before this series of controversial edits started on Dec 5 2013.

1) No one explained the removal of "due to the phrasing used by Boggs" so I'm reverting it.

2) "Many" is a highly subjective word that differs wildly by context. Using the word to refer to the deaths resulting from the order is unencyclopedic because it could mean 3 or 3000. Two sentences later it is stated that the death toll from exposure is unknown, which is far more encyclopedic. If anyone has a source stating "many" died (or better, stating a number!) please add a quote, but the authors of an encyclopedia have no place using subjective terms themselves. I'm reverting it.

3) I'm re-addeding the statement that there is a lack of evidence that the militiamen involved in Haun's Mill knew of the order. That this statement will be in the article is presupposed by the editors of the Haun's Mill section on this talk page. The actual lack of evidence has not been disputed by editors, only the appropriateness of including a statement to that effect, and that dispute has been only recent, only by 1-2 editors, and not referenced on the talk page. Removing the statement had the effect of strongly implying via proximity to the prior sentence that the militiamen are known to have been acting in direct response to the order. There must be clarification to avoid this incorrect, strong implication.

4) There is no reason to include, particularly in the lede, so many details about Haun's Mill as were added December 5. The paragraph describing those details is longer than any of the other paragraphs in the lede, and that doesn't even include the sentence about Haun's Mill in the prior paragraph. The weight is completely off here. The article is about the order. Haun's Mill is a subtopic, and not even the main subtopic, so let's keep the raw number of characters a little more balanced. I'm removing the details of who exactly was killed and how they were killed.

5) The Haun's Mill section on the talk page suggests two points be made in the article: that as a result of the order the militamen involved were not prosecuted, and that the massacre is an example of anti-Mormon persecution. I've highlighted the first point and added the second. Tripleahg (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Well said. No objections, here. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

Recently, this article has been hit by a series of edit-and-reverts, which I have been partially involved in. Myself and Tripleahg (talk have endeavored (see previous section) to raise issues that we feel should be discussed here with regard to some of these edits, but not all of those involved in this "edit conflict" have chosen to participate. It is not enough to insist that a one-line edit summary is a sufficient substitute for an in-depth talk page discussion, especially when other, established Misplaced Pages editors have asked for one. It is not enough to insist that myself and Tripleahg are unable to recognize some alleged "inconvenient truth," without discussing in depth what that "truth" is, and how we are failing to recognize it. If there's some "inconvenient truth" being ignored here, I would invite you in a friendly and gentlemanly spirit to come over here and discuss it with us. Let's all work together, and see if we can't agree on a way to make this article the best it can be. You state your side; each of us will state ours, and we'll see if we can't meet somewhere in the middle. How 'bout it? Cheeers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Although I was not involved until today's edit by me, I figure I would see if I can't sum up the issue at hand and give my opinion.

It seems to me this edit is where the issues came up. Ultimately it seems to me that the dispute is if there were any deaths caused by Missouri Executive Order 44. So it comes down to the following questions:

1. If were any death directly related to the Missouri Executive Order 44 (Order 44).
2. If those that died due to the wintry conditions the expelled the Mormons faced can be considered deaths from Order 44.
3. If the deaths at Haun's Mill massacre three days later can be considered deaths from Order 44.

In my opinion, and I believe Ecjmartin and Tripleahg would agree, the answer to all three of this is NO for the following reasons:

1. While many people died, it was not directly related to the Missouri Executive Order 44. The academic consensus is that at no time did the militiamen use Order 44 to kill someone. All the deaths were caused by the wintry conditions.
2. While some argument can be made that since the Mormons face the wintry conditions due to Order 44, they died from Order 44. I don't see any reliable sources making that claim. I also feel it falls under Post hoc ergo propter hoc ( "after this, therefore because of this", a type of Logical fallacy). Just because Order 44 came first, doesn't mean it was the cause of the deaths. Would the militiamen have expelled the Mormons without Order 44? Did they even know about Order 44? If that answer to ether question is "Yes", then the Mormons did not die from Order 44, even though it came first.
3. There is no evidence that the militiamen who were at Haun's Mill knew of the Order 44. If this is to be included there needs to be reliable sources as the academic consensus is that they didn't.

Unless some serious reliable sources can be found directly linking the deaths to order 44, it should written as it is. The current format is more WP:NPOV, while still addresses the fact that people died. The only real difference is the new version place direct blame on Order 44, while the original version states indirect causes.

However, I would love to hear from the other side of this debate.--- ARTEST4ECHO 19:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree with this. This is what I've been trying to say, all along. Nobody--certainly not me!--disputes that Boggs did an vile, reprehensible thing in issuing Order 44; the fundamental question is whether anyone can prove that people died as a direct result of it via academic sources that are acceptable for this encyclopedia. Let's consider the following:

1. Not one participant in the Haun's Mill Massacre ever cited this missive; indeed, there's no evidence that they even knew of it at the time this evil event occurred. To insinuate in any way that they might have, without direct, academically-acceptable evidence to back that up, is misleading and totally out of place in an NPOV encyclopedia. No other persons involved in the murder of any Mormon ever cited it, either, to my knowledge. If someone can show us proof to the contrary, I for one would love to see it.
2. General Clark did mention the Governor's order more than once (including the word "exterminated") at Far West when he addressed the Saints after their surrender. However, he equally made it clear that HE WOULD NOT ENFORCE THAT ORDER AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME; RATHER HE TOLD THE SAINTS THAT THEY COULD REMAIN TEMPORARILY, simply warning them not to think of "putting in crops" or "staying another season." This indicates that Clark--to whom Boggs had given full authority to execute Order 44--had no intention of forcing the Mormons out of Missouri in the dead of winter. While one might infer that the Saints didn't (for excellent reasons) trust Clark, Boggs or any other Missouri authorities and thus felt they should leave right then, this was still THEIR decision. We would need a firsthand source from the Mormons at this time SAYING that this was their reason, in order to attribute the winter deaths directly to Order 44. Otherwise, it remains that the Mormons (again, for entirely understandable reasons) chose not to avail themselves of Clark's "clemency" (as he put it)--but this was still THEIR decision and MUST be presented as such.

Don't get me wrong: if I were a Mormon in Far West in 1838, I'd have packed my stuff and headed out within one hour of Clark's speech, "clemency" or not. But to say that Order 44 was directly responsible by itself for the Mormon deaths in the winter of 1838-39, without equally referencing Clark's offer to DELAY its enforcement until the following spring and the MORMON decision (again, for entirely understandable reasons--nobody here, I think, would debate that!) not to avail themselves of it, is POV and misleading.

In summary, I would say that Points 1 and 3 raised earlier by Artist I am in 100% agreement with; Point 2 I would say I am in "qualified" agreement with, for the reasons given above. In general, I wholeheartedly concur. We need to keep this article on this still-volatile subject as factual and neutral as possible, and it seems to me that the edit restored by Artist does that best. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you guys think your Opinion matters. You have stated it is your opinion this and your opinion that... trying to talk your way out of the facts is arbitrary. My edits were sourced, my answers to you factual and concise. Hot air is still hot air, no matter which way you try to blow it. You are trying to rewrite history... and even went so far as to blame the Mormons for leaving. Your arrogance is beyond unacceptable. Believe you me, this will be resolved.

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Latter Day Saint movement articles
• Mid-importance Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement articles
• B-Class Missouri articles
• Mid-importance Missouri articles
• Selected anniversaries (October 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2011)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2013)