Talk:Brigham Young

NPOV discussion
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 (talk • contribs) 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)

If neutrality is the aim then critiwue of Young should be included, it's not.

There should probably be a list of all the things he introduced, not just the good stuff.

Even a section about his polygamy uses the word "only" in reference to his having had children by 26 wives.

It's probably unintentional bias, but it is bias nonetheless. CuriousStapler (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Unintentional or otherwise, it's clear that this page has been primarily edited by LDS members. The legacy section in particular is a whitewash: it primarily consists of a list of memorials and hagiographies from the early/mid 20th century. The section on race and slavery begins claiming he had a "somewhat mixed view of slavery" while going on to essentially only provide evidence of virulent racism and support for slavery without any real counterpoints. Any other article about a figure like this would make a note of their controversial legacy and modern criticism. The section on the Mountain Meadows Massacre also relies heavily on one source from an official LDS historian when other historians have argued for a greater degree of personal involvement. I am far from an expert on any of this, but this page clearly stands out as only having a pretence of NPOV. 157.211.126.195 (talk) 05:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Young's Nicknames
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 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and moved the nickname stuff down to the Legacy section. I kept some of the relevant information up in the lead, like the fact that he travelled with the pioneers.Cjstirlbyu (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

More details and sourcing
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)

BY javelin quote
I have concerns about the addition of the "javelin" quote added here. The quote was initially included in an edit by a different editor about a month ago. I trimmed that substantial edit to keep this a summary article, cribbing wording from the actual blood atonement article and avoiding details like unnecessary exact quotes. I believe that this should still be a summary paragraph of BY's teachings on blood atonement. I still don't think that this quote adds anything to the summary. Additionally it is quoting a primary source - it would be better if this were to secondary source so that the claim that this is an example of a blood atonement. Overall, I find the quote too sensationalistic and undue weight, and I will again remove it and invite discussion on the talk page. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I would add that the Journal of Discourses, the primary source document referenced for the javelin quote, has issues as a source. Historians have discovered that George D. Watts, the transcriber, would for reasons frankly quite unknown change the text between his shorthand transcription of a talk and the published version in the Journal. (Gerrit Dirkmaat and LaJean Purcell Carruth [2016] "The Prophets Have Spoken, but What Did They Say?" ; LaJean Purcell Carrth [August 4, 2020] "Preached vs. Published: Shorthand Record Discrepancies") As such, quotations from the Journal of Discourses, while most likely broadly reflective of the speaker's meaning, nearly always vary from the actual words used, sometimes by quite a lot (for an example, see page 25–26 from "The Prophets Have Spoken"). Weighing the evidence and parsing through what excerpts from the Journal of Discourses legitimately reflect what was said and which are more Watts than the speaker seems to me more a task for secondary sources than for us at Wikipedia. As such, I would encourage refraining from quoting directly from the Journal of Discourses. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 00:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the quote is just some extra fluff. Sorry for all of the trouble. Qinggong482 (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Biography source evaluation for Brigham Young
Hello my fellow Wikipedia editors, you may have noticed that my student has been editing parts of this page. I'm hoping that we can give it a complete overhaul. I felt a bit overwhelmed by the sheer number of biographies and did a bit of a literature review on the biographies I've found so far. I found book reviews of the biographies and based my opinion of the books on those. My conclusion is that I believe the Turner, Arrington, and Alexander biographies to be the best sources for this page. I couldn't find reviews for the McCloud biography, but reading through it, I don't believe that it is a suitable source for this page. I will be replacing the McCloud sources with citations to one of the other biographies. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to second Turner's Pioneer Prophet, Arrington's American Moses, and Alexander's Expansion of the Mormon Faith as the best and most reliable biographies of Brigham Young.
 * In case it comes up, there's one other biography of Young, not on Rachel Helps's list: David Vaughn Mason's Brigham Young: Sovereign in America (Routledge, 2014), originally written for a series aimed at students. Reviews I've seen are somewhat mixed, trending positive while suggesting that Sovereign in America over-focuses on a somewhat narrow idea of who Young was, and a review in the Journal of Mormon History points out an assortment of discrepancies of fact that should be born in mind if an editor consults Sovereign in America. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 19:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * [ Hydrangeans ] Thank you for the info on Brigham Young: Sovereign in America! I added it to my list. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Best way to organize information about Brigham Young's polygamy
hi again, I'm thinking about how to organize the information on this page. Specifically, I am wondering where would be a good place to put information about Young's proposal to Martha Brotherton and maybe some other information about his participation in polygamy. I think I will put it in the paragraph about Brigham Young's time in Nauvoo for now. But I feel like a section on Young's polygamy and proposals might be appropriate because there could be a lot of information on it (and maybe that section would also include his theological support of the practice as later church president/prophet). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Number of children
Did Young have 56 or 57 children? It says that he had 56 wives and 57 children in the intro, but in the info box he's only listed as having 56 children. WikidKev (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)