The image of Joseph Morris may be incorrect. Please see File_talk:Joseph_Morris.jpg--ARTEST4ECHOtalk 20:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Morrisite 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/20060902002855/http://library.usu.edu/Specol/manuscript/caine10.html to http://library.usu.edu/specol/manuscript/caine10.html
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.
This should be the United Stated and not the Utah Territory. As started invmy first edit "fix infobox. Added units(USMS and terrtoial milita), this was USA VS morrisite (this is because USMS where used)" I do not know why the edits where reverted, if @The Banner could clarify. LuxembourgLover (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources for your claim? The Banner talk 15:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to being referenced in the article, I have sources One and Two. LuxembourgLover (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, but both of these sources do not support your claims.
The first source states "Robert T. Burton, deputy marshal" but leaves it unclear if he was a local/state/US marshal.
The second source is even worse. It is a listing of autobiographies with a summery. The second one states: He participated in resisting the U.S. Army during the Utah War, mentions the Morrisite War, (...) No evidence he participated in the Morrisite War. Just mentioning that war does not prove that he participated. The Banner talk 20:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
local/state marshals do not exist in the US. Also the article mentions he is a US Marshall. If you want to be sure, you should read all the references for the article. LuxembourgLover (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read United States Marshals Service and especially: For over 100 years marshals were patronage jobs, typically controlled by the district judge.. You give zero evidence that they acted on behalf of the national US Government. The Banner talk 05:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just added info from the artical into the infobox, I do not need to sorce it if it says in the artical US marshals where sent to the battle. LuxembourgLover (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken, as all other mention of the marshals are also unsourced. So it is necessary to get sources. The Banner talk 23:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the claim is sourced, should we have the United States or Union. LuxembourgLover (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That "source" is just one passing mention of him being a "deputy marshal" acting on behalves of the territorial chief. Still n0o evidence of the central government being involved. And regarding your question about confederate or union: what do the sources say? The Banner talk 00:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right Robert Burton was not a Deputy U.S. Marshal, he was an Utah Marshal. However Judson was a Deputy United States Marshal, as found in the source “On May 24, 1862, Deputy United States Marshal Judson Stoddard obtained a writ of habeas corpus from Territorial Chief Justice John J. Kinney. He proceeded to Kingston Fort where he was allowed to read the writ to Morris, Banks, and Klemgard. These men were not willing to receive the document, however, and let it fall to the ground in their midst.”
Also my question was not confederate or union, it was Union or United States. As it was during the civil war I do not know what one to uses. LuxembourgLover (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is way too much WP:SYNTH happening here. Stoddard is referred to as a US Marshal here but Burton is referred to as a "deputy territorial marshal" in the same source and "deputy marshal" here. Stoddard only served the writ but is not mentioned as being involved in the "war" - only the prelude. What we have is a posse led by Burton "as the deputy marshal" that the members may have been part of militias etc does not mean that the militias were part of the posse - more synth. We don't have to populate fields of the infobox and there is a case not to do so here for the units. The action was between the Utah territory and the Morrisites. I'm not even certain that the article is improved by having an infobox at all. The recent edits to it are certainly not an improvement. I have reverted to the earlier version and made some amendments IAW relevent guidance. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Morrisite War is not the same as the Kington fort siege. the Morrisite War included the federal involvements, writs, mobilization, the Morrisite kidnaping, etc. The Kington fort siege was the battle that involved the posse and the Morrisites. LuxembourgLover (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have told you many time before that your work is not to the standard you can expect from an encyclopedia. You blow up details far beyond their relevance and read things in sources that are not there. And your extensive use of AI in the past to write texts even made that worse. Sorry, but I have to back up Cinderella157 on this. The Banner talk 21:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not trying to start a fight all I’m saying is that the Morrisite War included the federal involvements, writs, mobilization, etc. The Kington fort siege was the battle that involved the posse and the Morrisites. I think the info-box should show this. LuxembourgLover (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Picture
I found a picture that I think we can uses. It shows the Utah Territorial Militia attacking the fort. However the picture is called "massacre of the Morrisite" that did not happen, it also shows US forces attacking civilians, while civilians died they where not killed by US forces in a massacre. Should we still uses it? LuxembourgLover (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it free of copyright? The Banner talk 18:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry I forgot to link it. I just don't know if we should use it because it is not the most historically accurate photo, but then there where 4 civilians to die in the conflict. LuxembourgLover (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Morrisite massacre
As in this, free picture, already present on Wikimedia Commons with all the correct licenses? And free to use? The Banner talk 20:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the same question on Wikimedia Commons and they uploaded it. The question is should we uses it? I just don't know if we should use it because it is not the most historically accurate photo, but then there where 4 civilians to die in the conflict. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This picture was uploaded in 2015, so definitely not after an earlier question of you. The Banner talk 01:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright well nevermind, the question remains should we uses it? I just don't know if we should use it because it is not the most historically accurate photo, but then there where 4 civilians to die in the conflict. LuxembourgLover (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the picture is not the best choice for this article. As stated before it is not the most accurate picture for the war. I did want to ask why the description was “nonsense”@The BannerLuxembourgLover (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As above, this picture is about the massacre of the Morristes. Correct? Then why do you add a caption "Goverment focres entering the Kington Fort", what is another episode in this saga. The Banner talk 13:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only event was the siege, there is no evidence of the government “massacre” there was civilian deaths as with any war but no massacre. I understand it is not the most historically accurate, that’s why I opened this topic in the first place. LuxembourgLover (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you give me the eerie feeling that you have no clue what you are talking about. Especially, as the Mountain Meadows Massacre belongs to the Utah War, not the Morrisite War. The Banner talk 13:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The picture of from the Morristes war. What does this have to do with the Utah War? If the picture is the Mountain Meadows Massacre then my bad, the picture is called “massacre of the Morristes” a group that had nothing to do with the Utah war of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. LuxembourgLover (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but with this answer you confirm that you are just not accurate enough. The Banner talk 16:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Morristes had nothing to do with the Utah war. LuxembourgLover (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are you putting a picture of the Utah War in the article about the Morrisite War? The Banner talk 20:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the picture is of the Morrisite War? It is called “Morrisite Massecure”. If it is the Utah War then the name should be changed, sience the morsites had nothing to do with the Utah War.LuxembourgLover (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the title is File:Grandest century in the world's history; containing a full and graphic account of the marvelous achievements of one hundred years, including great battles and conquests; the rise and fall of nations; (14778645701).jpg The files is not named Morrisite Massacre or Morrisite Massecure. When you look at the source (https://archive.org/details/grandestcenturyi00nort/page/49/mode/1up?view=theater) and scroll back to page 48, you can see that the picture belongs to the section "Mountain Meadows Massacre". And the Mountain Meadows Massacre (1857) is, as you can see in the article, part of the Utah War (1857-1858) and not of the Morrisite War (1862). The Banner talk 23:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I see this, all I’m saying is that the title is poor and should be improved along with the discretion. In the source you provided, the picture is called “massacre of the moriste” that’s the only part that confused me. LuxembourgLover (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Compromises
I propose a compromise to improve the info-box. The recent edits made by Cinderella157 on the Ruby Ridge standoff are well done and could be applied to this article as well. Similar to the Waco siege, I believe a ‘civil conflict’ designation would be more appropriate than ‘military conflict.’ With this in mind, I suggest updating the infobox to reflect this. I think this approach would enhance the article’s accuracy and consistency. I also went ahead and summarized Utah Territorial Marshall Service as UTMS, I know that’s not the best it was just to improve the example. Also as there is no page for the agency, I just linked it to the territory.
I found this form a source, Men, Motives, and Misunderstandings: A New Look at the Morrisite War of 1862. Utah Historical Quarterly, Utah Historical Society. “The makeup of the Morrisite congregation also explains why this group has been burdened with the historical judgment of lawlessness. They simply did not understand that the army that marched upon them, demanded unconditional surrender, and opened fire with cannon was a federal posse. Rather, they saw it as a force of Mormons carrying the offensive in a religious war. Time and time again their prophet had told them it would be this way. This, surely, was Armageddon, the final battle between the forces of good and evil. The Lord had commanded them, through his prophet, to do battle for a time. Then He would come. Writs of habeas corpus, writs of attachments, warrants for arrests, federal judges, federal marshals—these abstractions had neither meaning nor relevance to people charged with the task of ushering in the Second Coming.
Also Section 10 of the Utah territorial constitution “…There shall also be a marshal for the Territory appointed, who shall hold his office for four years, unless sooner removed by the President, and who shall execute all processes issuing from the said courts.”
Anyway I like the current format and the work of Cinderella157 on the Ruby Ridge standoff, so I want to use it here. Just an idea. Would love more options. Also I removed resulte, pictures, and stuff like that to make the info-boxes more easily fix in this discussion.
People who might care: @Cinderella157 and @TheBanner LuxembourgLover (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My nickname is The Banner, please be more accurate as requested many times before.
The proposed infobox contains a link to a disambiguation page. With that, the infobox is unacceptable in this form
The proposed infobox contains a misleading redirect. With that, the infobox is unacceptable in this form.
The proposed infobox contains a misleading link. With that, the infobox is unacceptable in this form.
In general: NO, the infobox is unacceptable.
The Banner talk 02:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback.
I’ve removed the link to local militias as it was unnecessary.
The link to the U.S. Marshals Service has been corrected to avoid redirecting to a disambiguation page.
Regarding the Utah Territorial Marshal Service, I understand the concern. Since there isn't a specific article for it, we could either create a more appropriate internal link or leave it unlinked to prevent confusion.
I've made the necessary adjustments to the info-box based on your input, and I believe this version should address the issues you raised. LuxembourgLover (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can explain again why the proposal is better than the infobox at present (if indeed there is a benefit of any substance by having an infobox), with reference to the guidance at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE - bearing in mind the KISS principle which is essentially the advice there. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just think it is good to show the units involved. The info-box you made looks more like the Kington Fort siege, the Morrisite War as a whole involved more units. LuxembourgLover (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like to know if the marshals were involved in the actual fighting or were just officials doing their duty? Mustering a posse/militia does not make them part of the fighting forces, IMHO. The Banner talk 15:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know, they may have stuck around to help with arrests or they may have left after the milita came. However the fighting was part of the Kington Fort siege, while Morrisite War included the write and warnings deliver by local and federal marshals. As stated in the article, the war was divided into two parts, Dissension/Government involvement then the Kington Fort siege. That is how I understand it and how I understand from what I read.[1]LuxembourgLover (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you try to push in more inaccuracies/stuff you can not prove. Bad idea. The Banner talk 15:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fact that USMS and UTMS where involved in the war. LuxembourgLover (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I am seeing from the article is a casus belli followed by the bellum, where the latter is the siege. The article gives a nebulous date for the war as "June" but events leading up to the war/siege fell earlier than this. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, I personally understand it as the war started with the marshal and court orders, however I can see your side. LuxembourgLover (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^Men, Motives, and Misunderstandings: A New Look at the Morrisite War of 1862. Utah Historical Quarterly, Utah Historical Society
.jpg/1280px-thumbnail.jpg)