Talk:Missouri Executive Order 44

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mormon Extermination Order which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 8 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Missouri Executive Order 44 → Mormon Extermination Order – I believe the title "Mormon Extermination Order" better fulfills the criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Article titles.

1. Recognizability and Naturalness: The use of the term "Mormon Extermination Order" extends beyond academic circles and has permeated popular culture, literature, and media. Moving would make it easier for readers to find and access the article, since it is a more intuitive and recognizable term
2. Precision: "Mormon Extermination Order" accurately describes the content and significance of the historical event. The order called for the expulsion, or extermination, of Mormons in Missouri.
3. Concision: The title "Missouri Executive Order 44" does not clearly distinguish the article from other executive orders issued in Missouri, none of which are notable enough for an article. "Mormon Extermination Order" specifically identifies the historical setting the event took place in. Gottagitgud (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Gottagitgud (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Gottagitgud: As explained in my closing comment, you should file a new WP:RM. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose move, Keep article at title "Missouri Executive Order 44". Setting aside that a previous consensus resulted in the move to Missouri Executive Order 44...,
  1. Missouri Executive Order 44 was the official title of the legislation
  2. A previous revision of this page noted, "relatively few people were killed as a direct result of its issuance". Calling it an extermination order when there wasn't a mass extermination is misleading. pbp 19:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  Furthermore, let me state that some of the rationale by Gottagitgud is in error. He cites "precision"...but there was no mass extermination of Mormons carried out. Calling it an extermination order suggests a genocide that...well, just didn't happen. As for "concision", if other executive orders issued in Missouri are not notable enough for an article, then they shouldn't have any bearing on the title of this one pbp 19:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  When the militia captured Far West, they issued a warning that violence could escalate if the Mormons did not surrender. However, the Mormons chose to surrender immediately and organized their own voluntary withdrawal from the state. As a result, there was little need for violence to enforce the order. The Mormons complied with the order, rather than confronting the military.

  The designation of 'extermination order' stems from the original wording used by Governor Boggs. Yes, the language is strong and alarming. But 'extermination' does not necessarily imply mass killing. The word 'extermination' comes from the Latin term extermino, meaning to expel or exile. The order did result in the forced relocation of around 15,000 people from the state. Gottagitgud (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support per WP:POVNAME. We have Boston Massacre and Great Leap Forward and Alexander the Great because those are the common names used to refer to those topics, despite those not being very neutral or accurate names. I suspect practically no one refers to this topic colloquially as "Missouri Executive Order 44". And the fact that there was no mass slaughter does not mean there wasn't an order. The noun here is 'order', not 'extermination', and the plain text of the order says the Mormons "must be exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace", so calling it an extermination order is not much of a stretch. The RM in 2010 was about the title being vague, not about it being NPOV. At the time, it had the completely vague title of Extermination order, which doesn't indicate what the topic is. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposed title is a severe misnomer: "it was implemented by the state militia to forcefully displace the Mormons from their lands in Missouri. In response to the order, the Mormons surrendered and subsequently sought refuge in Nauvoo, Illinois." It was not an etermination of Mormons. Rationale #1 fails, because a misnomer is not natural, and the "easier for readers to find" argument doesn't pertain when the desired title already redirects to the article. "Recognizability" could be an argument to make, if it were proven that a majority of independent reliable sources were using the term, but no such evidence has been offered. Rationale #2 really obviously fails, because a misnomer cannot be precise (in the sense WP:AT policy means), by definition. Rationale #3 is irrelevant, because the desired title isn't appropriate for other reasons, and the proposed name is only one character shorter anyway, which is too trivial to care about. WP only uses misnomers as article titles in the rare case that it is overwhelmginly the WP:COMMONNAME, and even then we sometimes still don't do it, if we consider the potential for reader confusion too great (e.g. horned lizard is that that article not at horny toad despite the latter being overwhelmingly the more common name in everyday English). I would argue that is the case here, since the title very strongly implies an actual extermination of Mormons, which did not take place.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  PS: None of BarrelProof's examples are misnomers. Exactly how many deaths to requires to make a "massacre" is subjective and undefined; the GLF was certainly "great" in several senses of that term (e.g. "large/strong in impact") and was "forward" at least some senses as well (toward a consolidated nation-state, toward a lasting presence on the world stage of modernity). AtG was demonstrably "great" in the sense of being the most successful military commander and land-conqueror of his period. None of them are objectively disprovable, but it is obviously provable that the Mormons were not exterminated in Missouri, but forced to relocate (and, yes, there were some killed, so maybe it was a "massacre" in the Boston sense, but that's not under discussion here). PPS: I have no idea why WP:MISNOMER is red-linked. We need to address that somehow, since this sort of thing comes up periodically.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add information regarding cultural understanding of the Order

In the fourth paragraph it says: "The order, while using the term extermination, is widely understood today not to have intended the physical annihilation of the Mormon population." It goes on to say this is the consensus of scholars; however, this is not the consensus in the church. I was raised as a member, and we were taught that the Order was a call for genocide. This is a lesson in the Primary manual, which is essentially Sunday School for kids age 3 to 11, more or less: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/primary-5/lesson-31?lang=eng

I am unsure if this is worth adding to the article or how best to add it, so I would like feedback before including it in the article. Ap1015 (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

According to the official LDS Church site's article on the order:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/extermination-order?lang=eng

"At the time, the meaning of the term extermination included the possibility of forced evacuation. For example, in the case of the forcible removal of American Indians, United States officials used the phrase exterminating war to describe the use of force to achieve either the Indians’ “total expulsion” or “total extinction.” Military leaders expected expulsion orders to be met with hostile resistance, meaning “extinction” was a possibility, though evacuation was the more likely outcome."

The governor's wording was ambiguous, and there's even indication that the militia generals were confused by it even back then. The above explanation is very clear, and I agree that the current paragraph needs further adjustments to accurately represent the historical context Gottagitgud (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)