Talk:Two thousand stripling warriors

Move article
I was looking through the Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Articles needed and noticed that both 2000 stripling warriors and Two thousand stripling warriors were listed. I don't know what the Wikipedia preference is for article names in this case, but it seems to me that the later name (with the number spelled out) is the better name. I decided not to make the move or redirect any of the links until there is some discussion on this. Val42 03:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure either if there is a stated preference or not. I thought I read somewhere, though, that the article name should be the most probable usage. If that's the case, most people (I think) would use "2000" rather than spelling it out. Otherwise I have no objection to either title.--andersonpd 05:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's a redirect now. I didn't do it, but it's there. --Mrcolj 14:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Val42 is right; Naming conventions (numbers and dates) states: "[...] Try to avoid abbreviations or anything capitalised or containing numbers (apart from where more specific guidelines specify particular exceptions to that) [...]" In any case, the Book of Mormon spells it out, which should be the guide followed. Gonna redirect it. Deadsalmon 02:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Pacifism section
That pro-pacifism section seems a little weird to me. I mean, it is an interesting point that the 2000 Stripling Warriors is a good metaphor through which to see and discuss the consequences of pacifism. But that's not what the story's about, and the discussion here doesn't really even mention the story. It simply rants about how pacifism is good and any use of force, even in self-defense, should be branded "militarism." If no one objects, I'm just going to edit that paragraph down to one sentence. --Mrcolj 14:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Mormon was not there
I am always pleased when attention is given to the Book of Mormon and the storys contained in them. However, there was a major flaw in this particular article. In the article, it says that Mormon, the compiler of the Book of Mormon was in the battles of the Two-thousand Strippling Warriors, but such is not true. It is easy to get confused with who is who in the Book of Mormon since there are several people with the same name and if you are not familiar with the chronology and geneology, it is a simple honest, and maybe even common, mistake. The battals of the 2000 Stripling Warriors occoured around 64 BC whereas Mormon, the compiler, was born around 311 AD, 375 year later. It can get confusing because the book with the record of the 2000 Stripling Warriors was actually retold, by Mormon, along with his comments and that is the record found in the Book of Mormon. Half of the Book of Mormon was retold by either Mormon or his son Moroni, which is why it is called the Book of Mormon, not just because he was the one who compiled it. Unless one studys the events carefully, it is easy to lose track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HAMDMAN (talk • contribs) 20:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If it was around 64 BC, then were the Ammonites converted to Christianity before Christ was born? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Stripling Warriors gay superheros
I suppose it was inevitable. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1366461100/stripling-warrior-the-worlds-first-gay-mormon-supe --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"improperly uses one or more religious texts"
I don't understand why this article needs other sources. It is about characters mentioned in the Book of Mormon, so it references the Book of Mormon. The present article leaves the question of whether one believes the things mentioned in the BoM quite open, and irrelevant. If this article was claiming that there were actually 2060 Stripling Warriors, then it would require other references. But it doesn't. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I know this was from 4 years ago, but the template is still there and I think at this point that it should either be addressed (unlikely and probably unnecessary) or be removed. PeanutHat (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Combine with Anti-Nephi-Lehies?
I vote to KEEP this article (that's a NO on the merge). HOWEVER, the subarticle there is much, much better. I say move that info here, then cut that one down and add a note that the full article is here (this add-a-note part I've already done....it'll just be disappointing to those who click). Thmazing (talk) 06:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Can I get your thoughts on why two thousand stripling warriors should be the main article and not Anti-Nephi-Lehies? In my mind, the warriors were a part of the larger main ethnic group Anti-Nephi-Lehies. Epachamo (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * That's true, sure, but we can find plenty of examples of a group belonging to a larger ethnic group getting their own article. That's not unusual at all. And this group of young men have such a significantly separate arch from their parents, that much of the cultural effect from their story (meaning, within modern Mormonism) is distinct. Both articles are a bit parbaked at present, in my opinion, but the distinct generational aspects (within the Book of Mormon) and cultural impact (today) seem to push us toward this getting its own article. Hopefully in a fuller form than has yet been done. Thmazing (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You feel the Anti-Nephi-Lehies article is parbaked? Can you clarify?  What do you feel is missing from it? I have spent a lot of time on it and would appreciate the feedback. Epachamo (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I mean the 2000s' article was parbaked. Thmazing (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I personally don't see the reason to merge the two articles. I think putting a redirect on the Anti-Nephi-Lehies to here would actually be good. PeanutHat (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * When you say put a redirect to the Anti-Nephi-Lehies are you suggesting that if someone types "Anti-Nephi-Lehies", that it should be redirected to "Two Thousand Stripling Warriors"? Or that a link on the Anti-Nephi-Lehies page should go to here? Epachamo (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * @Epachamo I meant that there should be a "section" kind of thing on Anti-Nephi-Lehies about the Stripling warriors with it saying something like "main article redirects here". PeanutHat (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * @PeanutHat, ah ok, I'm with you now. Epachamo (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)