Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) at 12:23, 16 May 2007 (→Carleton's Report: if you don't like the word, please come up with another). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

United States: Utah Unassessed

This 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Utah.

Latter Day Saint movement B‑class

This 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of North America Unassessed

This 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

June 11 2004 November 12 2006 November 19 2006 December 31 2006 March 10 2007 April 7 2007

Link to 17Feb2007 news article regarding debate among historians?

See article. --Justmeherenow 17:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This shows how the LDS continues to deny responsibility or involvement:

But it wasn't until 1870 that Brigham Young fully understood that local LDS Church members "were sent to bury people (from what they believed was an Indian massacre) then forced to participate in the massacre under (militia) and church discipline," Alexander said.

To the Deseret News' credit though, al least they quote a dissenting historian immediately after this. Anyway since this conflicts with the source material so starkly I don't think it's very helpful as a source (but very helpful for talk page context, thanks for the link!) Gwen Gale 17:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This 6Feb2007 KSL segment(print version here) has soundbites from Bagley and John Eldredge from the then recent "board meeting of the Utah Westerners," whatever that is. And KSL goes on to report that three of the the eight historians and history buffs at the meeting believed Young knew of the MMM beforehand (with an additional vote among them saying he didn't know but condoned its severity), while all eight believed Young participated in a cover up. (+4fun;^).) --Justmeherenow 18:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Just, you seem to propose that all Latter Day Saints and the Church need to take responsibility for the massacre. A novel proposition. I suppose you also think that all white people need to take responsiblity for slavery? That the actions of a few are the responsibility of everyone is not a standard used often in history. Is it something you feel strongly about? If so, the entire history of the world would need to be rewritten. What is fact is that there is no conclusive evidence proving everyone who was responsible for the massacre. That is fact and there is not a historian alive that can say otherwise. We can surmise and guess, but not one historian is so strident in their accusations as the stand you take. --Storm Rider 04:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The "taking responsibility" comment wasn't mine but Gale's! However I think you're right to the extent any critic of societal structures (and especially me) is more anarchist than establishmentarian. (But I easily switch hats and pragmatically describe great benefits to societal structures as well!) Anyway, concerning my criticism of the article, I merely believed it erred where the Missouri Wildcat rumors section was imbalanced by its not being set against the mirror of rumored suspicions of conspiracy against Young. (But the article has rectified that a good deal with details of Young's parlays with the Native tribes.) Yet again, you're right, no one knows who was ultimately culpable. For my own belief, I tend to think Young did NOT order the massacre if for no other reason than that it would be counter productive to massacre the train outright; however I do believe Young ordered the Legion to facilitate the various trains to be robbed. However when several Fancher men managed to leave the sieged train only to have a couple of their number killed by Legion men, with a witness returning to the sieged encampment-- well, maybe, then, local authorities felt a need to kill all witnesses so as to keep the LDS colonists' complicity secret? But that's the most positive spin I could come up with from the accounts. Which speculation agrees with that of "FARMS historian" Sessions', that I'd read after I'd come to the same guess, too. --Justmeherenow 05:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Pee ess here's a current LDS blog post re the Church of England's recent apology for its associations with the slave trade. --Justmeherenow 22:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Then on April 5 at a "sibling" LDS blogsite, the not-antogonistic-to-Mormon-faithful historian Briggs said: "At the rededication at MM in 1999, there was no statement of regret or apology, and it caused a significant backlash among some on the AK side. This September on the 150th anniversary, I’m hoping for some official expression of regret. It would be a sign of our honesty, integrity, and maturity." --71.250.235.199 01:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Question re one of the references

Does anyone have a copy of this book 1857: An Arkansas Primer To The Mountain Meadows Massacre by Lynn-Marie Fancher and Alison C. Wallner, according to this website it was published in 2006, but I can't find it on Amazon or any of the large book sellers. --Trödel 16:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a benign rules breakage, should ParkerMMM's book not have gotten back from the printers yet? Speaking of websites, the other day a Generation Next forefather of LDS blogging, Kaimi Wenger (instrumental in naming it the Bloggernacle on this very day - March 23 - in 2004), mentioned a presentation this weekend by Robert H. Briggs to discuss MMM's causes. (And the most current comment in its string is by Ardis Parshall, a (Salt Lake Tribune columnist and) historical sleuth lauded by MacKinnon in his "scholar's memoirs" piece in Dialogue.) --Justmeherenow 16:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC) And then the curator of acquisitions for the LDS Museum of Church History responds to commenter larry --Justmeherenow 13:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC) (whih larry wouldn't be (Pulitzer/Oscar-winner) McMurtry?) --Justmeherenow 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Trodel - I may have access to a copy - let me check to see if I can track it down. -Visorstuff 22:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't worried about any potential rules breakage, but more interested in getting my hands on a copy; however, if the author of the book is quoting their own work as you suggest, they should know that Misplaced Pages discourages referencing your own work, but posting it on the talk page and allowing others to put it in the article. My quick perusual suggests their is no need to remove the references, because I think the concensus here would be to put them in. --Trödel 18:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think the consideration at hand remains only whether Fancher/Wallner (2006)'s status is published or not? My reading of the O/R policy page has it encouraging rather than discouraging contributors' quoting from their previously published researches, referencing them as any other editor would in the third person, except in cases where this would likely produce controversy (such as, for example, situations where sourcing is almost entirely from self-referenced materials). --Justmeherenow 16:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I apolgize for simplifying the standard - it would have been better to say that "Misplaced Pages urges published writers to use caution in citing their own work." The guideline (Conflict of Interest) and policy (NOR) language is:

"You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page whether or not your citation is an appropriate one, and defer to the community's opinion." Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest#Citing oneself (emphasis added)

and

"This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Misplaced Pages, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. See also Misplaced Pages's guidelines on conflict of interest." Misplaced Pages:No original research#Citing oneself (emphasis added)

I would say that the use of the word "may" does not indicate encouragement (compare, for example, using "should" or "can" instead). "May" impies one can do something but use good judgment. Therefore, one should be careful, fully disclose one is citing one's own work, not rely exclusively on one's own work, and be sure the work is published before referencing it. --Trödel 19:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Trödel.

(Still, ParkerMMM has satisfied most the policies' jots 'n' tittles. Which is to say "they'd" presented "their" calling card as an emigrant families historian whose edits were really fully supported in their original version by "their" own 2006 Primer....Plus there's no trace of enemy-militia-to-Mormons Missouri Wildcats; the GoldRush-era California census has cattledriver/wagontrain master Fancher in Cali: whom Sheets reveals was never termed colonel - blah blah! Well, so, anyway, since Davemeistermoab had suggested various main articles develped - I suppose along the line of those for John D. Lee, Parly P. Pratt, for stuff otherwise buried in footnotes - I dumped the stuff ParkerMMM had already verified on the talk page into a rambunctious fork that, due its editors believing its topic not all that distinct, was really a proposed version for a section about gathering Arkansans.:^) --Justmeherenow 00:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

np - I hadn't seen the calling card earlier - thx --Trödel 16:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, this is a example of WP:IAR - whether the rule was broken or not is irrelevant because the concensus is that it is a valid reference that improves the encyclopedia and would reach concensus to be added. --Trödel 16:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

J. Cradlebaugh

CRADLEBAUGH, John, (1819 - 1872) (Biographical Directory of the United States Congress) http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000850

United States Office of Indian Affairs Papers Relating to Charges Against Jacob Forney. Yale Collection of Western Americana, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. JOHN CRADLEBAUGH (1819-1872)

"Born in Circleville, Ohio, on February 22, 1819, John Cradlebaugh attended Kenyon College and studied law in Oxford, Ohio. After being admitted to the bar in 1840, he was appointed United States associate justice for the district of Utah on June 4, 1858. He arrived in the territory on November 1, and began active prosecution of those responsible for the violence in the region.

In March of 1859, Cradlebaugh held his first term of court at Provo, convening a grand jury to hear evidence of Mormon criminal activity. The jury failed to indict anyone. Cradlebaugh dismissed the jury and continued the investigation under his authority as sitting magistrate. Accompanied by a small detachment of United States troops and by a deputy marshal, Cradlebaugh visited the southern part of the territory, including Mountain Meadows. During this investigation, Cradlebaugh met Superintendent Forney returning from his own investigation of the site, accompanied by the surviving children of the massacre. The judge and his deputy marshal interviewed Indians and settlers in various encampments until the marshal and troops were recalled under instructions from the Department of War, effectively curtailing Cradlebaugh's investigation of the affair. Based on his observations and other evidence, Cradlebaugh concluded that Forney had abused the powers of his office. In September 1859, Cradlebaugh contacted the Office of Indian Affairs regarding his suspicions. His accusations launched the Office's official investigation into Forney's conduct, and led to Forney's dismissal.

Cradlebaugh was subsequently appointed to preside over a judicial district that included Carson Valley. He became a key actor in the creation of the Territory of Nevada, and was eventually elected delegate to Congress, serving from 1861 Dec 2 to 1863 Mar 3. During the Civil War, he enlisted as a Colonel in the Union Army. He was wounded at Vicksburg in May 1863, and was honorably discharged from the military in October 1863. He returned to Nevada, and settled in Eureka. He ran unsucessfully for United States Senator, and engaged in the mining industry until his death in 1873. Cradlebaugh was interred in Circleville, Ohio, in 1879." http://webtext.library.yale.edu/xml2html/beinecke.forney.con.html#a8first

Speech of the Hon. J Cradlebaugh, of Nevada in the House of Representatives. February 7, 1863: "UTAH AND THE MORMONS" http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=063/llcg063.db&recNum=798

In Article reference section, see Stenhouse & Waite Tinosa 23:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Paiute Involvement

I've long felt the Paiute denial of invovement should be included in this article in some form. I made what I believe to be a fair attempt to do so. If anybody has any objections please advise. Davemeistermoab 05:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A short excerpt

From a conversation elsewhere on-line that's among historians who seem read up on the massacre

(larry): Richard O., Don't you think Mormon teachings such as Blood Atonement and oaths to avenge the blood of the prophet contributed to this mentality where violence in the name of religion was acceptable? These tendencies werfe heightened by the reformation - which had a profound impact impact in Southern Utah. Couple this with news of a coming war and it's a recipe for an atrocity - the largest in American History prior to Oklahoma City.

(Richard O.): Larry you raise some interesting issues, but I think that Kaimi helps bring some needed perspective. My tendency is to think that fire and brimstone retoric from the pulpit usually far outstripped fire and brimstone behavior. Some of the data I'd like to see addressed: How did the murder rate in pioneer Utah compare with surrounding states and territories? How did the execution rate compare with surrounding states and territories? Per capita statistics for these would be interesting. Was MMM horrible? Yes. But were Mormons universally and consistently violent or was the MMM an aberration? Statistical answers to the above questions might help answer these questions. Do you have the statistics?

And then, also, Dialogue's MacKinnon has mentioned the apologists-helping info that from his study of Utah Expeditionary troops, Young's fears about horrible carnage at their hands had been completely valid and MacKinnon mentioned that the "Bleeding Kansas" period was happening at this very same time. So I guess the point is that when you look at the frontier, even places where there's no is no factor of millennialist Mormonism involved, you still get commensurate - perhaps more? - vigilanteism, wars, skirmishes, violence. Anyways, I think we should put more warp and woof of what's agreed to among historians as to causes in our article (and then also link to wherever is Misplaced Pages's article concerning the causes of atrocities and massacres in general)? --Justmeherenow 15:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, re the MMM: Towards an understanding of "violence as culturally conditioned" Briggs posted this suggested reading list:

• Bellesiles, ed. Lethal Imagination: Violence & Brutality in American History (1999)
• Brown, Richard Maxwell, ed., American Violence (1970); Strain of Violence: Historical Studies of American Violence and Vigilantism (1975); and No Duty to Retreat: Violence & Values in American History & Society (1991)
• Courtwright, Violent Land: Single Men and Social Disorder from the Frontier to the Inner City (1996)
• Demaris, America the Violent (1970)
• Dickson, Ulster Emigration to Colonial America, 1718-1775 (1966)
• Dray, At the Hands of Persons Unknown: The Lynching of Black America (2002)
• David Hackett Fischer, Albion’s Seed : Four British Folkways in America (1991)
• Gilje, Rioting in America (1996)
• Grimsted, American Mobbing, 1828-1861: Toward the Civil War (1996)
• Griffin, The People with No Name: Ireland’s Ulster Scots, America’s Scots Irish and the Creation of a British Atlantic World, 1689-1764 (2001)
• Hollon, Frontier Violence: Another Look (1974)
• Grady McWhiney, Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South (1988)
• Nisbett & Cohen, Culture of Honor: The Psychology of Violence in the South (1996)
• Rust, Radical Origins: Early Mormon Converts & Their Colonial Ancestors (2004)
• Richard Slotkin, Regeneration Through Violence: The Mythology of the American Frontier, 1600-1860; The Fatal Environment . . . 1800-1890; and Gunfighter Nation
• Szasz, Scots in the North American West, 1790-1917 (2000)
• Waldrep, “The Language of Lynching, 1820-1953,” in Bellesiles, ed., Lethal Imagination: Violence & Brutality in American History (1999)
• Webb, Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America (2004)
• Wyatt-Brown, Southern Honor: Ethics & Behavior in the Old South (1982); and The Shaping Of Southern Culture: Honor, Grace and War 1760s-1880s --Justmeherenow 12:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

2 Unsourced claims

2 requests for source have sat on this page for a long time now. It's my preference that if no one can/is wililng to source the statements that they be re-worded such that no source is required.

Here are my proposals

• "He and Hamblin went to Mountain Meadows"

I think by removing "and Hamblin" the statement is pretty solid with the sources already present in the article.

• "Meanwhile Forney and Governor Cummings directed Hamblin and Carleton to gather up the surviving children from local families and transport them to Salt Lake City after which they were united..."

This one I'm not so sure about. Is the source requested because of the people named? or that they were transported to Salt Lake first before re-uniting? Does anybody know, is the person who requested the source still here? If it's "Salt Lake", it doesn't add value anyways. The new sentence could read like this:

Meanwhile Forney and Governor Cummings directed Hamblin and Carleton to gather up the surviving children from local families after which they were united...

If it's the people mentioned do we shorten it to just say Carleton? Thoughts?

Davemeistermoab 14:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with rm'g these references to Hamblin and Forney until we have a reasonable source. I accepted these AGF as assertions pending support, which has not shown up. Gwen Gale 15:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Gale, One problem. You deleted one sentence that was not tagged as cite requested and left one that was tagged cite requeste in the article. Was this intentional? I'm going to presume it was a mistake. If I missed your intentions feel free to revert.

Davemeistermoab 01:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Davemeistermoab 01:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You may want to go back into the edit history - as I believe those statements were sourced at one time. In any case, they are correct. -Visorstuff 04:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath

MMM-aftermath-Timeline.

Garland Hurt heard rumors of massacre & sent an Indian interpreter to make inquiry. According to the Piedes, J.D. Lee persuaded the Indians to attack the emigrants. After being repulsed three times the Mormons persuaded the emigrants into laying down their weapons and then killed them all. The Mormons received all the plunder. (Message of Pres. October 24, 1859. Brooks. Appendix VIII) Hurt, his life is threatened by Mormon Malitia, escapes to FT. Bridger and delivers the first account of the massacre to the government. (NV Indian Agents Oct. 24, 1857).

J.D.Lee arrives in SLC with an awful tale of blood. One hundred and fifty California emigrants, intent on doing evil, poison a beef and a spring which killed both Indians and Saints. Indians become enraged and in five days kill all the men, slit the throats of the women, but saved eight or ten children which they sold to whites. They stripped the men and women naked and left them to rot. The Indians took all the property. From Wilford Woodruff's journal Sept.29,1857. Brooks Chapter 8.

Indian agent G.W.Armstrong writes B. Young from Provo. The emigrants poisoned a beef and gave it to the Indians. The Parvantes followed the company to Mountain Meadows where they attacked killing fifty-seven men and nine women. The citizens of Fillmore were unable stop the Indians. Sept.30,1857. Brooks Chapter 8.

California Newspapers report the massacre. Emigrants cheat the Indians & give them a poisoned ox. Indians kill all except for 15 children, which are saved when the Mormons purchase them from the Indians. (See ref. Newspaper articles).

B. Young, Gov. & Supt. Ind. Affairs, UT, notifies James Denver, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, of the massacre. The emigrants poisoned an oxen and water killing several Indians. The enraged Indians then took revenge. Young quotes a letter from Lee. (SeeBrooks Chapter 8).

AR state senator Mitchell and citizens of Carrol County receive information that 15 surviving children have been taken to San Bernardino by Mormons and demand the government rescue them. US Senator Sebastian, AR, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of War, Col. Johnston, and acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs C.E. Mix were notified. (Message of the President) Mix orders the Indian Agents of CA & J. Forney, Super. Of Indian Affairs UT Territory, to retrieve children. (Message of President March 4, 1858)

Forney informs Mix that he has met Jacob Hamblin who has 15 children purchased by Mormons in his neighborhood. Forney will travel to this dangerous country to get the children in 4 weeks. (Message of President.June 22, 1858) a questionable date.

Forney notifies General Johnston that he has 10 children in his possession. . (Message of President. September 10, 1858)

Mormon Apostle George Smith conducted an investigation of the massacre in Sept.'58. His finding reinforced the poison ox story and that also Mormon interrupters had unsuccessfully attempted to stop the massacre by the Indians.(See Brooks Chapter 9).

(December 10,1858 Valley Tan) Forney goes South as far as Corn Creek to deliver gifts to the Indians.

Forney notifies James Denver, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, that he has located 7 more children (a total of 17) and is paying for their board & clothing at a home in Santa Clara. He will gather the children on his return visit to the Indians. (Message of President .January 28, 1859)

Hamblin notifies Forney that he has 15 children and that he knows the Indians have 2 more. He traveled South and found one with the Navajos but left it because it was sick. Governor Cummings request Army protection for travelers on the Trail since 139 were killed @ Mountain Meadows. (Valley Tan. 2/15/59).

After spending a few days at Federal judge Cradlebaugh's Court in Provo, Forney goes South with Mormon guides and teamsters and is joined at Nephi with W.M. Rogers.(see Rogers. Appendix XI Brooks or Valley Tan 2/29/1860).

Found abandoned at Beaver ,on March 27, and threatened with physical harm if he were to continue, Forney is given assistance by frontiersman and Mexican War Veteran Lynch and two of his men. They spend the night at Mountain meadows and travel to Santa Clara. (See Lynch & Rogers).

At Santa Clara the condition of the infants is noted. Lynch says its pitiful. (see Lynch). Rogers says its good except for the ones with sore eyes, Sahara Dunlop went blind. (see Rogers). Forney says its good except they are poorly clothed.( Message of President. March 1, 1859)

After waiting three days for clothes to be made, they travel to Harmony in an effort to obtain plunder taken at the massacre by Lee. Unsuccessful, they travel to Cedar City to see Haight & Higby with the same results.(see Rogers)

With sixteen kids the party goes north where Chief Knosh in forms them that their two more children. At Corn Creek they met an army detachment under then command of Captian Campbell of Camp Floyd. (see Rogers) The purpose of the army going to Santa Clara is to escort Major Prince with the army payroll, protect travelers in that region, and make inquires of the massacre. (Message of President .April 27, 1859) With the army was judge Cradlebaugh and Marshall Stone. While Campbell did not see the children the Judge interview them extensively. (Message of President .April 30, 1859) Marshall Stone becomes ill so Cradlebaugh deputizes Rogers. Forney request that Rogers locate the two missing children.(see Rogers) Forney, Lynch and the children travel to Spanish Fork where they remain until escorted to FT Leavenworth. (Message of President .May 1, 1859)

The army travels to Mountain Meadows where they inter the remains of many of the victims. Army Surgeon Brewer gives a detailed description of the killing field. (Message of President May 5, 1859.)

They then traveled to Santa Clara where Campbell and Cradlebaugh met with the Indians. (see Campbell. Message of President .July 6, 1859) The Indians told the judge that they partipated in the initial attack but since the Americans had rifles the Mormons, dressed as Indians, finished off the Americans. The Army then went back to Mountain meadows where they rendezvoused with the California Troops under the command of Major Carleton who was escorting Major Prince with the Army payroll. (see. Cradlebaugh & Carleton)

Cradlebaugh, Rogers, and a number of soldiers set up a court in Cedar City where the judge talked to several Mormon who admitted participating in the massacre. Arrest warrants were issued for Height, Higbee, Lee and many others. Rogers was not able to locate any of the accused. After several days Campbell told the judge that he orders to remove soldiers protecting the court which ended Cradlebaugh's investigation. (see Cradlebaugh & Rogers)

After threatening to search every house in the territory, Rogers was able to locate an infant which Hamblin and one of his wives delivered to Forney for a total of seventeen. (see Rogers)

Although Forney refused to pay the Mormons money that they claimed was used to purchase and trade for the children with the Indians, he did pay $2.50/wk upkeep for the children and Hamblin's wages. (Message of President. July 25, 1859)

Forney (Indian agent): given instructions by Mix to retrieve the children. Campbell (US Army): given orders by General Johnston to escort the army payroll from Santa Clara, protect the Southern trail, and investigate the MMM. Carleton (US Army): given orders by General Clarke to deliver the army payroll to Santa Clara and "bury the bones" at Mountain Meadows. Tinosa 16:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Day of the week mentioned in the lead sentence

Is there a reason for this? This doesn't appear to be standard format for lead sentences with dates in them. I brought this up before but never really heard back. Is there a religous significance, ect here? Thanks!--Tom 19:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Gwen you say this has been discussed "many times", all I could find is this Is there anywhere else you discussed it? This discussion looks like we should leave the day of the week out. Again, please advise if there is a significance to that day of the week. Anyways thanks, --Tom 23:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Why have you been deleting this accurate content? Gwen Gale 01:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because its accurate does not mean its appropriate for the article. Again, if there is a REASON for its inclusion, great lets add it. If not, it appears that date standardization does not include mentioning the day of the week in the lead sentence of articles. Thanks, --Tom 12:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom, since you're an advocate standards, may I suggest you spend your energy having administration change all of Wiki to ISO 8601( the international date standard). Tinosa 15:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. --Tom 17:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom, you also might want to learn the difference between its and it's. Meanwhile several editors have, over a long period of time, been accepting the inclusion of this accurate information as appropriate to the article. As an editor, I think it adds helpful context to the narrative. I still don't understand, however, why you insist on deleting this verified information from the article. Please stop edit warring over it, thank you. Gwen Gale 17:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"it adds helpful context to the narrative" ok, finally, we are getting somewhere. Any other reason(s). I am all ears. Was that so difficult, geesh, --Tom 18:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because it's/its been there awhile dosen't really mean much. Just becasue its accurate dosen't mean much. Why won't you just asnwser the question I have been asking for awhile now??

Whats the agenda here, still??--Tom 17:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What is your agenda? Why are you edit warring over this verfied information? Gwen Gale 17:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My agenda is to stop people like yourself who obviously have an agenda to push. why else would you keep adding this material without ANY justification. I know that you think you OWN this article, but really! --Tom 18:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:3rr, thanks. Gwen Gale 18:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? --Tom 18:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can't answer that yourself, I humbly suggest you start here first. Gwen Gale 18:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should try Misplaced Pages:Introduction. --Tom 18:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this trivial issue is turning into a low-frequency edit war. It's very silly, IMO. But maybe with some good-faith discussion we can resolve it. I've looked at a few other WP articles dealing with events on specific dates, chosen as they occurred to me: 1994 San Marino Grand Prix (current featured article), Battle of Normandy, Loma Prieta earthquake, Battle of Bad Axe (an article about another massacre), and Sand Creek massacre. Only the Loma Prieta article mentions the day of the week, and its relevance to the article subject can be readily seen -- the day of the week affected the traffic patterns and thus the number of casualties. In none of the other articles is the day of the week mentioned.

Mentioning that the Mountain Meadows massacre took place on a Friday is no more informative than mentioning what phase the moon was in at the time, or who the king of Prussia was, without some further tie-in to the article's contents. Gwen Gale has hinted that there may be some relevance, perhaps related to the Mormons' Sabbath observance (I am extrapolating here from her comments). Do any of the cited works draw such a connection? If not, I suggest that we drop the mention of Friday as it's currently just a bit of irrelevant data that leaves the reader looking for a nonexistent connection. Other thoughts? alanyst 16:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Alanyst, well said. I want to know WHY is is SO important to have the day of the week mentioned in the LEAD sentence?? If it has relevance to the event, great, flesh it out and then it should stay. If it has NO relevance it should go. Gwen has said that it adds context. OK, I guess, but in what sense?? I really don't care that much about this article, I don't even know how I ended up here, but this has turned into a edit war , why exactly? I am into "standardization" and having articles flow in a similar fasion as pointed out above. Anyways, --Tom 17:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we please have a truce to this childish edit war? At least until the vandalism edits slow down or until some action like a staw poll can be taken. I've spent 2 days now combing through edit histories to remove real vandalism but _ahem_ someone is clogging the edit history with an edit war over the word Friday. If that's the biggest problem with this article I move it be nominated for Featured Article status =-)

Thanks Davemeistermoab 14:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dave, I have tried to stay cool but this is really bugging me. WHAT is the significance of mentioning the day of the week in the LEAD sentence? If the folks who insist on reinserting it would just come clean with what their agenda is, or why its SO dam important, this can end. Is it religious? Is is , I don't know? Whatever it is, just spell it out and then we can ALL move on. Gwen said "it added context". Everybody else has said sqwat. Just because it may be a fact means didlee. The height of the grass at the time of the massacre was approximately 2 inches, should this be added? I have NO horse in this race. I edit alot of articles dealing with the Middle East and Jewish/Arab issues. I thought those folks could be stuborn and militant but this takes the cake. At this point, all I want to know is WHY!! WHY in the name of all that is right do you folks want to add the day of the week to the LEAD sentence of the article. Seriously, at this point its more about curiosity than anything else. Thanks! --Tom 14:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

An example of the day of the week in the lead sentence of an encyclopedic article.

Attack on Pearl Harbor (1941)

The Japanese surprise attack on the U.S. Navy's base at Pearl Harbor and on Oahu in the Hawaiian Islands on "Sunday morning, 7 December 1941", destroyed much of the American Pacific Fleet and brought the United States into World War II.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS http://www.answers.com/topic/attack-on-pearl-harbor

It seems the MMM ocured "Friday afternoon, September 11,1857". Tinosa 18:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tinosa. It's clear that some articles invoke the day of the week and some do not. It looks like Misplaced Pages's version (Attack on Pearl Harbor), at least, contains some information that makes the day of the week significant. The relevant quote from the article:

He was also able to discover that Sunday was the day of the week on which the largest number of ships were likely to be in harbor

Can we agree that we should mention the day of the week if there is supporting material that demonstrates its relevance to the Mountain Meadows massacre, and that we should not mention it if there is no such material? alanyst 18:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason for the inclusion of the day of the week because it has no significance. However, I don't really care if it is included. Friday has no meaning for LDS, their doctrine, worship, or anything else. It is similar as stated above that the grass was two inches high and the future President Lincoln only drank tea that morning. It may be factual, but it is wholly without significance. Would it be acceptable to those concerend to enter the date later in the article? --Storm Rider 19:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I never even heard of this event until recently (thats what I enjoy about this project), but if I wanted to learn more, the DATE (not day of week) would be very important contextually, so I would think it belongs front and center as it is now. Anyways, thanks for comment.--Tom 20:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Copy of text recently reverted

I actually think this is worthy to be in the article, but the lead sentence has such as horrible POV problem that I felt the need to revert before the rebuttles begin =-)

Meantime, the effect of the bad conduct of this emigrant company while passing through the southern "Mormon" settlements and the adjacent Indian tribes had culminated in a great excitement among the latter, and of anger and resentment among the former. It was customary for the local leading men at Cedar and from the smaller settlements in its vicinity to gather in a council meeting after the close of the regular Sunday services of the church, to consider questions of local community interest. At such a meeting on the 6th of September the question concerning the conduct of, and what ought to be done with, the Arkansas emigrants was brought up and debated. Some in the council were in favor of destroying them, and others were not. Finally, and largely through the influence of Mr. Laban Morrill, it was "unanimously decided" in that council to suspend all hostile action relative to the emigrants until a message could be sent to Brigham Young to learn what would be the best course to pursue. The next day James Haslem, a resident of Cedar at the time, was sent as such messenger to Governor Young. A few hours after his arrival in Salt Lake City, Haslem was dispatched with the following message from Brigham Young, "Go with all speed, spare no horse flesh. The emigrants must not be meddled with, if it takes all Iron county to prevent it. They must go free and unmolested."

Davemeistermoab 21:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Poisioning Wells, Haun's Mill Massacre, etc. a suggested re-write.

I just reverted a dubious edit that claimed there was evidence that the "Fauncher" party poisened wells and included participants in the Haun's Mill Massacre. While that is BS that there is evidence they Fanchers poisened anything. There were certainly stories that people believed there was poisened. And some partipicants did justify their actions as Vengence for Haun's Mill. The article in its current state mentiones none of these. I would propose they be added, if nothing else, to address them in a proper form so edits like the one I just reverted don't get re-added.

Here is a suggestion at a re-write, please advise on your thoughts:

The Fancher party may have been joined by a group of eleven miners and plainsmen who called themselves "Missouri Wildcats,". There is debate on weather the Missouri Wildcats stayed stayed with the slow-moving Fancher party after leaving Salt Lake City, or even existed. Either way, rumors of the Missouri Wildcat's bad conduct circulated throughout the territory. The most severe accusations included: poisoning wells, bragging of participating in the Haun's Mill Massacre, bragging about mormon persecution in Missouri, and threats to return with an army to wipe out the mormon population.. Some accounts further claimed that Wildcats bragged they had the gun that "shot the guts out of Old Joe Smith").

Though even the existence of the Wildcats is questioned other factors are known to have antagonized the local population. Popular Mormon leader Parley P. Pratt had been murdered in Arkansas a few months earlier (by the ex-husband of one of Pratt's plural wives) and news of his death had only recently begun to arrive in the area. These rumors, martial law, threats of war and limited supplies all likely influenced individual Mormons who didn't sell food to the Fancher party.

Davemeistermoab 20:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. After reading the sources cited, I'm not stating anything that is not stated in the sources, So I'm going to be bold and add it. Any gripse, you know what to do....

Davemeistermoab 20:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I added this, but it apparently wasn't enough to satasfy everyone. I've reverted the "Provocation" paragraph twice now. That's enough for me. What does everybody else think? I still think this paragraph must go in its current form "provocation" has serious POV issues and this pargraph claims evidence exists but sites no sources.

Davemeistermoab 03:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the "Provocation" paragraph. A John D. Lee Web site was added as a source, but it does not cite any of its sources. BRMo 04:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The Rape Accusation Revisted

I notice the Rape accusations have been removed by an anon. editor today. Judging from the number of times I've seen this removed and re-added I would say this is the most controversial content on the page. (well aside from using the word Friday in the opening paragraph =-)(come on is it really that important)). I have mixed feelings on this topic.

• Con: The evidence the rapes occured is not solid
• Pro: Neither is the evidence for a lot of other claims made on this page

Either way, What I find difficult to believe is the absolute refusal of some people to accept that someone capable of massacre would be also be capable of rape. So I guess I'm inclined to say the rape accusations are appropriate. I will attempt to re-add them but water the language down such that it is less likely to be reverted. If anybody objects feel free to discuss or revert. Davemeistermoab 02:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing Shirts reference

Shirts is repeatedly cited, but all I see is Shirts 1994. What's the full reference? Looks like it was deleted. 70.92.84.1 11:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)May 1, 2007

It's there, and I just checked the web link referenced is still functional. See the references section sorted by last name.

Davemeistermoab 20:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Again we see the blindness and meaness of religion.

Misleading use of edit summary

In this edit, Tinosa claimed to undo revision 127059070, but in reality, the user reinserted non-encylopedic information despite ongoing discussions in the talk page about its relevancy (or in this case, apparent lack thereof). I will therefore remove these edits and ask that they not be added without sufficient demonstration of how they add to the reader's understanding of this article. Thanks. HokieRNB 17:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Hokie, sounds very reasonable. Also, that user has repeatidly blanked his/her talk page. I have revert it a few times. Cheers! --Tom 17:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Parley, Eleanor & Hector Triangle

According to the Jared Pratt Family Association, Eleanor was not divorced from Hector McClain when she married Parley Pratt. Of course, if the content of the article is valid who would blame her.

Eleanor McLean and the Murder of Parley P. Pratt by Steven Pratt 1 http://jared.pratt-family.org/parley_histories/parley-death-stephen-pratt.html Tinosa 01:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Most interesting. Thanks. The article seems to be well cited and researched (though I didn't take the time to check out the sources cited). Yet one more example of how complicated this is and not the simplistic event many want it to be.Davemeistermoab 04:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

YIKES!!! I've been working on a way to "correct" the article as I do believe this source. The problem is how do you do that without dragging the article down an interesting but irrelevant tangent. I also don't want to eliminate the quote used in the footnote currently as it does succinctly summarize the situation (even if not 100% correct). It's like we need footnotes on our footnotes. When I finally get something in that works, the next person to revert it is going to get one in the face =-)Davemeistermoab 17:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty good article

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.

There may be other areas that need review. I intend to take a look. --Blue Tie 13:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome aboard, Blue Tie.

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? --Justmeherenow 18:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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. Davemeistermoab 18:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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.

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. --Blue Tie 01:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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. BRMo 03:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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 William Calley, Ernest Medina and the My Lai Massacre. 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).--Blue Tie 14:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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):-)

• 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.
• No matter how good the source you use is, there are 2 out there somewhere that contradict it
• 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.

Just my $.02 Davemeistermoab 17:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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?--Blue Tie 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.Davemeistermoab 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 somehow the government bombed the Oklahoma City Federal Building. I think wikipedia policies are used in those cases. --Blue Tie 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.Davemeistermoab 19:22, 5 May 2007 (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. --Blue Tie 15:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Baker-Fancher train?

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. Davemeistermoab 21:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Specific Areas for review

Here are the statements or subjects or areas that I believe need some review:

1. 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

::hings got completely out of hand. Orders and counterorders were misinterpreted, deliberately or otherwise."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.

(--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. --Justmeherenow 16:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

1. I do not think the circumstances are controversial. The causes might be. Excluding those issues related to cause and motivation, what circumstances are controversial?
2. *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 --Tom 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. --Blue Tie 13:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

1. *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. Gwen Gale 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. --Blue Tie 01:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it adds context to the article and is helpful (for what my input is worth). Gwen Gale 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 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! --Blue Tie 23:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I question the "prosperity" of the migrants.
2. Can we be more certain that the lure of gold did motivate the young men?
3. The hostilities between Utah and the Federal government are described as "potential". It should be "threatened", I think.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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).
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. "Only days before", should be specified as a date.
10. 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.
11. 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).
12. The rumors or actual deeds attributed to the party that were part of the problem should be given space.
13. 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.
14. 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).
15. The process of the decision to "eliminate" the trains just gets made suddenly. There needs to be more detail.
16. The statement "Meanwhile, organization among the local Mormon leadership reportedly broke down" is suspect. It needs more investigation and review.
17. *DONE*The term "widely known" for Mountain Meadows is original research. It can be struck without damage to the article.
18. In the actual attack, I think the degree of participation by the Indians has been under-emphasized.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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).
22. 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).
23. 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.
24. In the aftermath, the several investigations and the trial leading to the conviction of Lee should be more fully described.
25. In the aftermath, the decision of the new Governor to give general clemency should also be mentioned.
26. The word "scathing" for Carlton's report is original research and needs to be removed. Also the word "severely" associated with "criticized".
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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.)
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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/

--Blue Tie 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.

Davemeistermoab 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? :-) --Blue Tie 02:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nauvoo Legion 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 Tinosa 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. --Blue Tie 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 original research. BRMo 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. --Blue Tie 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. --Blue Tie 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 Tinosa 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. Davemeistermoab 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.--Blue Tie 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. --Blue Tie 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. --Blue Tie 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! --Justmeherenow 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...):^) --Justmeherenow 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! --Justmeherenow 22:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy (WP:SPS) 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. BRMo 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. --Blue Tie 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. --Justmeherenow 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. --Blue Tie 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.--Blue Tie 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. --Justmeherenow 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. --Justmeherenow 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. --Blue Tie 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 mass killings weren't at hand of Brigham but of (LDS) brigands.) --Justmeherenow 00:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the attack has more of an appearance of Vigilante 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".--Blue Tie 01:30, 16 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.--Blue Tie 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). --Blue Tie 13:17, 9 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 :'^( --Justmeherenow 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 --Justmeherenow 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.Davemeistermoab 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. Gwen Gale 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? Davemeistermoab 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. Gwen Gale 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. --Storm Rider 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. Gwen Gale 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 =-) Davemeistermoab 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. Gwen Gale 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. --Storm Rider 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. --Trödel 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. --Blue Tie 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) Davemeistermoab 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 A simple formulation 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 cite that source. 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 best and most reputable sources 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 verified. 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 weasel words: "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 Billboard Hot 100," 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. --Blue Tie 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. Gwen Gale 12:23, 16 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. Gwen Gale 18:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Court Record, second trial of John D. Lee, testimony of Laban Morrill
2. Report of Lee trial, while it was in progress, Deseret News of Sept. 20th, 1876. Also Haslem affidavit, Supplement to Penrose's Mountain Meadows Massacre, pp. 94,95.
3. Brooks 1991, page xxi.
4. Bagley (2002), p. 280, refers to the "Missouri Wildcats" story as "Utah mythology"
5. See http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/program/episodes/four/mountain.htm and http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no88.htm and http://www.youknow.com/chris/essays/misc/mtnmeadows.html
6. Mountain Meadows Massacre in Tietoa Mormonismista Suomeksi.
7. "Pratt was called on a mission to the southern states and while he was on this mission, a lawsuit was filed by one Hector McLean, who accused Pratt of causing an estrangement between himself and his former wife, Eleanor. Although Pratt was exonerated by the court, McLean and two accomplices pursued Pratt to Alma, Arkansas, where they fired at and stabbed him. He died on 13 May 1857 and was quietly buried at what is now Fine Springs, Arkansas." Hector was unhappy with the result of the lawsuit and was later convicted of Pratt's murder. See also http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/mtn_meadows/9.html and http://www.prattconference.org/area_info.htm.
8. Bagley (2002), pp. 68-72, 80-81.

• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Utah articles
• Unknown-importance Utah articles
• WikiProject Utah articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class Latter Day Saint movement articles
• Unknown-importance Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement articles
• Unassessed Indigenous peoples of North America articles
• Unknown-importance Indigenous peoples of North America articles
• WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America articles