Wikipedia

Talk:Brigham Young

External links modified [ edit ]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brigham Young. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 13:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified [ edit ]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brigham Young. 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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 20:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified [ edit ]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brigham Young. 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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 21:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

NPOV discussion [ edit ]

I agree - the POV violations are consistent in judging the man by modern standards instead of historical standards (by which Abraham Lincoln could be condemned as racist). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.72.16.25 (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The article almost exclusively includes controversial aspects of Brigham Young's life, only very briefly brushing over his positive contributions. This needs to be rectified. It's pretty clear that the authors have mainly looked for scandalous content to include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.217.167.110 (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The entire introduction save the last sentence is exalting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historybuff18 (talkcontribs) 04:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

If anything, the Legacy section completely white-washes this racist, genocidal figure's failings.50.111.22.143 (talk) 08:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Haha no joke, this article reads like a Mormon recruitment brochure. The guy was a violent opportunist and hypocrite. Also, the whole church is based on the ridiculous lies of a grave robber.73.211.15.138 (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

You are entitled to your own personal opinion. But Wikipedia is not based on the opinions, biases, or preferences of any individual contributor. A variety of people with a variety of perspecitves, viewpoints, and opinions work together here on each article to ensure the tone of each page meets the requirements of maintaining a neutral point of view, including information supported by reliable sources, and in altering content based on a majority opinion on all major issues found with each article. I have my own perspective of Brigham Young, but if I were to assert that my own personal opinion should be the most meritorious and sole measure of how to craft the sum and total content in this article, I'm sure I would come off sounding like a crazy person. For that reason, my suggestion to every editor who has a problem with any of the content in any article here would be to ensure they check their motivations, biases, prejudices, and pre-conceived notions at the door before weighing in on how any topic should be covered here. Failure to do so makes it clear that one's own motivations may not be in the best interest of the reader, who deserves to have a well-crafted, impartially composed article with relevant references that allow the reader to craft his or her own opinion of the article subject. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Young's Nicknames [ edit ]

Are Young's nicknames in the introduction paragraph necessary? They're not really an overview of him, and it's really an obscure fact that goes down below, I'd think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTeaDrinker (talkcontribs) 20:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

More details and sourcing [ edit ]

I have begun to add more details from Thomas G. Alexander's biography of Brigham Young. The problem is my electonic copy does not include page numbers. I am not sure how to specifcy where I am finding details.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

What is this?