Misplaced Pages

Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:20, 21 May 2007 edit65.54.155.43 (talk) →Mormon spambot← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:36, 17 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,241 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{talkheader}}
{{Article history
{{WikiProject Utah|small=yes}}
| action1 = PR
{{LDSproject|small=yes |class=B}}
| action1date = 2007-8-20
{{NorthAmNative|small=yes}}
| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Mountain Meadows massacre/archive1
{{archive box|
| action1result = reviewed
#]
| action1oldid = 152283222
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]}}


| action2 = GAN
==Pretty good article==
| action2date = 00:24, 30 October 2007
In anticipation of the upcoming film, I have taken a look at this article. Overall it looks pretty good but there are some areas that I question. I can think of two right off the top: 1. the "Nauvoo Legion" reference in the first paragraph. Despite the cite, I think that it was not the Nauvoo Legion that did the murders but, rather, ordinary citizens some of who may have been former (or maybe even current) members. But it was not organized as a Nauvoo Legion action and did not follow the course of a militia action. 2. The article says that there is no evidence Brigham Young ordered it but there is a question about the cover up. (or words to that effect). I have no idea about his participation in a cover up, but I recall reading that not only is there no evidence he ordered it, but in fact, he expressly ordered against it.
| action2link = Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre/Archive 17#Quick-failed "good article" nomination
| action2result = not listed
| action2oldid = 167973886


| action3 = GAN
There may be other areas that need review. I intend to take a look. --] 13:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
| action3date = 15:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
| action3link = /GA2
Welcome aboard, Blue Tie.
| action3result = listed
| action3oldid = 1041434742


| currentstatus = GA
A German-American childhood friend of mine's father's unarmed family members were massacred by Russian soldiers at the end of World War 2 - yet was this done by the Russian Army? I myself dion't know the answer to such questions. However, in the present case, I relied upon such cites as MacKinnon's. (Incidentally, MacKinnon's a regular participant at timesandseasons.org these days, despite his own thoroughgoingly Scottish-American Presbyterian faith, and maybe can be persuaded to justify labelling guerilla actions of Legion officers Higbee/ Haight/ Lee with the military disciplines imposed on the local privates at the MM as being under the auspices of the territorial militia. ...E/g, as the premiere historian of the Utah Expedition of 1857, perhaps he can explain why, despite Buchannon's pardon of the Nauvoo Legion and of Mormon officials for acts of rebellion during 1857, the prosecution of Lee for the atrocity went on? So, are unsanctionable acts perpetrated by the armed forces in general or only by "individual" perpetrators? --] 18:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
| topic = history
:I would further add that the rider sent to Salt Lake mentioned in the article did return with a letter from BY instructing them not harm the emigrant train, but it arrived to late. An earlier incarnation of this article did mention this but it started an edit war and was removed about December/January time frame. The reason for the edit war is some historians are convinced the BY's letter contained code words that covertly approved of the attack. While I will admit BY's letter is a lot less pithy that I would expect a letter with the point of "NO --STOP-- LEAVE THEM ALONE" should be. I'll even admit the letter is bizarre, but to say it contained codewords is conspiratorial. Either way it doesn't matter because, again, the letter arrived too late anyways. I still feel this should be in the article but would want some one else to review the wording to avoid further edit wars. If nobody objects I could work on this this weekend. ] 18:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
| small =
| collapse = no
|itn1date=
|dyk1date=|dyk1entry=|dyk1nom=
|otd1date=2006-09-11|otd1oldid=75188318
|otd2date=2007-09-11|otd2oldid=157102857
|otd3date=2008-09-11|otd3oldid=237631468
|otd4date=2009-09-11|otd4oldid=313246231
|otd5date=2011-09-11|otd5oldid=449877453
|otd6date=2022-09-11|otd6oldid=1109714468
}}


{{Not a forum|personal beliefs, nor for engaging in ]/]s}}
:::I would understand the killing of people in a war zone by uniformed soldiers of one of the opposing forces in a combat action to be a war death at the hands of that military unit. I would not, however, consider it a war death at the hands of that military unit if it were contrary to that unit's rules of engagement and if it was not conducted under that unit's command and control system. For example, in Japan, US Soldiers sometimes rape and kill Japanese girls. This is not a killing by the US Army because it was not conducted under that unit's rules of engagement nor was it administered under that unit's command and control system. In Iraq, members of the US Military raped a woman and killed her whole family. It was, in fact, an official squad of the US Army. However, they did not operate upon that unit's rules of engagement and did not take orders from the military directing this action. So, I would not say that the US Army raped that woman and killed her family. I would say it was the individuals who did that. In the case of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, there are further complicating factors including the fact that some of the alleged participants were not (as I understand it) members of the Nauvoo Legion. That some were or that some used to be is not the same thing.
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=GA|
I think that Brigham Young's letter should be in there. It is a very important part of the history. If there is some sort of reliable verifiable source that can describe the code, that should also be included. But, I think, if that were the case, JDL would have mentioned it in his trial. --] 01:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject United States|importance=mid|UT=yes|UT-importance=high|USOldwest=Yes|USOldwest-importance=Mid}}
:Juanita Brooks documented that the massacre was organized by the militia. Lee was the highest ranking officer at the site (a major), but he was in regular communication with Colonel William Dame and Lieutenant Colonel Isaac Haight. ] 03:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=mid}}
::The reason I have not made any edits is because I want to check my facts. I will be looking at Juantia's book again (and others) as soon as I can. However, as I understand it, as late as the day of the massacre, Haight gave a ''military'' order that the train of immigrants was not only to be unmolested but protected. Later, Dame was angry with Haight that they had not been protected. Thus, the military command channel, from what I can recall, did not contribute to this. But I have to check my facts because this is all memory for me. I suppose, at least under relatively modern standards, Haight and Dame could be blamed for failure to exercise sufficient control. In modern military organizations, commanders get some sort of hit, even if it is just a bad OER and they would be in line for that. But, that is applying more modern standards to the issue -- which any reasonable historian would tell you is invalid. Anyway, I think that if the Commander of the Nauvoo Legion gave direct orders not to molest but to protect the immigrants, it is wrong to say that same military organization did the deed. An example that I think is an extreme example is command of ], ] and the ]. In this very weird case, a whole military platoon killed somewhere between 350 and 500 women, children and old people. Analysis by the Army after the event observed that several factors led to a break-down of the proper chain of command and military discipline. Despite the fact that it was an act that was ordered by the platoon commander, under ambiguous orders from the company commander, the massacre is not said to have been conducted by the US Army but by soldiers in the US Army. There is a difference. Furthermore, I believe that with regard to My Lai, the only people who participated were soldiers. I do not think that is true for Mountain Meadows -- not everyone was a member of the Nauvoo militia. (One other difference: The troops at My Lai hated their commander and thought of killing him. I add this parenthetically because it is interesting but not relevant to our discussion).--] 14:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America|importance= low}}
{{WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject History|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=GA
|<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
|B-Class-1=yes
<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=yes
<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=yes
<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=yes
<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=yes|US-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Death |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Disaster management|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject United States History|importance=Mid}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 20
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
}}
__TOC__


== Past content removed ==


The following was fully removed from the MMM article and then partially restored, am parking it here while I see if it is verifiable or not etc:
:::My caution would be to keep the following in mind when working on an addition or re-write. So far it's served me well and kept most of my additions from launching edit wars (knock on wood):-)
*'''' – an article originally published in the Cincinnati Gazette (July 21, 1875), then republished in the ](July 26, 1875). An affidavit of James Lynch's testimony taken in July 1859 about the human remains Lynch saw at Mount Meadows in March and April 1858, about the living conditions of the child survivors of the Massacre during that time, and about the children's statements regarding the perpetrators of the Massacre. Lynch accompanied Dr. Jacob Forney, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, on an expedition to the area. The affidavit was given in front of Chief Justice of the Utah Territory Supreme Court Delana R. Eckels on July 27, 1859, and sent by US Army officer S.H. Montgomery to Commissioner of Indian Affairs A.B. Greenwood in August 1859.
:::*This article is about like an abortion debate. Both sides have so much passion that you need to make your edits with a lot of care and with the other POV's in mind.
Thanks, ] (]) 00:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::*No matter how good the source you use is, there are 2 out there somewhere that contradict it
:What is presently in the article is the following:
:::*With so much contradictory information, the absolute truth will never be known. People on both sides believe that someday a smoking gun will be discovered that vindicates their position, but I doubt it. I believe that even if a letter from Brigham to John D Lee is discovered while demolishing some old building in Cedar City, it will probably raise more questions than it answers.
:*'''' – an article originally published in the Cincinnati Gazette (July 21, 1875)
:::Just my $.02 ] 17:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
:''So''...
:The Lynch affidavit's publication journey in various newspapers can be found in the newspaper.com clip, at the top of the column:
::"(From the Cincinnati Gazette)<br>
::Washington, July 21"
:And from the cite itself:
::St. Louis Globe-Democrat
::St. Louis, Missouri •
::Mon, Jul 26, 1875
::Page 1
:Some of the same information can also be found on Page 248 in Chapter 8/"James Lynch Affidavit"(Pages 243-254) of the book ''Mountain Meadows Massacre: Collected Legal Papers, Initial Investigations and Indictments, Volume 1'' - see - especially the St. Louis paper info, though St Louis is the only source I can find at this time that mentions that this 1875 iteration of the Affidavit first appeared in the Cincinnati Gazette/July 21st 1875.
:And though the Lynch Affidavit's appearance in newspapers contemporaneous to the 2nd John D Lee trial (the one in 1875) are important to understanding the media of the time, the Affidavit itself is what is important to this subject. The 1859 Lynch Affidavit itself can be found in its slightly edited permutations in the book & source mentioned above. ''However''...so far as I can tell, the full Affidavit in any form that is ''also'' accessible to our readers seems to be only available in the newspapers.com cite, so that cite should stay.
:Now, as to the sentences that start with "An affidavit of James Lynch's testimony..." and ends with "...A.B. Greenwood in August 1859." All the excised information is contained in the newpapers.com/St Louis Globe-Democrat article of Lynch's affidavit, including the names of Eckels, Greenwood, Montgomery,and Forney. I am unsure why that information has been removed. Would welcome a discussion. Thanks,] (]) 04:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::I removed that text because it is an unsourced description of the Affidavit. We can list the 1875 article without providing analysis of it, as is the case now, but if we're going to analyze it, the analysis should be based on a secondary source that talks about the 1875 article.
::Also note that the Media detailing the massacre section does not provide any descriptions for the sources it lists, so I'm not sure why this should be the exception. In addition, it doesn't really belong in this section which only lists contemporary books, not primary sources. A primary source such as the Affidavit is technically not media detailing the massacre. I'd suggest replacing it with the book you mentioned that contains coverage of the Affidavit. ––] ] 05:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I thought about deleting the Newspapers.com linkage but that is the '''only''' full copy of the affidavit that is freely available online to our readership so it should be retained in some form within the article. I see your point about the 1859 Affadavit itself technically not being media but it ''was'' published in newspapers in 1875 along with their commentary, and this version is what people saw at the time of Lee's second trial....hmmm, will think about it. ] (]) 16:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::It's not really our responsibility to provide freely available sources. See ]. Perhaps there is a better way to incorporate the affidavit into the article though. ––] ] 16:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Ok... WP:SOURCEACCESS/WP:PAYWALL states to not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access - I am not rejecting the book source which is already cited within the article. I agree with you that the newsapers.com cite is fine to retain in some fashion (with the added bonus that since it contains the entire Lynch Affidavit that might be a good idea for ]). ] (]) 00:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::I've put that source material into an External links section. ] (]) 00:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Thanks, that seems like a good spot for it. ––] ] 01:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


== Article title capitalization ==
::::Its ok for there to be contradictory information. NPOV deals with that matter. but I cannot see how there could be a pro or con massacre pov. What pov's are there?--] 17:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::Of course nobody is pro-massacre. But there are different POV's as to who is responsible and their motives.] 18:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::Ahh.. sorta like Conspiracy theories. They surround many historical incidents including the attack on the world trade center and notions that . I think wikipedia policies are used in those cases. --] 18:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::If you don't believe me, just go through the history of this article. In earlier incarnations this article has gone from saying the MMM was purely a local event where the Fanchers provoked the locals (and implying they got what they deserved) to Mormons wanted to annihilate and plunder the party because of their wealth. No, I'm not kidding. Just peruse the history long enough and you'll find both arguments presented. As far as OKC, well, that's another topic that interests me. I don't believe the government conspired but I do believe they did a CYA operation to cover incompetence. We can discuss that somewhere else.] 19:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


The title of the article, "Mountain Meadows Massacre", uses all capital letters. It seems "Mountain Meadows massacre" would be more in keeping with ]. Thoughts? ] (]) 20:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I think it was a local event, but one which was influenced by wider events. I do not think that the Fancher Party provoked the people who killed them, but I accept that the people who killed them may have believed that they were provoked. I seriously doubt the stories of the Fanchier party's bad acts in other locales, but .. maybe.. I do not know for sure. I do believe that the killers wanted to annihilate them, but I do not believe that they wanted to plunder them for their wealth -- to me, that is almost silly. It is odd that people would become either so hate filled or paranoid (they could be almost the same thing) that they would kill people who were no threat to them, but in isolation and with limited, perhaps false communication, such things do happen. --] 15:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


:You're far from the first to argue this. There's been multiple rounds of debates about it, and the title of the page has gone back and forth between MMM and MMm over the years. I'd check the archives of the talk page history and the move history to see what arguments have been made. There's legit arguments to both sides and its to the point that I no longer have a position one way or the other. ] (]) 21:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
== Baker-Fancher train? ==
::Here were the arguments made the last time this was discussed ] (]) 22:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

:::Thanks so much for pointing me in that direction and providing me the link. I was looking at other massacre articles and capitalization, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency. That's probably why this article also went back and forth. Best, ] (]) 23:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Ahh Geez. While collecting the "minor" additions for this article discussed above. We have yet another problem. With the recent addition of "baker-fancher" train this article now contradicts itself and its sources. Taken literally, Baker was one of 2 initial leaders of the train, but then later Baker joined the train, and then when they arrived in Utah the Baker train joined the train.. and it was called the Baker-Fancher train see (link to an article which clearly says train was NOT called the Baker-Fancher train http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/arkansasemigrants.htm ).....

AAAAUUUUUGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!! 20:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OK Calming down, I think the best thing to do is state they went by both names in the section currently called "Baker-Fancher party" then avoid playing favorites from that point, referring to them as "the party, the train, or the emigrants" from there on unless clarification is required.
] 21:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

==Specific Areas for review==
Here are the statements or subjects or areas that I believe need some review:

#I do not think it was Nauvoo Legion

:(''So, if who planned the feignt protection/covert attack is not all that disputed, let's ditch the article's remaining passive voice. E/g'' <blockquote>::hings got completely out of hand. Orders and counterorders were misinterpreted, deliberately or otherwise."<sup>citation</sup>The rider did not arrive in time to prevent the attack and moreover, after the massacre had started Mormon leaders resolved to exterminate any adult witnesses.</blockquote>
:''(--should be reworked to state the who/what/where/how of this ad hoc assemblage of this mob or brigade of diputed legitimacy from out of existing components of local militia.'' --] 16:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

#I do not think the circumstances are controversial. The causes might be. Excluding those issues related to cause and motivation, what circumstances are controversial?
#'''*DONE*'''I think the word "highly" as a modifier for controversial is original research and should be removed.
::I removed that. Might be true in here :) but in the real world? Do sources claim this? If so, provide them, thanks --] 13:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
:::I agree it might be true, but generally modifiers like that are unverified opinions and getting rid of them helps reduce the opportunity for people to claim a pov bias. I tried to find all such modifiers that look like potential lightening rods. Thanks for the tiny edit. I think the whole list can be taken teensy bit at a time. --] 13:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
#'''*DONE*'''The "European Ancestry" description seems to be odd and out of place. I notice that no one else is described by their ancestry in the article, so it seems pointless.
::This is likely an artifact of an old, wholly unsupportable tale that the Fancher party was made up of Europeanized Cherokees (mind, many European-Americans have a bit of Cherokee ancestry, the tribe integrated more or less fully and successfully into mainstream American life throughout the 18th and 19th centuries). I think it's helpful to leave it in, if nothing more than as an "innoculation" against some lazy credulous editor happening to read the Cherokee tale and throwing it in without verification. Moreover, if someone has read a similar account and comes to WP looking for confirmation, the term "European" would at least give a glaring hint that someone has dealt with this before. ] 22:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, if someone thinks that they might be part Cherokee, then it could be argued that the current edit is original research. I think the whole racial identification of these people is irrelevant, reads poorly and should be deleted. This isn't even something that is useful to the article if it were well cited -- and it is not. --] 01:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
:::I think it adds context to the article and is helpful (for what my input is worth). ] 19:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Not sure what context is added. If it adds context, perhaps we should also mention the ancestry of everyone else described in the article so that the same context is added there. In addition, perhaps a {{fact}} tag should go on the idea that they were of European extraction because that is not established by a verifiable citation. Then, of course, people would be encouraged to add all kinds of information about their racial makeup from "validated" sources. In the end, we might have a long list of ancestries that describe this group. Or, more easily, we could just do without the gilding of a lily! --] 23:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
#I question the "prosperity" of the migrants.
:Both Carleton and Denton have speculated that the wealth and snobbery of the trains was a factor in the decision to attack. Not saying I agree with that, but I think the prosperity ok.
#Can we be more certain that the lure of gold did motivate the young men?
#The hostilities between Utah and the Federal government are described as "potential". It should be "threatened", I think.
:Agree ] 01:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
#Rumors and antagonism section reads as self contradictory. The Mormons were eager to trade... the Mormons were suspicious. It is a bit disjointed and looks like it was written by committees who took separate sentences to craft.
:Agree that it needs smoothing

#Both Bagley and Brooks make it clear that understanding the MMM requires an understanding of the Mormon past but this is not adequately found in this article.
#In addition, the relatively recent and uneasy peace between the Mormons and the Indians should not be completely ignored either, as I am sure that in some way or another this was a factor (and many contemporary documents recite the same thing though from different perspectives).
#The statement "However, the train's leadership likely were not aware of Young's martial law order" is original research and synthesis. It should be removed.
#Also, that BY issued the requirement for a pass is not mentioned in contemporary documents... I am not sure it is a factor in this matter.
#"Only days before", should be specified as a date.
#Young's order should be more properly characterized... it was not that there was to be no trading with them, but it was to be limited.
#The section about the Missouri Wildcats should be reviewed, particularly the question of their existence. (All Bagley stuff is a mixed "bag" -- he quoted original sources but he played fast and lose with them -- they should be looked at with more than the usual bit of a critical eye).
#The rumors or actual deeds attributed to the party that were part of the problem should be given space.
#The impact of Pratt's death might be a speculation. Yes I know Bagley suggests it, but he does not present any actual evidence that this was a factor, from what I can recall. I do not think any of the participants either at the time or later, mentions this as an issue. It deserves greater review.
#The meeting with the Indians on Sept 1 should be couched in terms of the US Army military action and in the context of prior Mormon wars. (It was almost certainly not related to bands of immigrants -- Young had made similar pronouncements and these were all with regard to the Army).
#The process of the decision to "eliminate" the trains just gets made suddenly. There needs to be more detail.
#The statement "Meanwhile, organization among the local Mormon leadership reportedly broke down" is suspect. It needs more investigation and review.
#'''*DONE*'''The term "widely known" for Mountain Meadows is original research. It can be struck without damage to the article.
#In the actual attack, I think the degree of participation by the Indians has been under-emphasized.
#The footnote for this important statement: "On Friday, September 11 two Mormon militiamen approached the Baker-Fancher party wagons with a white flag and were soon followed by Indian agent and militia officer John D. Lee" does not support the statement.
#The "Innocent Blood" perspective of who should kill whom should be included in the article as it gives an insight into the religious thinking of Lee and co-conspirators.
#The account of the Dunlap girls should be carefully reviewed and scrubbed. That one particularly unscholarly and utterly biased reference (Gibbs) provides an account that was contradicted by all others, including the eyewitness account, and including his own original source that he is supposedly summarizing, should be given far more consideration and editorial review. (Said another way, Gibbs demonstrably lied and all of his statements should be considered false unless otherwise corroborated).
#The burial description uses the words "lightly" and "soon". These are vague, not well supported and should be struck or possibly re-established differently (I can think of a way to do it better).
#The selling or bartering of the children is suspect given the claimed and likely motives of the perpetuators. This needs to be further investigated and possibly re-worded or removed for neutrality.
#In the aftermath, the several investigations and the trial leading to the conviction of Lee should be more fully described.
#In the aftermath, the decision of the new Governor to give general clemency should also be mentioned.
#The word "scathing" for Carlton's report is original research and needs to be removed. Also the word "severely" associated with "criticized".
#Carlton's account of the Mormons receiving payment might be in error. It needs checked. As I recall, it was not the Mormons who got the payment but the families who later took the children in -- they filed for redress on behalf of the children (as memory serves. I could be wrong, but this rings a bell with me.
#A section on theories of blame (conspiracy theories maybe) should be included. Since it is important to many people to defend or impugn the character of Brigham Young (as Bagley suggests, accusing Young throws doubt on the Mormon beliefs in their leaders), the general religious intent behind the debate and a summary of the elements of the debate itself should be presented.
#Interestingly, the Gunnison Massacre and especially Brigham Young's reactions and reports to it are like mirror episodes to this one and might be appropriately invoked (Young did not give out the whole truth when reporting and tried to avoid retribution to the Indians who killed the troop. Apparently compromise coupled with either forgiveness or looking the other ways was his style in such situations.)
#Key sources, Brooks, Bagley, Shirts, should be given a section detailing the various contributions or perspectives of each writer. Biases of writers should be noted and appropriate criticisms of their works summarized. I think this section is appropriate because the story has elements of mystery and each of these works seeks to explain the mystery. The research into the "mystery" is part of the story.
#Some sources seem underrepresented. I do not see any of J.D. Lee's defense or comments (who, obviously would be extremely biased, almost certainly lied, but he was also an eyewitness). Also, Brooks, who probably spent the most years researching the incident of all of the authors shown here, and who arguably took the most objective perspective, is severely under-represented. (I do not exactly agree with some of her conclusions -- from a legal and military perspective -- but I respect her objectivity and courage). Gibbs, on the other hand, would clearly "improve" upon the truth and should not be used at all. Note also that Gibbs cannot even get the dates straight. Gibbs is an unreliable source. If Gibbs said anything that is not found elsewhere it should be struck and if it is found elsewhere the reference to the other source should be used, not Gibbs.
#Finally, several of the "references" do not seem to be used for the article including:
*Abanes, Richard (2003), One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church, New York, New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, ISBN 1568582838
*Beadle, John Hanson (1870), "Chapter VI. The Bloody Period.", Life in Utah, Philadelphia; Chicago: National publishing company, LCC BX8645 .B4 1870, LCCN 30005377.
* John Cradlebaugh, elected delegate of the territory of NV. Speech on the admission of Utah as a State given before the 37th Congress, 3rd Session, February 7, 1863, titled "UTAH AND THE MORMONS."
*Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture, Editorial Board. Finck, James (2005), Mountain Meadows Massacre, Little Rock: Central Arkansas Library System.
*McMurtry, Larry (2005), Oh what a slaughter : massacres in the American West, 1846-1890, New York: Simon & Schuster, ISBN 074325077X. BookReporter.com review
*Sessions, Gene (2003), "Shining New Light on the Mountain Meadows Massacre", FAIR Conference 2003.
* Stenhouse, Thomas B. H. (1873), The Rocky Mountain Saints, New York: D. Appleton and Company, LCC BX8611 .S8 1873, LCCN 16024014, ASIN: B00085RMQM.
* Thompson, Jacob (1860), Message of the President of the United States: communicating, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate, information in relation to the massacre at Mountain Meadows, and other massacres in Utah Territory, Washington, D.C.: United States. Dept. of the Interior.
* Waite, Catherine V. (1868), The Mormon Prophet and His Harem, Chicago: J. S. Goodman 1866, ISBN 1425532209
* Newspaper Articles
::o Los Angles Star(3 October 1957),(10 October 1957),(4 March 1958)
::o Western Standard(13 October 1957)
::o Mountain Democrat(17 October 1957),(31 October 1957)
:::+ http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/CA/misccal1.htm
::o Corinne Reporter. ARGUS. see Stenhouse XLIII
::o Deseret News(1 December 1869)
::o Valley Tan((5 March 1859),(29 February 1860,see Brooks Appendix XI)
:::+ http://www.lib.utah.edu/digital/unews/
--] 20:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

:I agree with about half of your ideas to improve the article. I caution that a pro-mormon bias is apparent in some of your ideas. For example wanting to spend more time citing and quoting Brooks but discounting Bagley's and Gibbs views (and all but ignoring Sally Denton's views who is perhaps the harshest on the Mormons of the 4 mentioned). Though I overall respect what you are trying to do with this I don't think you are in a position to judge which historian's account is the most accurate. I don't think I am either.
:] 01:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

::Well, by default I tend to be "pro" things and against "anti" things... be they Mormon, or Catholic or Islam. I suppose what you are saying is that I shall raise the ire of some folks with a pov against Mormons or perhaps I will generate support from Mormons. I would not be too quick to suppose either way. My condemnation of Gibbs is strong because it can be demonstrated that he did not provide the truth, specifically with respect to the contributions on this article. It is really a strong case. As for Bagley, as I said, a mixed bag. He has some great sources, but he goes into speculation beyond what I consider appropriate. This is not altogether unlike reading Holy Blood Holy Grail. It makes for compelling reading, but you have to make sure you know the difference between insinuation and speculation vs fact. Brooks book, is as far as I am concerned, iconoclastic yet I think it is objective. I do not completely agree with her conclusions either. I suppose her notion that he was a scapegoat is true, but there is a sense there, that it was unfair. I do not agree. I also disagree with other conclusions of hers. So it would not be fair to say that I am in love with any of the sources. But I do think hers is the best and least biased. As far as being in a position to judge which historian's book is best? I disagree completely with that. There is no doubt that Gibbs account is falsified. You can judge that as much as I or anyone can. As for an argument between Bagley and Brooks quality, well, Bagley did have more sources than Brooks. But Brooks spent more time and had some access to personnel who had more intimate knowlege than Bagley does. More importantly though, Bagley insinuates and makes jumps beyond the content of his data. Some people think this is the hallmark of a good historian. I think it is the hallmark of a creative mind, but not necessarily a good historian. I suppose it would be interesting to read the ''critical'' discussions about each book: Bagley and Brooks. I do not think positive reviews count so much because cheerleading can happen even with bad books (its an industry after all, with books to sell), but the criticisms will highlight real problems. Denton, I did not comment on because I have never read her book and the article did not rely upon her much.

::As for my own pov on the issue, I believe I am pretty neutral on this subject, but I would try not to express it if I had a pov because that would tend to have people drawing lines for or against my edits on the wrong basis. The content is the thing. Pov should be left outside of wikipedia. I believe if I am unable to abide by that rule, I should not edit an article. Having said that I am sure that I could carefully craft my pov so that people who hate Mormons would love me... or alternatively, I could craft my views so that Mormons would love me. In either case, I would be honest in my views... but perhaps not fully expressive of them. Do you suppose that I am more neutral if both side would love me... or if both sides would hate me? How about if I keep that all to myself? :-) --] 02:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

] Chain of Command,
as it relates to the Mountain Meadows Massacre of 1857. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/commandchain.html.

"Before I started on my mission to the Mountain Meadows, I was told by Isaac C. Haight that his orders to me were the result of full consultatation with Colonel William H. Dame and all in authority."
LAST CONFESSION AND STATEMENT OF JOHN D. LEE.
CHAPTER XVIII.http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/lee_mm.htm

"C. Haight came to Hamblin's, where I had said children, and fell into a dis­pute, in the course of which said Haight told Colonel Dame, that, if he was going to report of the killing of said emigrants, he should not have ordered it done;"
TESTIMONY IN THE TRIALS OF JOHN D. LEE
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/leetestimony.html
] 15:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

::I suspect you added that because you believe it confirms that it was the Nauvoo Legion that perpetuated the deed. You might be surprised though, that it is not really that conclusive. If you read some of my prior comments on this matter you would see what the issues were. Not only that, but John D. Lee had reasons to lie, you know. --] 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:::That last quotation was from the testimony of Philip Klingonsmith, not John D. Lee. If you read all the testimony given at the trial, you'll see repeated references to the massacre as a militia operation. Really, all of the major sources on MMM are in agreement that it was conducted as a militia operation; your insistence that it wasn't appears to be ]. ] 05:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Or would be OR under your conditions if I was editing the article. Notice that I did not. That is because I am investigating and building a case. --] 06:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC) NB: Klingonsmith does not appear to say it was the Nauvoo Legion. I think he calls it the "Iron Militia". He also does not describe John D. Lee as being in charge but rather acting as though he were in charge. He made that distinction a few times for some odd reason. Altogether rather unconvincing that the Nauvoo Legion was responsible. But I have not edited yet. --] 06:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"European Ancestry"

I questioned this some time ago.
Some people claim the gentiles or mericats were of Cherokee decent. http://www.greaterthings.com/Topical/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre/Cherokee/index.html
If you aren't careful, the bones will dug up at the Captian Campbell, Army Surgeon Brewer internment sites and Major Carleton's carin and the remains returned to Cherokee Nation.

http://www.wovoca.com/hidden-history-mormon-massacre-mountain-meadows.htm ] 15:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

== Quote recently added to the Monuments section ==

First, I like the first paragraph of this quote. Thank you for finding this (justheremenow found this right???). I think the rest of this section should be massaged to flow better around this quote (it's kind of choppy now with the quote in the middle).

I do think the second paragraph should be removed. My reasoning is that some people will see this as a way of injecting POV into the article. This article has been plaged in the past (Last December comes to mind) by people who would inject quotes into the article to state things that they knew would get reverted if they said it without quoting somebody else. I'm not accusing the quote of doing this (the quote is accurate, I've read the same quote in many other reports) just saying somebody could imply it. ] 01:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

:is there any more reliable source for this material? I have mixed feelings. Generally I do not like blogs as sources. However, the article is very clear about the source being a blog and this is, I suppose, a relatively recent event that may not have made its way into more reliable sources. But if it can be sourced somewhere else, I would be more comfortable with it. There are things about that quote that I am skeptical about. I think it deserves more review. And maybe when the source is not so reliable it should be trimmed down.--] 12:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC) NB: I will not edit this or make any changes until I have done my best to review and seek alternative sources. --] 12:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC) NB2: Still reviewing, I tend to think this blog stuff should not be there. I do not think it is reliable. --] 12:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

::Uh, so re blogs - Just got a positive reply from a well-known individual in the LDS blogging community who was in the stands at the event. Whose recollections (whether or not she'll end up posting them on her group Latter-day Saints blog site) I'll post here; and incidentally I'm also asking if she might be able to source any possible coverage of the event in Cedar City area community newspapers or ward newsletters et cetera (or, I don't know, private correspondence/ diary entries? :^)
::Salaam - shanti - pax - shalom! --] 20:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Update: Claims her gggm, Mary Hunter, a surviving child from the massacre who'd been adopted by the Hunters? ((!) - anyway, is to check maybe for a journal entry centered on the music they'd prepared and performed for the ceremony...):^) --] 16:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC) (More): 1st the family legend about her ancestor who was a survivor entirely oral. But has found microfilm news articles on the reconcilliation ceremony she'll "e" along and to which I'll try to link to here somehow! --] 22:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Misplaced Pages policy (]) says, "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." A couple of exceptions are noted, but not any that seem to cover this case. Therefore, even though I think it's a nice story, I don't think it can be included in the article. I've found a story about the event in Cedar City in the December 1990 issue of the ''Ensign'' magazine. (I'd prefer to use a newspaper story, but haven't been able to find one on a free site.) I plan to replace the quote from the blog with a factual description of the event based on the ''Ensign'' story—it will be a bit boring, but it will meet Misplaced Pages standards for sources. ] 13:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

::::I am a bit on the fence about such things. I agree the policy does not quite support blogs and other similar self publishings. On the other hand, I can see some circumstances where they might be acceptable:

:::::*There are no challenges or disputes over the content.
:::::*It adds value to the article content.
:::::*The source would appear to be otherwise credible and unbiased.
:::::*Several different such sources agree.

::::In this case, the problem appears to be that the individual is reporting having heard two different things from the same person. This is an automatic conflict and so it starts to violate the very first bullet. I think it meets the second bullet and probably the third, but not the fourth. I am leaning on taking it out. I would like to see some news or magazine sources. --] 14:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

::Blue, do you really think Hinckley self-contradicts?
::It all boils down to Salt Lake versus Cedar City! Didn't you yourself say the territorial militia wasn't involved whereas the local county brigade level militia proven-ly was? Analogously, within this ceremony towards reconcilliation Hinckley had had people who knew ancestors who had either assisted in the murders or whose ancestors had known those who were complicit (who were thereby indirectly complicit through their silence) to stand. And on their behalf Pres. Hinckley asked for the victims' descendents' forgiveness: What symbolism! With the seats of for dignitaries such as families of the victims' being on the floor while the higher elevation nosebleed seats were filled with locals who may have descended from people who'd assisted in the massacre or its cover up!
::(Sure, Hinckley thereafter says such overtures shouldn't be contrued as accepting blame on the part of "the church" but this doesn't necessarily contradict those such as Oaks' having said that Mormon leaders on some ecclesiastical level or antoher were involved.) Shalom. --] 15:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

:::I have no idea if he self contradicts. Maybe. That would not be surprising to me.

:::I seriously have no idea what boils down to SL vs CC. I do not know what you mean by that.

:::I did not say that the local militia provenly was responsible. I have said all along that some of the people who were involved in the militia were involved in this slaughter. That's obvious. If, for example, we said the murder was conducted by people with testicles, that would be right. But not all people with testicles participated. So also with militia. On the frontier, where there were militia's most men were in them at one point or another in their lives. Since this massacre involved men, I would have no doubt that they were members of the militia. BUT, that does not mean it was a militia action and hence, it should not be ascribed to the militia. Here is another way of putting it. Suppose that a Vice President of a Company had signing authority on the company checks. Suppose also, that there was a company policy against bribery without direct permission from the CEO. Now, finally, suppose that the the VP decided to write a company check and bribe someone without permission. Did the company do the bribery or did the VP? The law is clear. The VP did it fraudulently. However, if the VP had gotten permission, THEN it would have been the Company that did the deed (as well as the individuals). The militia is a separate entity from its members and if this was not a militia action, then the militia should not be blamed. I do not know how to make it clearer than that.

:::Perhaps Hinckley is making the same sort of distinction. Perhaps he is saying that individuals of the Church were responsible but not the Church. I can buy that. It happens all the time. But where I have a problem with this story is the notion that we modern people "accrue" liabilities or "injuries" from what "our" ancestors did or what happened to them. I do not accept that. For example, I do not accept that the descendants of Slavery are owed reparations from me for what happened to their ancestors. In the same way, I do not accept that descendants of Mountain Meadows victims are "owed" something and I do not think descendants of the murderers "owe" something. This may seem unfair, but if I were to have the view that people are "owed" something because of what happened to a long-dead ancestor, I am sure I would clean up. But I have no interest in that and believe it is wrong. To me, it is very very important that the "sins of the fathers" NOT be visited upon the "Heads of the Children".

:::However, that last paragraph (your original statement that led to it) is pov. It has nothing to do with the article and should not be in the article. The real issue here is Reliable Source. Our feelings on the matter are secondary, though they do start to enter in when we consider what is significant and how things should be worded from an editorial perspective. But usually a Joe Friday "just the facts" approach takes care of the majority of those problems. --] 17:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

::::NB: I notice that as you relayed it, Hinckley did not accept or request anyone to accept responsibility. He asked some folks to forgive some other folks. Though I do not see a "responsibility chain", I can nevertheless see "hard feelings" and a request for someone to let those go making some sense. That still does not have anyone taking responsibility or accepting it. However, there is still the issue of reliable source. After that, we can get into editorial nuances or pov that are associated with what was meant or intended if we want to.--] 19:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

::i) Unsurprisingly, I'm in favor of such reparations... (E/g, I dunno - Retroactively determine dealings with slave traders to have been improper under Natural Law or something, then form a legal ''tribal'' entity for all descendants of slaves and figure out a mechanism to ''symbolically'' compensate them from out of the accumulated US wealth which had accrued due their ill-gotten labors?) ...but whatever. ii) I probably misquoted (um ''paraphrased'') Oaks - sorry (although what I think is, for most purposes, besides the point anyway, as you say!) iii) As perhaps is the fact I think the distinction you (as well as GBHinckley?) make between individuals and institution seems instructive. --] 22:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Incidentally, by "SL vs CC" I mean the implication that it's B/Y's vs Haight's order for Mormons to lay seige/ plunder the emigrants under cover of poisoned Indians - or, further, B/Y's versus Haight's order for the entire party save young children be massacred. --] 18:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
::::There does not appear to be any substantiated or credible evidence that SLC was involved. There does appear to be substantiated or credible testimony indicating that more local authority made the decisions and issued the orders. So, I do not understand the pov of SL vs CC. --] 02:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::OK, I'm saying Hinckley isn't contradicting himself but is merely distinquishing between SLC and CC, just as you have. (On behalf of descendants of perpetrators/descendants of those who knew perpetrators, Hinckley asked victims' families' forgiveness - yet also says such gestures do not imply the church was responsible, which isn't a contradiction but a point of discrimination between responsibility for the treacheries being in SLC versus it's being in CC, favoring the latter. Which is analogous to what you, Blue Tie, have said, without contradicting yourself, with regard to the Nauvoo Legion. In short, someone can say without self-contradiction that the brutalities weren't by a legit brigade of Brigham's but by an illegit brigade of LDS brigands.) --] 00:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::Actually the attack has more of an appearance of ] action than anything else. As for LDS Brigands, I think it is clear that this is not the case. Though their acts were illegal they were not exactly "outlaws". They were members of the local indian tribes as well as ordinary citizens of the local LDS community. From what I have read, none of them were "brigands" as I understand that word. I am sure the LDS wish they were "brigands".--] 01:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::My PoV is why pussyfoot around with describing murder as vigilanteism but not brigandry? Young's/ Kimball's sermons circa 1857 supported vigilanteism and its incidents that arose were neither investigated nor prosecuted. And I think vigilanteism and brigandism are pretty synonymous - with California very extensive atrocities of the same period giving us the first term. Anyway, anybody reading between the lines can see *) Young's granting stock on the trail to Paiutes, **) Indian agents Hamblin and Lee - whether under orders from Salt Lake or taking initiative themselves - gathering up Paiutes to threaten and thereby extort livestock from various trains to illustrate either "Young's" or else these essentially lawlessly vigilante elements of the territories' ability to implement or withdraw protection against Indian attacks upon American settlers at will ***) Several trains' being raided in this manner ****) From out of this mix: Mountain Meadows' brutalities with regard the Baker-Fancher companies' train.
:::::And this all under the cover of the militia's only having wanted to protect the trains: what a hoogabaloo!
:::::Yet if the article's naming of Higbee implies Lee's a scapegoat, the numerous previous acts of ruthlessness alleged to Lee within his duties as a constable, et cetera, supports history's judgment of him as a rather unsavory character. --] 20:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:::With regard to iii, probably this stems from my experience with legal entities in which natural persons may operate. These legal entities are considered to be "separate persons" with their own liability and so on from the natural persons who are members. These legal entities endure separately from their constituent members. This may seem like a technicality but I think it is actually a very important consideration for a whole host of reasons, including moral reasons, -- and that is why the law has made this distinction. We should also do the same. A current example would be Enron. If you were an employee of Enron, you would have been part of a massive scheme to defraud Energy Markets for gain. Yet, most likely you personally would have been innocent. The guilt would lie with the entity. At the same time, it is entirely possible for the larger entity to be innocent while some constituent members are guilty. I hope this makes sense.--] 22:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

==Treatment in other encyclopedias==
Here is the treatment in Encarta:

::''Responding to the rising outcry against the Mormons, in May 1857, United States President James Buchanan terminated Young’s governorship of the territory. Buchanan also ordered federal troops to Utah to enforce federal authority over the Mormons, which started what was called the Utah War. When news of Buchanan’s action reached Great Salt Lake City in July, Young sent a company of scouts to harass and delay the federal troops, which were moving west from Fort Leavenworth, in Kansas. Young’s scouts did their work well. Burning supply trains, destroying animal feed, and stampeding U.S. Army cattle, they delayed the federal troops long enough to force them to camp for the winter in Wyoming, short of their destination. In southern Utah the tension between the Mormons and the federal government erupted in a tragic act of violence, the Mountain Meadows massacre. In September 1857 a group of 140 settlers traveling from Arkansas to California had been angered when the Mormon communities refused to sell them any food, and had told the Mormons that they hoped the invading U.S. Army would punish them. The travelers, resting at Mountain Meadows, were then attacked by Paiutes who had been encouraged by some Mormons. Local Mormon leaders decided that they could not allow the settlers to reach California and tell federal officials that the Mormons were encouraging attacks on immigrants. They disarmed the Arkansans by pretending to lead them to safety at Cedar City, Utah, and then led them into another ambush, in which 120—all but the small children—were killed.''

I note a few things here. First, Encarta clearly lays the blame on the Utah War tensions. Second, the issue of food and trade is strongly mentioned. Third, the travelers were angry and had been making some offensive statements. Fourth the Paiutes attacked. Fifth, the Mormons were protecting their reputation. (!?!)


From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

::''Among these is the fact that a large contingent of United States troops was marching westward toward Utah Territory in the summer of 1857 (see Utah Expedition). Despite having been the federally appointed territorial governor, Brigham Young was not informed by Washington of the army's purpose and interpreted the move as a renewal of the persecution the Latter-day Saints had experienced before their westward hegira. "We are invaded by a hostile force who are evidently assailing us to accomplish our overthrow and destruction," he proclaimed on August 5, 1857. Anticipating an attack, he declared the territory to be under martial law and ordered "hat all the forces in said Territory hold themselves in readiness to March, at a moment's notice, to repel any and all such threatened invasion" (Arrington, p. 254).

::''Part of Brigham Young's strategy in repelling the approaching army was to enlist local Indian tribes as allies. In an August 4 letter to southern Utah, for example, he urged one Latter-day Saint to "ontinue the conciliatory policy towards the Indians, which I have ever recommended, and seek by works of righteousness to obtain their love and confidence, for they must learn that they have either got to help us or the United States will kill us both" (Brooks, p. 34).

::''Meanwhile, owing to the lateness of the season, a party of emigrants bound for California elected to take the southern route that passed through Cedar City and thirty-five miles beyond to the Mountain Meadows, which was then an area of springs, bogs, and plentiful grass where travelers frequently stopped to rejuvenate themselves and their stock before braving the harsh desert landscape to the west. Led by John T. Baker and Alexander Fancher, the diverse party consisted of perhaps 120 persons, most of whom left from Arkansas but others of whom joined the company along their journey.

::''As the Baker-Fancher party traveled from Salt Lake City to the Mountain Meadows, tensions developed between some of the emigrants, on the one hand, and Mormon settlers and their Native American allies, on the other. Spurred by rumors, their own observations, and memories of atrocities some of them had endured in Missouri and Illinois, Mormon residents in and around Cedar City felt compelled to take some action against the emigrant train but ultimately decided to dispatch a rider to Brigham Young seeking his counsel. Leaving September 7, 1857, the messenger made the nearly 300-mile journey in just a little more than three days.

::''Approximately one hour after his arrival, the messenger was on his way back with a letter from Brigham Young, who said he did not expect the federal soldiers to arrive that fall because of their poor stock. "They cannot get here this season without we help them," he explained. "So you see that the Lord has answered our prayers and again averted the blow designed for our heads." Responding to the plea for counsel, he added, "In regard to the emigration trains passing through our settlements, we must not interfere with them until they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with them" (Brooks, p. 63). The messenger arrived back in Cedar City on September 13.

::''By that time, however, it was too late, and nearly all the men, women, and children of the Baker-Fancher party lay dead. Besides a few persons who left the party before the attack, only about eighteen small children were spared. Two years later, seventeen of the children were returned to family members in northwestern Arkansas. Two decades after the tragedy, one of the Mormon settlers who were present at the massacre, John D. Lee, was executed by a firing squad at the Mountain Meadows, symbolically carrying to the grave the responsibility for those who "were led to do what none singly would have done under normal conditions, and for which none singly can be held responsible" (Brooks, p. 218). ''

Again, the Utah War is the key issue, the Indians were involved, rumors, "observations" and memories were involved in the decision, Lee's execution was "symbolic" (not for him!) and a mob mentality had prevailed. I am always amazed at the rider traveling such a long distance in such a short time. It seems to me that instructions to spare no horseleather in returning and his great haste in both directions, makes it clear (at least to me) that a ''decision'' had been made to kill the people (premeditation), that this was communicated to BY who did not want it to happen, and that the rider was highly motivated to avoid the incident even before he heard from BY (he probably deserves a medal for his efforts to stop it). --] 13:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

::Does Brooks document that the specific WildCats, etc., etc., rumors existed prior to the fact massacre as opposed to immediately after the fact? When considering the precise nature of the poltical tensions of the moment, surely it's just as likely that "pro-U.S." and "anti- Mormon rebels" political statements (say their mocking Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball) by members of the train morphed into a tapestry of common beliefs that many Mormons understandably came to hold after the fact of the massacre, such as that members of the train must had done awful things, such as their maybe helping to assassinate the Mormon prophet, in order for them to have obviously been marked by the Lord, and His annointed servants, for destruction. But when Lee reported to Young, he was said to have mentioned specifically a Fancher team drivers' mocking of B/Y and HC Kimball but nothing specifically about all that other, subsequent, creative stuff.
::In short, I sense that the article's "rumors" section length and prominent placement violates neutrality by overemphasizing unproven speculations as to which exactly of these baroque complaints and rumors against the members of the train existed prior to the fact of the massacre. --] 03:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:::I think concerns about chronology (were these rumours swirling about before or after?) are helpful. I don't know how reliably the chronology can be documented but it's worth a try. ] 03:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

==Could somebody show me==

how to make a sandbox page for a possible article about those connected with the siege? I'd tried to just throw a feeble alpha version out there but it got speedied for its shortcomings of listcruft :'^( --] 01:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

:You can do it as a sub page of your userpage or talk page. 04:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --] 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

==Content Disputed==
OK Someobody flagged this article as neutrality disputed, yet they did not leave a comment as to what they want to dispute??? I move to immediately delete this tag. If somebody has a beef with the article, fine. But to flag it as neutrality disputed without even mentioning what is their beef? How can anybody fix the article if we don't know what's broken.] 04:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
:Red user, no comments on the talk page, article replete with citations, the tag is unsupported by any sort of WP policy and I rm'd it. ] 12:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

== Carleton's Report ==

As you can see from the history I've been parsing Carleton's report and sourcing parts of the article. I believe all my edits were uncontroversial except for the rape source. Feel free to revert or discuss that one.

My purpose in doing this was to read the report again to confirm or deny that "scathing" is an appropriate word. (It is suggested it may be OR above). OR it may be, but I don't know what else to call it. In his conclusions he accuses the mormons as "They are an ulcer upon the body politic. An ulcer which it needs more than cutlery to cure." It only gets worse... So should scathing stay, or do we need a different word to describe the report? ] 14:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

:The term ''scathing'' was not OR but came from one of the cited sources. However, I've NPoV'd it entirely to ''deeply critical''. ] 16:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

::Gwen, language is important to me. It is one of the reasons I will occaissionaly use profanity; at the moment it is the very best descriptor. Carleton was not just merely deeply critical; he had gone far beyond that position. It would be similar to assessing Hitler as having a dispute with the Jews. Using Hitler as a backdrop is an obvious overstatement given his actions, but if Carleton were to have been in a position of power the result may very easily have been the same. Scathing is appropriate; he hated the Mormons and would have preferred their utter extermination. --] ] 16:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
::::I also think ''scathing'' is more helpful. I shall put it back. ''Vitrolic'' is not at all NPoV as it tends to lay criticism back upon the one expressing vitrol. If Carleton disliked Mormonism that's by the bye, he saw much lingering evidence of a horrific mass murder and indeed wrote a scathing report about it. ] 16:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::I've seen the adjective go from scathing to vitriolic to strongly critical in the hour since I left this comment. Of the 3 I like scathing the best. I concur, deeply critical doesn't quite do the report justice. But vitriolic implies the report cannot be trusted to me. IMO he makes his hatred of Mormons very clear but that hatred was most likely inspired by the lack of co-operation and obvious lies he experienced trying to investigate, not to mention the gore of the massacre itself =-) ] 17:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I'd like to say again that ''scathing'' was the word used by an independent, cited source to describe his report, it was not OR by a WP editor. ] 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Agreed; let's stick with scathing. If one feels like it must absolutely must change, then acrimonious or caustic would work. Heck, let's get a Thesaurus and just pick. --] ] 17:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I thought it was mentioned above that Scathing fit but wan'ts from an independent cited source - Thanks for the reminder Gwen. I do think that Carletons animosity towards the Saints prior to the investigation should be mentioned. --<font color="#06C">]</font> 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::::What is the source for "scathing" and how does wikipedia obtain the opinion that it was scathing? Isn't the rule that wikipedia does not hold opinions but quotes the opinions of others? Right now it is wikipedia holding the opinion. Also...I do not see the need for any such adjectives. I think that they are inherently pov. Suppose I found a quote that declared the report was dishonest? Should I add, "dishonest," prior to scathing? Just leave those adjectives off and it makes things less contentious and more neutral. --] 00:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Disagree. I also do not like adjectives as a rule, but the do serve a purpose. At some point common sense does take priority over policies. I wouldn't demand a source for "green grass" or "non-mormon superintendent" because of an adjective. I have not seen one fair minded person who has read the Carleton report describe it as just "critical". I don't think scathing is controversial at all. Dishonest challenges the veracity of a respected report, and I would demand an equally respected source that accuses Carleton of dishonesty. Scathing does not challenge the veracity of the report, only describes its tone. The tone of the report IS scathing, excoriating,.... (thesaurus please) ] 03:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::One of the things about common sense is that it is not necessarily common. I would point out that by implication you are suggesting I do not have common sense, but I think that I do. I wouldn't demand a source for green grass unless the color were important to the article, because this is universal perception and things like "wet water" are covered by policy. This however is different. A report is not automatically scathing. I would expect a source for "non-Mormon" and would want to see how it was relevant to the article.
:::::::::To me it is not an issue as to whether "scathing" is controversial or not. To me it is an issue of wikipedia articles being written in a bullet-proof manner per policy, particularly NPOV. I would point out that NPOV is not negotiable and cannot be overridden by consensus. And in that regard, here are the policy writings that inform my view on this:

::::::::::"NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."

::::::::::"Disagreements over whether something is approached the ''Neutral Point Of View'' (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. Facts (as defined in the '']'' section above) are not ''Points Of View'' (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to build a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to Misplaced Pages, and then ]. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the ] you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little bit of ground work can save a lot of time in trying to justify a point later."

::::::::::"Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by ''attributing'' or ''substantiating'' it."

::::::::::"For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Misplaced Pages is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be ]. The goal here is to ''attribute'' the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true."

::::::::::"A different approach is to ''substantiate'' the statement, by giving factual details that back it up: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." Instead of using the vague word "best," this statement spells out a particular way in which Doe excels."

::::::::::"There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with ]: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But statements of this form are subject to obvious attacks: "Yes, many people think so, but only ignorant people"; and "Just how many is 'many'? I think it's only 'a few' who think that!" By ''attributing'' the claim to a known authority, or ''substantiating'' the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems."

::::::::::"A special case is the expression of aesthetic opinions. Misplaced Pages articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have tended toward the effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia; we might not be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest guitar player in history. But it is important indeed how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate."

::::::::::"'''Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves'''".

::::::::::"Misplaced Pages is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by ''attributing'' the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the ]," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It is important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires '''an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population''' or, better still, '''a name''' (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognized authority)."

:::::::::The word in question is not cited or attributed, is a value judgment of someone's work, is expressed as an opinion of wikipedia -- not as the opinion of someone else and that it not a fact but an opinion. Thus, it does not meet the conditions of the absolute and non-negotiable standards set forth in NPOV. I think that case is pretty strong. So what utterly strong and compelling case is there for adding this unattributed opinion to the article? How does it provide value? Indeed, with this one word we find the requirement to add a segway conversation about Carlton's biases coming forward. I really would like to avoid creating a section about Carlton's biases, but it becomes necessary per NPOV to give both sides if we give one side. That would be a distraction to the article. I say remove that one pov, unttributed word "scathing", avoid talking about Carlton's biases and keep the article simpler, NPOV and more bullet-proof. How is the word "scathing" so valuable that it is worth violating policy, encouraging segway conversations in the article, and making the article weaker?

:::::::::Meanwhile, if it is not attributed, the {fact} tag is appropriate. It is an unreferenced opinion and is OR. --] 12:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


I find your characterization of the use of the adjective ''scathing'' as a "policy violation" to be disruptive and abusive. As I have amply shown, I'm more than willing to settle on another adjective but any reasonable reader would agree that his report was indeed scathing. Meanwhile this is already one of the most densely cited articles on Misplaced Pages. Moreover, as I have said above, I'm sure this adjective was taken from an independent source and is not the OR of a WP editor. Please stop trying to intimidate other editors with hollow references to WP policy pages and if you don't like the word, please come up with another. ] 12:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

:I do not find it disruptive or abusive to seek to have standards and policy applied to wikipedia articles. I do not think any adjective is necessary. As the policy says "Just report the facts". That it is scathing is not a verified fact, it is a judgment. If you are sure that this adjective was taken from an independent source then let's say that "Carlton issue a report that was described by SOURCE as scathing". Please stop making personal attacks and please assume good faith. As for a different word, I think no word is better than any other word. Just remove it. It makes the article better. There is nothing about the word that is so valuable or necessary to the article that we should negate the NPOV policy. A link to the report is sufficient and let the reader decide on the nature of the report if they are interested in characterizing it. --] 12:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

::What are you doing here? I already asked you to come up with another word if you don't like ''scathing''. ] 13:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

:::I am explaining why no word is preferred to another word. Yes you asked for another word and I am saying why any unsubstantiated opinion should not be put into wikipedia. Was that unclear? But if you insist on another word, I would use the word "written". --] 13:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

::::I'd say you're mistaken. ] 13:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::You do not believe it was written? I could validate that I think. --] 13:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::Please stop trolling this talk page, thanks. ] 14:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::That is a personal attack. I request that you assume good faith and remove that unpleasant comment. If you remove that comment you should also remove this request so that none of this appears on the page and it is forgotten. --] 23:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I said it in good faith. You've been misrepresenting both the article content and WP policy. ] 00:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Removing items or otherwise editing <I>article talk pages</I> is a WP 'no-no'. <font face="raphael" color="green">] | <sup>]</sup></font> 00:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Actually that is not true. You can remove your own comments, particularly if you are doing it to preserve a good atmosphere and remove personal attack. I believe I can cite policy on this if you are interested. --] 00:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
So far as mentioning his documented animosity towards Mormonism, I'm ok with it but would suggest not overplaying his personal opinion because a) Mormonism was even more polarizing back then than it is now and b) he'd spent time picking up the skulls of babies from their mothers' arms, hardly something which would steer anyone towards, for lack of a better way to put it, an NPoV. ] 18:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion.
:Change from. Carleton issued a scathing report to the United States Congress, blaming local and senior church leaders for the massacre.

:Change to. Carleton issued a '''special report''' of the '''heinous crime''' to the United States Congress, blaming local and senior church leaders for the massacre.

See. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/carletonreport.html ] 14:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

::I agree with the "special report". It is verifiable and npov. I do not disagree that the crime was heinous, but I think adding that word is not in keeping with NPOV. Here is the policy cite that I would use to support that:

:::Let the facts speak for themselves
::::You won't even need to say XX was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list XX's crimes, and cite your sources. Remember that readers will probably not take kindly to moralising. If you do not allow the facts to speak for themselves you may alienate readers and turn them against your position.

::Hence, NPOV policy says that we should not label things this way. Just let the facts speak for themselves. --] 00:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:::"There are other heinous crimes to be punished besides this. (7th paragraph from the bottom of the special report)] 01:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Tinosa- good effort but I still think scathing report sounds and fits better. I was wondering if "Carleton issues a report scathingly blaming local and senior mormon leaders for the massacre" would pass muster. What do you think?

Blue Tie- please calm down. Assume good faith. Everybody who has chimed in here has expressed the same goal, to have a good article. Flooding the page with wikipedia policy does not help. We've all read them. If you feel a refresher course is in order a link will suffice. Also I would remind that one of the pillars of Misplaced Pages is to be bold. Under that heading of be bold is a writeup which essentially says, follow policies, but don't let them get in the way of making the article the best you can. You don't like scathing, fine. But everyone else but you has offered replacement statements. I would encourage you to do the same. Read the report and think of the best one or two sentence summary you can. Present that here as an alternative instead of just criticizing the honest efforts of others without suggestions of your own.
] 01:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:I do not know how to be calmer than I am. I am nearly asleep! I would be pleased not to quote the policy if I had a firm assurance that the contents were really considered. I do not have that confidence. Actually, I have offered replacement statements. Is it, possibly, you who needs to calm down a bit and really read what I have posted? --] 02:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

==I challenge Gibbs as a reliable source for the rapes==
We have an account of rapes of two girls. There are several reasons to doubt that this occurred, most particularly in that the murderers believed that they were doing some service to God and had some rules in that regard. However, that sense of reasons to doubt only gives cause to explore the issue, it is not by itself sufficient to remove that information as published.

However, the source, Gibbs account, is demonstrably flawed as I shall show.

Gibbs makes his presentation of this incident on page 36, 37 and of his book. The details start . There are three specific things that should be noted about this account:

1. Gibbs gives one source as "Hamblin's Indian boy". Yet he later, on page 54 and 55, he admits that at least parts of the boy's story is not true.
:1-1 ''On pp 54 & 55 Gibbs refutes Mr. Platt's story that the boy hid & fed the girls for several days before they were discovered and murdered.''] 08:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

2. Gibbs gives another source as an unnamed woman, who was not a participant of the killings, had no firsthand knowledge and is anonymously reported as believing rumors that she had heard.
:2-2 ''On page 37 Gibbs met a devout Mormon woman who verified the rape accusation.''] 08:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
::I do not see where a woman who was not a witness, not a participant and who reports believing rumors, can be said to have "verified" something other than that there were rumors that she believed.

3. Gibbs final source, and the most clearly verifiable is the testimony of Jacob Hamlin. He declares, with absolute assurance, that Jacob Hamblin witnessed the ravishment and murder of the girls. He says that was the substance of Jacob Hamblin's testimony in court. Yet we can read that testimony . Note that right away, Jacob Hamblin was not at the massacre itself. He also was not present at the murder of the two girls but instead was relating something he had heard. His testimony does not include any mention of rape or anything like it. It also does not include any description of the girl begging for her life.. a question specifically asked. Thus we find that when we can verify Gibb's words, that he has manufactured his conclusions without regard to the facts.
:3-3 ''Gibbs states, on p37, that Hamblin was not present at the massacre.''
::Hamblin trial testimony
::Q: Who killed the other? A: He did it, he said.
::Q: How? A: He threw her down and cut her throat.
::Q: Did he tell you what she said to him? A: No.
::Q: Who did tell you that? A: The Indians told me a good many things.
::Q: Didn't Mr. Lee tell you that she told him to spare her life, and she would love him as long as she lived? A: Lee didn't tell me that.
:''It appears that the Indians told Hamblin what the girl said, not Lee.''] 08:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
::It looks like it, but it is a bit vague. In any case, he does not describe what she said. --] 11:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)



In summary, Gibbs himself impeaches source #1. Source #3 is shown to be misrepresented by Gibbs, by a simple examination of the source vs the statements that Gibbs attributes to that source. Thus Gibbs himself is impeached. Source #2 is vague and given the problem with reporting a source that we can validate, we must deeply question a source that we cannot validate.

Now, when we observe the flaky nature of this source, when we re-analyze the murders as a religious/vigilante act conducted by extremists who were trying to be careful not to "shed innocent blood" as they put it (or in other words analyzing their moral code) we would further doubt the story and in sum total, consider the Gibbs reference to be unreliable.

And no other source supports this claim. The claim of a single source that is impeached should not be considered reliable for wikipedia. Certainly editorial standards at the time of this writing were not as strict as they are now and so we cannot go to "editorial review" as a justification for this source. If Gibbs were alive today, this would be the equivalent of a self-published source or blog. I would not have a problem with that all on its own, though it is contrary to wikipedia standards, but I think the evidence is clear: Gibbs was biased and did not report the facts correctly when we can verify them, we should not trust him in instances where we cannot verify him. --] 13:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

::You might review both Gibbs and WP sourcing policy more thoroughly. ] 15:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Having done that, I find nothing that gives me a reason to change my view on this. Did you have something in mind? --] 00:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
:::There are "experts" that hardly neutral. Brody admitted her subjectivity (she ignored sources that did not agree with her position) and her work should always be viewed as not the complete picture. However, once a problem is identified in a source, and assuming the context is appropriate, it is acceptable to note that the expert's position is weakened because of ...(whatever the reason). This should also be a quote by another reputable source and not just a personal opinion. We report on Misplaced Pages, we do not write or create in the true sense of the term. Does this make sense Blue Tie? --] ] 20:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
::::I am open to whatever is appropriate per wikipedia policy. I am not really objecting to Gibbs on the basis of pov alone. I do not consider that sufficient. What I feel is shown by the evidence is that, bias or not, the source is not reliable. THEN, the cause of that unreliability might be the bias. But the bias is only a minor point, not the main point. How does wikipedia policy deal with sources that are compromised by demonstrable inconsistencies that can only be characterized as falsehoods by the author? Are they seriously to be considered reliable sources? And even if they might be, it seems like a poor editorial decision to put such a source in an article and then turn around and declare it bad. Why bother? This is not like I am opposed to the NPOV policy of each side of a debate. But in this case, the only source on one side is a lie. Should that be really given much space or credit and then debated as though it had any substance at all? I sincerely appreciate your thoughts on this and I remain open to suggestions. But I also have to say, that it is a weird world where a source that is so compromised as this is considered reliable. --] 00:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Your remarks about Gibbs seem to be based mostly on your own original research, which is not acceptable for WP content. If you can find contrasting citations about the Dunlaps, by all means, let's include them too. ] 00:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I do not think you understand the policy on original research. There is nothing about that policy that requires us to fail to analyze sources. Indeed, we are supposed to use the most reliable sources possible. This requires an evaluation of sources. This is not original research. It is evaluation of sources. That is a different thing. I am not proposing that any of this evaluation be put into the article. That might be original research -- and if not, it would be noise in the article. --] 02:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The Gibbs citations are verifiable and wholly in line with current WP sourcing policy. If you would like to contribute other verifiable citations to the article, please do so. ] 02:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Unindent: The issue I am raising is not one of verifiability per se. So that we can leave that bit of it, I hereby assert and we never have to visit again, that we can verify that Gibbs said these things. That does not mean that there are not some aspects of WP:VER that are not applicable, but chiefly the issue is WP:RS. Gibbs does NOT meet wikipedia standards in that regard. Here is what I mean:

Per WP:RS

*Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; <u>their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy</u> -- I have demonstrated that this author is not trustworthy. He even impeaches himself and says his own witness was untruthful.

*In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors. -- this is NOT the most reliable source on the subject. (Unless all originators of lies are the most reliable source of information).

*Exceptional claims require exceptional sources... Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended. -- the Gibbs statement is controversial but as a source Gibbs is only exceptional in his flaws, not his truthfulness. As a source for the article this is not an exceptional source.

*Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources -- but there is only this one untrustworthy source.

Per WP:VER
*Sources of questionable reliability. In general, sources of questionable reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of questionable reliability should only be used in articles about themselves. -- this book clearly has problems with facts. It should only be used in an article about itself.
--] 03:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


I agree that the Gibbs account does have its problems. However I disagree with the procrustean attitude that some problems discredit everything he has ever done. With the 3 reasons Blue Tie gives:
#I It is common for experts, journalists and even police to quote eyewitnesses but to then say they do not believe them in some areas. Most eyewitness accounts are not 100% accurate just due to human nature. Many a case has been tried with eyewitnesses where part of their testimony is deemed accurate and part is doubted. Unfortunately many an innocent person has gone to jail from where eyewitness testimony was not scrutinized enough. You don't have to look hard to find examples of both.
#It is ok to use such sources provided no better sources can be found to prove or disprove an allegation, that it is clearly stated that this is speculation, and that the purpose of the book allows for it (i.e. is not an official report that could be used to indite somebody, etc.)
#I think you misread the book on this one. Gibbs states that Jacob Hamblin was not present for the massacre. Also be careful, in this section of the book he switches back and forth between the accounts of Jacob and Oscar Hamblin, you may be confusing the two. My read of that section is Jacob Hamblin is reciting what Albert told him, not claiming to have seen it personally.

I would also point out that Gibbs most directly accuses the participants of rape of the sources I have read but he is not the only one to insinuate or speculate that rape occured. I have also added the relevent text from Carleton's report where he all but accuses Lee of Rape. ] 01:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


::For the record, I am not complaining about everything he ever did. In fact about 1920 he tells a story about a dead indian girl that I find very touching... So I do not necessarily dislike him. Also, I am not questioning the whole book. I am only challenging the specific account of the rapes. The rest may be flawed or not. But I have been very focused in my comments to just this account.
:::While it may be common for people not to believe eye witnesses, in Gibbs case, he believes in one place and disbelieves in another. This is impeachment of testimony.
:::I do not think it is ok to use a source that is demonstrably based on falsehood. That no other "better source" can be found is, in fact, the problem. If someone tells a lie, there will be "no better source" to confirm that story. Why should this be considered credible?
:::I did slightly misread Gibbs book, but not quite as you probably think I did. I did not think Gibbs said that Hamblin was at the massacre, but I understand why you thought I did. But I did not. However, I thought Gibbs had said Hamblin was present at the murder of the girls. He didn't. That was what I misread. But.. still Gibbs did not tell the truth. Here is what Gibbs wrote:

::::''"Jacob Hamblin was on his way from Salt Lake to his ranch near the Meadows when the massacre was perpetrated. Hamblin's Indian boy Albert, who was about 16 years old, and whom the former had adopted, <u>was present at the massacre and witnessed the ravishment of the Dunlap sisters and the cutting of their throats.</u> On Hamblin's arrival at the ranch the boy conducted him to the Oak brush where the bodies of the girls, <u>nude and bloated,</u> furnished ghastly evidence of the <u> truth of the young indian's story. Subsequently, Hamblin interviewed the indian Chief who was Lee's partner in that special and who verified the young redskin's story and repeated the words used by the elder girl when pleading for her life.</u>"''
::::''"The above is the substance of Hamblin's testimony on that incident as given at Lee's second trial."''

:::I have underlined the parts that were NOT in Hamblin's testimony on that incident as given at Lee's second trial. You will note that it is <s>nearly the entire</s> a substantial portion of the summary.

:::<s>Jacob Hamblin does not testify it was his indian boy who showed him these things. He just says that upon returning, he saw the bodies.</s>
:::Jacob Hamblin does not testify that his indian boy was present at the massacre
:::Jacob Hamblin does not testify that his indian boy was present at the girls ravishment
:::Jacob Hamblin does not testify that his indian boy was present at the girls murder <s>(the indian boy was never discussed)</s>
:::<s>Jacob Hamblin does not testify that both girls throats were slit</s>
:::<s>Jacob Hamblin does not testify that he saw the bodies of the girls</s>
:::Jacob Hamblin does not testify that he saw bodies nude <s>and bloated (though I expect they were)</s>.
:::Jacob Hamblin does not testify that he subsequently interviewed the Indian chief
:::Jacob Hamblin does not testify that the girl made any plea or quote. He was asked specifically about that too.

:::Gibbs relies a great deal on this "indian boy" <s>who is not mentioned by Hamblin,</s> but later Gibbs admits the boy's story was not true. Yet he relies upon it! Amazing.

:::Gibbs whole account is fabricated. It is not supported by what he claims is his source. This is a terrible impeachment of this source. Misplaced Pages should not use it.

:::On the other hand, I have no problem with Carlton's record and if he declared that the girls were raped, that would be a different matter. But I do not think he did. I do not remember it. --] 02:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::The article does not attribute the account to Jacob Hamlin, but to Gibbs. Your interpretation of the text is original research. Please cite an independent secondary source to support your assertion. ] 02:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::::I am not sure what is unclear. Let me put it into simple statements:
::::::::The article tells a story.
::::::::The article uses Gibbs as the source for the story
::::::::The Gibbs source is shown to be deeply impeached and flawed
:::::::The chain is that you have one demonstrably bad source for the article and no other sources for it. It is therefore a bad addition to the article. Lies should not be considered reliable sources. I do not understand what the problem is with that logic. But again, you do not understand the policy on Original Research. It does not apply to evaluating sources. Are you getting confused about what, exactly, I am saying?--] 03:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::I think you've conflated Gibbs' outright dismissal (in an appendix) of the Indian boy's story about feeding the girls for several days with Gibbs' straightforward account in the main text about the girls having been raped and murdered on the afternoon of the massacre. <s>As for your assertion that the Dunlaps couldn't have been assualted out of plain view of everyone else at the site, both the assertion and your attempt to infer that it has anything to do with the substance of Gibbs' account are original research.</s> If you would like to bring another perspective to the text of the article, please do so with a verifiable citation from a published secondary source. ] 03:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::::I do not think it is a matter of conflating when they are the exact same story. Gibbs himself connects the two of them together in the text. Do you understand that it is impossible to conflate one thing together? As for my "assertion that the Dunlaps couldn't have been assaulted out of plain view of everyone else at the site..." -- that assertion does not exist. I have never made that assertion. I think you are confused. --] 03:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

::::My suggestion for providing balance/neutrality is to add a quote from another reliable source that regards the rape story as questionable. Juanita Brooks (p. 105) says, "Although there have been cases where man has committed murder after rape, the circumstances surrounding the massacre make such an action highly improbable. In the midst of wholesale murder, surrounded by excited Indians, with more than fifty Mormon men in the immediate vicinity, such an incident seems fantastic." She later says that she regards the version told by Albert Hamblin to Major Carleton, which says the girls fled and pleaded for their lives but doesn't mention rape, as "perhaps the most reliable story." ] 03:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::I appreciate that you are trying to strike a balance. But maybe my point is being lost. I am absolutely in favor of presenting two competing points of view -- if both points of view have valid sources. But in this case, one side of the debate is demonstrably false. This starts to get to Undue Weight: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Doesn't the horribly impeached views of Gibbs qualify as even less than a tiny-minority? --] 03:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Your interpretation that Gibbs is "demonstrably false" and "horribly impeached" seems to be based on your mistaken reading of the text, see above for my earlier comment (edit conflict). ] 03:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Your above comment was a series of errors. As I point out there were no errors.--] 03:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Blue Tie, Please read more carefully. Jacob Hamblin DOES state he learned of the location of the girls from his indian boy and he does say he saw their throats slit. You are wrong again. You did misread and rush to judgement. We all do it, just admit it and move on. I grant you Gibbs did attribute more to Hamblin's testimony than what Hamblin said. But that does not make the story impossible. Hamblin also stated he learned a lot about the Dunlap incident from indians but was not pressed further on the point, implying to me Hamblin would have more to say if asked. Also Gibbs may have made an oversight rather than trying to factualize conjecture, no worse that what you have done (and me and everybody else). Also, Re-read my part about eyewitnesses, you missed my point completely. Again, to believe parts of eyewitness testimony and disbelieve other parts is normal and proper to do.

My point in all of this is Gibbs account merits scrutiny, yes. I do not agree that he should be outright discredited.
] 03:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
<s>::To avoid cluttering this page up further with what I expect to be excruciating detail, I will take this to your talk page, because I do not read what you read in the testimony. Lets compare. --] 03:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)</s>

::You are right and I have refactored some of my comments, but the same message remains. Oddly, you have suggested that somehow admitting that I made some errors, completely guts my point. It does not. Gibbs is still unreliable as a source. Whether what Gibbs did was not worse or was worse than what you or I or the man on the corner of the street is irrelevant. Neither you nor I are sources for this article. Gibbs is. He is unreliable. I do not think it is right to say I missed your point on eyewitnesses. It would be more precise to say I did not accept it at all. It is NOT proper to believe SOME parts of eyewitness testimony and not others. Where did you get that idea? In court, the impeachment of an eyewitness affects the whole testimony. I think what you are trying to say is that eyewitnesses make mistakes and some things that they saw are right and other things are not right. I would agree with that. But.. which are which? You cannot say. The whole testimony is suspect. The real problem here though is, that it was not a matter of simple perception of what someone did. The story involves the Indian boy going through extensive actions... which Gibbs said were not true. This is not an eyewitness issue. It is an issue of credibility. Somewhere. --] 04:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Blue Tie, you are wrong again. The best example I can think of is the Oklahoma City Bombing. Timothy McVeigh was put to death by the testimony of eyewitnesses who swear to this day they saw him with "John Doe Number 2", whom the same prosecution insists does not exist. That is one of millions of examples where eyewitness testimony was deemed partially accurate, partially inaccurate by the "experts". ] 14:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
::::The example is irrelevant.. I could go into detail, but this discussion is also irrelevant, so I will not extend it further, except to say that "eyewitness" is not the issue in the matter we are discussing. --] 00:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

== Truce on the Rapes and Scathing??? ==

OK. I just got back from the gym and while doing a few laps came up with some ideas on how to compromise on the Rape allegations and scathing. When I get them on paper I'll post them on the article. I honestly believe this will be an improvement. All I ask is nobody revert for 24 hours. If consensus is that this is not an acceptable compromise, I'll revert them myself. ] 05:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:I am not editing the article. But I hope you notice, I am not contesting the wording of the rape issue. To me the wording is not the issue. It is the source which is not reliable. We should not use it. If you have some compromise position, I would like to have a sense of why an unreliable source is acceptable at all?--] 11:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC) NB: I see that the text is greatly different than the last time I looked at it. I have problems with the following statements:

::They were later found with their throats slit by an adopted Paiute son of Jacob Hamblin. -- He testified that he saw their throats cut but he also testified that one had been cut and the other had been shot. I tend to doubt that the Indian Chief would have cut the throat of his victim. I believe that J.D. Lee cut the throat of his victim. If they were both killed by Lee then I would not be surprised that both of them had their throats cut. But, I cannot think of a source that directly accuses Lee of both murders.
::Basing from interviews he conducted, Carleton speculated that at least one of them was raped. -- The reference that is included in the article does not support that statement.
::One historian interviewed a woman in St. George, who reported rumors from her childhood that eighteen-year-old Ruth Dunlap, after being taken to Lee, reportedly fell to her knees and pleaded, "Spare me, and I will love you all my life!" then both girls were raped before they were killed.. --The woman interviewed was not reported as having said this quote. Plus this "Historian" (he was not an historian) is a bad source.
:I also noticed the minimization of the Indian participation is further emphasized in the Questions section. But there is no part of the article that provides an insight into the possible large degree that they participated.--] 12:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

::Yeah, I've misattributed the "Spare Me" quote, woops. That can be easily fixed if the agreement overall this version is more appropriate. The Carleton attribution is not inaccurate. Carleton does not mention names but he also mentions getting his information from Albert Hamblin (amongst others). It is vary safe to say he is talking about the same women. It also agrees with Gibbs rendition from a 30,000 ft. view.

::I was hoping that by placing the section in a disputed section and having next to Brooks that would make it clear that Gibbs account is disputed. But apparently that's not enough. You are stubborn about coronating sources you like and finding any reason to discount sources you don't like. I don't think that is healthy. I will admit Gibbs has problems, but I don't believe he did anything intentionally misleading. My take is he pieced together what happened from the best information available to him. Remember at 1910 he is one of the first books to cover the subject, and has provided some of the oldest known photos of mountain meadows, if the dates are believed some 10 years before his book was published. The fact that cameras where hard to come by in 1900 (the first camera for the "general public", the kodak brownie box, would be brand new) so getting those photos was not easy and probably meant lugging cumbersome equipment in by horseback (no automobiles either). So again, to me that shows he had a genuine interest and took this work seriously and was not some fly-by-night "expert". He admits he found disfavor with the mormon church and left giving him a POV on this issue, but doesn't seem to be on a witch-hunt to me. His anti-mormon comments are par with what most people say who have left the mormon faith to show their non-belief(putting prophet in quotes, etc.)] 14:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Just my $.02.

::I think it is a bit harsh to describe me as stubborn about coronating sources I like. How could that be since I really do not like any of the sources? But some are more respectable than others. I do not "find reasons" to discount sources I do not like. That whole concept is a failure on your part to assume good faith. I absolutely assure you that my only desire is for this article to be NPOV and Bullet Proof. The use of bad sources does not make it that way. One difference between us is that you do not think he did anything intentionally misleading. I do not see how he could have possibly made these errors by accident. But, if it is that he did it by accident, that makes his account even less reliable. Because that would make his errors of fact entirely random. But if, instead he erred on purpose, his errors would have a specific bias and so anhy evidence he presented against that bias would be more compelling. But if he was just generally a bad chronicler, then nothing he said can be used without some sort of strong corroboration. I have no doubt that he had a genuine interest. Are you aware of his passion on this matter? But interest or even passion does not make him reliable. I do not particularly care that he had a pov. Everyone does. It is his reliability that I have questioned. It is possible that his pov affected his reliability, but even if it did not, he is unreliable. --] 00:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

::The attributions have gotten a bit muddled over time, they can be fixed. I could go on about why I believe Gibbs is credible enough on this but I shan't: He's a verfiable source, his wider account does generally fit with other accounts and even Carleton does hint stuff like this happened. If someone wants to add a published citation, say from Brooks as above, which questions his take on what happened to the Dunlaps, I'm more than ok with that. ] 15:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Gwen, I above stated that "all I ask is that nobody revert the changes for 24 hours"... I wanted to get consensus. So much for my input I guess. Also you still have the "Spare Me" quote miss attributed.
] 16:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::Pls note, I wasn't finished editing when you posted the above, I think the attributions are ok now but if not, they can always be shifted about to fit. ] 16:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

::I am sorry, but I didn't agree to that. I don't think changing the article's structure is helpful. The sources cited conform to Misplaced Pages policy and I've added Brooks' dispute of Gibbs' account about rape. If anyone has more verfiable citations to contribute either way, please add them. ] 16:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, meanwhile I've always been open to another word for scathing. To end this, I've put in Carleton's own words (heinous crime) from his official report, as was suggested above earlier. ] 16:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:I like your solution Gwen, if that is the one I just read. I think your solution is NPOV and Bullet Proof. --] 00:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Thanks. I don't like metaphors like "bullet proof" but I know what you mean :) ] 01:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

==Mediation needed?==
With regard to Gibbs, we may need mediation. I feel very strongly that though the source is "verifiable" as Gwen likes to point out, it is not a reliable source. It is badly impeached, at least in regard to this incident. Apparently others do not agree, but I thought that Dave's move to a separate section was a strong move in the right direction. Now it has been reverted. I am more in favor with Dave's move than the current version. Do we need a mediation on this? I would like to hurry. --] 00:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

::You're the only editor who has been hammering away at trying to remove this documented content from the article. Whether or not you like what the source says, whether or not you think the source is credible, the source conforms wholly with Misplaced Pages's sourcing policy, which has mostly to do with verifiability of the source's existence, independence and published origin. We can extend Brook's dissent in the article if you like and if you can find other dissenting citations by all means, let's put them in. Aside from that, I don't even agree with you that Gibbs is unreliable. His extended account generally fits the documented record. You've already shown above that you've misread the Gibbs text. I could go on about this but there's no need. Ask for an RfC if you like (that would be the first step before mediation) but the source complies and I've since added another supporting citation dating from 2003. ] 01:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

:::I really wish you would assume good faith. I entirely agree it does not matter what I think of the source in general. But I have shown that it is unreliable. Any unbiased observer would be able to say "Yes that source has serious problems with reliability". It does not meet wikipedia standards for reliability either. You can stop describing the source as verified. I have already conceded that we can verify what Gibbs said. You do not need to revisit that. But remember, my objection, all along, was not verifiability. It was reliability. That is where the discussion should focus. You say he is reliable. I say he is not. The difference is, I have backed my views up with extensive evidence. You have given your opinion. Which is the stronger case? And actually, Mediation comes before RfC per the RfC page. I would be very happy if another supporting source that did not rely on Gibbs could be used instead. If so, I would say lets rely on that source entirely and not on Gibbs. I will review your added source to see if that is possible. --] 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
::Do you actually have access to that source you quoted? Can you read the reference and make sure that this is not a secondary retelling of the Gibbs account?--] 01:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

::I am this new source as being in existence. Do you have more details about that source? The cite must be good enough that the reference is verifiable by others.--] 01:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't search for the author or the title. . ] 01:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did, or thought so. According to which you label as "add another citation (2003) supporting Gibbs' account", the source is "Lee, James Ward, ''Massacre'' (2003) ". I am unable to find that source. Your google search did not help because it was for a different author and title. --] 01:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

::Why don't you refer to the current version of the article? The author cited by the article is Sally Denton. ] 01:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Ok, thank you. Was Denton using Gibbs? If so, this is not a different supporting citation but rather a copy of the same thing. (I do not have Denton. Reviews I read of her book were pretty bad, indicating she did a poor job with the facts. so I did not buy it).--] 02:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

::::This is a very controversial topic for some folks. Reviewers tend to trash the sources they don't like. Meanwhile it seems to me you wouldn't be making a fuss about these independent, verifiable sources if you liked what they had to say. ] 02:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::Sure. I believe some people probably like the book. I was just explaining why I do not have it, that's all. I am unable to comment directly and I have not. (Have you seen me comment on her book even once?) I still have the question about whether Denton was using Gibbs? Do you know? --] 02:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Lots of this article's citations have threaded interdependencies. WP policy wouldn't support skiving them all away for that so your question has no pith. ] 02:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC
::::::::Sure it does. If it is merely a recitation of a bad source, it is not better than the bad source. Or are you of the opinion that a lie can come closer to the truth by repeating it? --] 02:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::Please try to refrain from sophistry, thanks. It's disruptive. Meanwhile the only evidence you've shown about Gibbs is that you've misread the text. ] 02:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::I take it from your responses that Denton was quoting Gibbs. You are wrong about misreading Gibbs. If you have not paid attention, others have agreed with some of my readings, and I have refactored those that I agreed were misreadings. The majority of the specific issues I raised still exist and are accepted as legitimate readings. Gibbs is an unreliable source. --] 02:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I never said Denton was quoting Gibbs. Anyway this is now going in loops. Please find some independent, verifiable published citations to support your PoV. ] 02:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Unindent. Gibbs is an unreliable source. I have used an independent and more reliable source to show that. I asked you if Denton quoted Gibbs. That is all I was asking. Do you have the book to look it up? --] 03:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::You're mistaken. I do suggest you think long and hard before carrying on with this attack on verified, independent sources. ] 03:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What am I mistaken about? And again, it is not relevant that it is verified. The issue is reliablity. Why are you ignoring the point? --] 03:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

::::I already said you're mistaken and truth be told, . ] 03:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::Good grief. You have completely ignored the discussion and gone to ad hominem now. A terrible approach. You should know that that request was denied for lack of any evidence or good cause. It appears you are not interested in a serious meeting of the minds on this matter. --] 03:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::No, the logs expired before they could get to it. This is the same as your earlier pattern of vindictive, badgering behaviour. Please stop wikistalking me, please stop trying to remove verified, independent sources from the article, thanks. ] 03:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

==A link to a current Mountain Meadows blogpost==
where, concerning the 1990 reconciliation ceremony in Cedar City, - a family secret annegb learned of from a cousin who'd "stunned (her) with his assertion that his great grandmother had been a child of the Arkansans who’d survived."
<blockquote>
His apparent honesty was drastically contrasted with the reluctance of other family members to discuss this rumor. They did admit they’d heard it, but became almost defensive about it. One cousin, whose mother, my grandmother’s sister, has done much of the family history on our line, told me he’d heard that story. He, too, had encountered defensiveness when he’d brought it up. He told me that his grandfather, along with other men from Cedar, became concerned at the talk about violence toward the Arkansans, so they hitched up their teams and wagons and left town. They went up on Cedar Mountain and gathered wood for a few days, thus avoiding any participation in the massacre.
</blockquote>
--] 17:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

::We have so little source material on MMM and what we do have sometimes seems thin because Mormon families, especially those related to the mostly ordinary Mormons who followed orders and participated in the massacre, didn't talk about it for more than a century. Indeed, one can find many accounts of books and diaries being burned across the decades, by successive generations, of the topic being altogether banned in many homes. Never mind what the LDS leaders themselves did in terms of spin and records destruction. For the most part these were everyday family folks who trusted their leaders and their faith only to be drawn into the mass murder of civilian men, women and kids. The wonted reactions of their families was rational: Any involvement in MMM was simply erased from oral and written family history. ] 17:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

== ] and ] References ==

I have noted a large number of POV references in this article which are self-referencing (a lot like the book of mormon is) which are based on POV views of history. I have also reviewed recent DNA testing and results which clearly demonstrate Mormon Church history is as fictional as some of the church's marketing materials. I plan to work on this article and attempt to identify and cleanup these unreliable or POV sources. ] 05:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

::Please be specific, provide citations and discuss changes here first. Also, it would help if you'd check your spelling ("soon of the churchs", "I plant to work" and so on): Editors might pay you more heed. ] 05:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

::I seem to have gotten the attention of one editor so far. I do go back and fix my bad typing though. ] 05:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Trust me, you'll soon have the attention of many more editors than me :) ] 05:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:::I always like to meet new people and work on articles with them. ] 05:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:::: <i>Brace your feet</i>, brother ... you are about to see some <I> swarming</i> like you have only read about before; hopefully you won't receive hate mail (<i>via USPS</i>), <I>like some others of us have gotten</I>. <font face="raphael" color="green">] | <sup>]</sup></font> 06:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Well, it appears my edits have been reverted by an anon IP address. Removal of verified sources seems to violate WP guidelines. I had better investigate and POV scrub those sections. ] 06:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::It is pretty easy to meet people here on Misplaced Pages. You seem to have a rather colorful history and interesting interactions with other editors. I trust this will be a positive interaction, regardless of your less than stellar beginnings.
:::::I am sure that everyone is heartened to know that you have come to understand that the LDS church is a hoax based upon your personal review of DNA testing. Please don't be upset that others have reviewed the same data and come to alternative conclusions. I suggest that those kinds of comments are more germane to a personal blog. Religion is a topic of faith. On Misplaced Pages are are committed to reporting facts or positions held by experts. Our personal opinions are worthless here.

:::::This is not the ward house for testimony time, so please refrain. Removal of citied verified sources is vandalism. You are free to POV scrub the existing cited sources. ] 07:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::You might also be served by reviewing the archives of this article prior to beginning on your venture. Unless you possess intimate knowledge of this event, more than any known historian to date, then I suspect that you will find your concernes already addressed and discussed. However, in the event that it is simply editorial critique or word-smithing, then by all means go for it. Quality writters are always a pleasure to have around. I also suggest you follow Gwen's advice and discuss your proposals here first. The current article is the fruit of countless hours of work from people of all persuasions. --] ] 06:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::Please do not tell me how to do research on verifiable sources. My mind is not fogged, so I think I can figure things out for myself. ] 07:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

== Mormon spambot ==
You know, I studied those two anon IP reverts, and they appear to be coming from an automated spambot. What do you think? ] 07:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

: I am not a spambot. Please try to keep the faith with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Someone who disagrees with wholesale changes to an established article is not a spammer nor a troll. thanks. ] 07:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

::I am personally unaware of any automated spambot devoted to Mormon articles. The anons edits appear to be from two different IP#'s which show different editing patterns. I reviewed your edits before I reverted once again. My revert is based on my review of your material, and my opinion concurs with the two previous reverts. I particularly objected to the changes in the topic paragraph. Much of your material is POV -- some strikingly so -- and should be vetted on the talk page before enclosure. Please review archives and the talk page before making significant edits, as I believe --] suggested above. Be aware that this is a controversial topic and gets reworked by new editors on a regular basis. Only well sourced and well discussed edits have a "long life" in this article.Be aware that this is a controversial topic and gets reworked by new editors on a regular basis. Only well sourced and well discussed edits have a "long life" in this article.
I am copying this discussion to the MMM talk page. ] 07:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Well sourced is required. well-discussed is not. Please do not remove cited sources again. We can certainy disagree, but you are not allowed to remove reliable sources (such as public statements by the Paiutes themselves). Suppression of the Paiute Tribes citations is inappropriate. I will only replace the material into the article since such removals are simple vandalism. Additionally, I have identified questionable "Journal of Discourse" sources claimed as historical documents. Unfortunately, many of these materials are works of fiction with no verifiable foundation and may fail ]. ] 07:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Please do not disrupt the discussion as you post. I have restored my post to its original form. Again ------ well '''discussed''' positions are more likely to stay here and sources, even well documented, can be removed until '''concensus''' on their use is reached. Be aware that concensus is a significant Wiki concept and is observed by most editors. ] 07:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Policy Link: ]

::::'''The encyclopedia anyone can edit''', not just church approved edits. Sorry. In the mean time, I will carefully review this article and all of its sources and any failing ] will be scrutinized before making further changes, and I will be replacing the Paiute citation tommorrow after 24 hours elapses. Please do not remove it again, it's vandalism and POV pushing. ] 08:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:Spambot? -- I am no bot and no troll. I watch articles dealing with western history in the mid to late 19th century and edit when I have a little computer time. Do yourself and other editors a favor -- work toward ]. It is an official policy. ] 08:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:36, 17 July 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mountain Meadows Massacre article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
Good articleMountain Meadows Massacre has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 20, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
October 30, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
August 30, 2021Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 11, 2006, September 11, 2007, September 11, 2008, September 11, 2009, September 11, 2011, and September 11, 2022.
Current status: Good article
This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/Polemics at the Reference desk.
This article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Old West / Utah Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject American Old West (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Utah (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIndigenous peoples of North America Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLatter Day Saint movement Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHistory Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: North America / United States
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
WikiProject iconNational Register of Historic Places High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDeath Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDisaster management Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLaw Enforcement Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconLaw Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSociology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States History Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States History To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Past content removed

The following was fully removed from the MMM article and then partially restored, am parking it here while I see if it is verifiable or not etc:

  • Mountain Meadows. – an article originally published in the Cincinnati Gazette (July 21, 1875), then republished in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat(July 26, 1875). An affidavit of James Lynch's testimony taken in July 1859 about the human remains Lynch saw at Mount Meadows in March and April 1858, about the living conditions of the child survivors of the Massacre during that time, and about the children's statements regarding the perpetrators of the Massacre. Lynch accompanied Dr. Jacob Forney, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, on an expedition to the area. The affidavit was given in front of Chief Justice of the Utah Territory Supreme Court Delana R. Eckels on July 27, 1859, and sent by US Army officer S.H. Montgomery to Commissioner of Indian Affairs A.B. Greenwood in August 1859.

Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

What is presently in the article is the following:
  • Mountain Meadows. – an article originally published in the Cincinnati Gazette (July 21, 1875)
So...
The Lynch affidavit's publication journey in various newspapers can be found in the newspaper.com clip, at the top of the column:
"(From the Cincinnati Gazette)
Washington, July 21"
And from the cite itself:
St. Louis Globe-Democrat
St. Louis, Missouri •
Mon, Jul 26, 1875
Page 1
Some of the same information can also be found on Page 248 in Chapter 8/"James Lynch Affidavit"(Pages 243-254) of the book Mountain Meadows Massacre: Collected Legal Papers, Initial Investigations and Indictments, Volume 1 - see this Google Books link - especially the St. Louis paper info, though St Louis is the only source I can find at this time that mentions that this 1875 iteration of the Affidavit first appeared in the Cincinnati Gazette/July 21st 1875.
And though the Lynch Affidavit's appearance in newspapers contemporaneous to the 2nd John D Lee trial (the one in 1875) are important to understanding the media of the time, the Affidavit itself is what is important to this subject. The 1859 Lynch Affidavit itself can be found in its slightly edited permutations in the book & source mentioned above. However...so far as I can tell, the full Affidavit in any form that is also accessible to our readers seems to be only available in the newspapers.com cite, so that cite should stay.
Now, as to the sentences that start with "An affidavit of James Lynch's testimony..." and ends with "...A.B. Greenwood in August 1859." All the excised information is contained in the newpapers.com/St Louis Globe-Democrat article of Lynch's affidavit, including the names of Eckels, Greenwood, Montgomery,and Forney. I am unsure why that information has been removed. Would welcome a discussion. Thanks,Shearonink (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I removed that text because it is an unsourced description of the Affidavit. We can list the 1875 article without providing analysis of it, as is the case now, but if we're going to analyze it, the analysis should be based on a secondary source that talks about the 1875 article.
Also note that the Media detailing the massacre section does not provide any descriptions for the sources it lists, so I'm not sure why this should be the exception. In addition, it doesn't really belong in this section which only lists contemporary books, not primary sources. A primary source such as the Affidavit is technically not media detailing the massacre. I'd suggest replacing it with the book you mentioned that contains coverage of the Affidavit. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I thought about deleting the Newspapers.com linkage but that is the only full copy of the affidavit that is freely available online to our readership so it should be retained in some form within the article. I see your point about the 1859 Affadavit itself technically not being media but it was published in newspapers in 1875 along with their commentary, and this version is what people saw at the time of Lee's second trial....hmmm, will think about it. Shearonink (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
It's not really our responsibility to provide freely available sources. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. Perhaps there is a better way to incorporate the affidavit into the article though. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Ok... WP:SOURCEACCESS/WP:PAYWALL states to not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access - I am not rejecting the book source which is already cited within the article. I agree with you that the newsapers.com cite is fine to retain in some fashion (with the added bonus that since it contains the entire Lynch Affidavit that might be a good idea for verifiability purposes). Shearonink (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I've put that source material into an External links section. Shearonink (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, that seems like a good spot for it. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Article title capitalization

The title of the article, "Mountain Meadows Massacre", uses all capital letters. It seems "Mountain Meadows massacre" would be more in keeping with WP:LOWERCASE. Thoughts? Bahooka (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

You're far from the first to argue this. There's been multiple rounds of debates about it, and the title of the page has gone back and forth between MMM and MMm over the years. I'd check the archives of the talk page history and the move history to see what arguments have been made. There's legit arguments to both sides and its to the point that I no longer have a position one way or the other. Dave (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Here were the arguments made the last time this was discussed Dave (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks so much for pointing me in that direction and providing me the link. I was looking at other massacre articles and capitalization, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency. That's probably why this article also went back and forth. Best, Bahooka (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Categories: