Talk:Short Creek raid

Further reading external links now defunct

The two links to LIFE magazine articles regarding photographs of the 1953 Short Creek Raid are no longer functioning properly, one leads solely to an index of LIFE photo essays and the other leads to a Google image search, which while it contains a couple images from the raid, lacks any additional information or explanation. Upon searching I did find the appropriate LIFE article, containing the relevant photos, with which I will replace the now defunct links if no one objects. However there only appears to be one article so I propose that the second citation of a LIFE article be deleted. MissKatie89 (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)MissKatie89

:Changes to what is available online does not change what was printed 60+ years ago. The url to the sources that is no longer online could reasonably be eliminated, but not the whole citation. Also have you tried the Internet Archive or other possible alternate online sources for digital archives for the material no longer online from the original source? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If you'll reread that's exactly what I said. That the links no longer lead to the LIFE article, but that it is still online and I found it via googling, therefore I propose changing the citation to reflect the current URL. The same article appears to be cited twice though, I thought there may be two articles but it does not appear that is the case from LIFE's archives. Therefore I'm not sure both citations are necessary. And none of it was printed 60+ years ago, the citation is clear that the LIFE article was published in 2011. MissKatie89 (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)MissKatie89

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Short Creek raid. 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/20070817130203/http://www.childpro.org/2001-2002%20media/2001-02%20media%2001.htm to http://www.childpro.org/2001-2002%20media/2001-02%20media%2001.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080620031315/http://www.slate.com:80/toolbar.aspx?action=print to http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2189274
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/07/texas.ranch/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080426011725/http://extras.sltrib.com:80/specials/polygamy/raidaccount.asp to http://extras.sltrib.com/specials/polygamy/raidaccount.asp

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Why did it happen?

Neither the lead nor the article itself actually explains why the raid occurred outside of "police action against insurrection." What were the deciding factors to bring 102 officers into the town for mass arrests or how/why the citizens were alerted to the raid beforehand? I'm sure this is covered in linked articles, but makes this article seem half-finished and largely biased in favor of the FLDS (im not saying it is biased, just that that is how it appears based on its current state) Thompso07 (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)