Talk:Miracle of the gulls

Category
It is true that the historical details of this event are disputed, but this dispute is not a controversy having to do with Mormonism. If it was, almost everything about Mormonism would be a "controversy" because most people doubt the credibility for fundamental LDS tenants.

Actually, there are similar factual disputes over almost every chapter in history, but these pages are not labeled "controversies." Articles like this describe competing views of history, not controversies surrounding them. If this dispute on historiography was a notable subject itself, then the category might be appropriate, but applying it here is not sensible. Cool Hand Luke 03:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge
I oppose the proposed merge of Seagull Monument into this article. I think the monument is notable enough in and of itself, since it is likely many people know the monument as a landmark without knowing anything about what it commemorates.

Both articles could certainly be expanded. The monument article could be expanded to include more information about its conception, design, dedication, etc. In general I'm in favor of keeping the articles for monuments and the event they commemorate separate. For example, I'd hate to see Irish Hunger Memorial merged into Great Irish Famine. –SESmith 05:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Recommendations

 * 1) Expand the eyewitness accounts. It's a fascinating POV, and captures the readers interest.  People who come here to argue about whether it is "true" or not, are missing the point.
 * 2) The critical analysis section is unsourced, and should either be removed or rewritten. It's unlikely that we need the section in the first place.  Including it is like asking the intelligent design movement to critically analyze an article on evolution.  Again, some people just don't see the word "miracle" in the subject heading.  Miracles aren't subject to critical analysis.  Of course, if there is a reliable source that analzyes this topic with a fair and neutral hand, it should be added in proportion to the criticism.  It's perfectly acceptable to present a skeptical POV (and should probably be required) but it should not "drown out" the history of the story. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It also appears to violate WP:OR. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 04:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Traditional Story - opinion
"Because the Mormons are quite the credulous and stupid people, a Seagull Monument was erected and the California gull is the state bird of Utah." is the ending sentence of the first section. This is an unsupported opinion and quite offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.106.254 (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

What's the point of the source-less "critical analysis"?
I think the critical analysis portion is completely pointless. The article's purpose is to relate a story told by Mormons who lived in the Salt Lake Valley in 1848. As long as it's made clear that this is their story how they tell it, there's no reason whatsoever to "critically analyze" it and try to disprove it or whatever. It makes this article look like not even the smallest thing can be said about Mormonism, without the critics of Mormonism popping up, due to their compulsion that makes it so they can't just leave Mormons alone, and spreading their hostility and intolerance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CFB6:2E80:80C:9064:6BA:DB9 (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)