Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about Mountain Meadows Massacre. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Untitled

Material archived from the Mountain Meadows massacre Talk page. (Aug 1 - Aug 31, 2007 approximate)

Critiques of Opening Paragraphs

It seems as though the intro might be a bit long. I go back and forth on that, because its not badly written, but I thought it was somewhat better a few iterations back when it was shorter.
We say "Mormons along the way had mistakenly linked them with a number of crimes and past Mormon persecutions". I think it probably is true that it was mistaken, but has that been fully proven? Is this original research?
We say: "the local leaders of church and state[2] directed Indian agent John D. Lee to lead an auxiliary contingent" and quote Lee. But really, Lee is not a reliable enough source for anything he says to be taken without corroboration. I have my doubts that he got much direction. It is overwhelmingly clear that a substantial meeting was held at night between him and Haight and then things got rolling. I am not sure this counts as direction. And besides Lee's words, who is reported, by a reliable source, to have directed him? This probably needs reworded.
We say: "Believing that complicity in the siege by Mormons would complicate the Utah War, the militia induced the party to surrender and give up their weapons." I agree with this, but do we ever support this in the article or is this new information in the summary?
We say: "After escorting the emigrants out of their fortification, the militiamen then executed an estimated 120 men, women and children" but there is reasonable evidence it was not just the miltia men but also the indians. They should not be left out of this summary.

Thats about it right now. --Blue Tie 06:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't even looked at the article intro for editing in a bit. I figure editing the intro may come later after we have distilled the article. Once we determine in the section about who actually directed the massacre, we can parrot a shortened version in the intro. Can you work on the sections in the sandbox article from which we (probably) drew these statements? Once these concerns are addressed in the article, then the intro is easy to fix. Shortening this behemoth is not going to be easy, but I'm sure we can do it. (She says at 6:00 am) --Robbie Giles 12:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Intro isn't too long. Once we get past "by Mormons" into "by Mormons. Because...", we need to say--something.

The intro only says Lee was ordered to direct the siege. That much isn't controversial. (Militia from all over were congregating at the scene and Lee was directing Paiutes there. That simply doesn't take place spontaneously and without direction. Why else would the Paitues have been assembling there and the militia nearby there?) Casualties of the initial siege were casualties/collateral damage any military planners have to take into account--still, who should be ultimately held accountable (-ible?sp) for these among planners or Paiute fighters and the one militiaman (namely Lee) or many militiamen most immediately at the scene is hard to say. As for the final atrocity: we've got to accept the naked fact that the buck has to stop at least as far as the highest local military authority, namely Haight--as no expert has contrued Haight's actual orders at Thursday's parley to have been, "Let them pass on to California!" and then Lee and Higbee simply disobeyed Haight's orders --GERA NIUM (Justmeherenow 15:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

Ok, if Lee was ordered, then who ordered him. We need a reliable source. Otherwise this is original research. And, by reliable source, I do not mean Lee. However, Robbie requested work on the sandbox thing, so I will turn my attention there.--Blue Tie 18:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie: "Ok, if Lee was ordered, then who ordered him."

Um <shakes head at audacity of question>, Isaac C. Haight? For a citation, Morrill says leadership such as Haight were conspiring to kill the Arkansans. According to our friend (and muckraker) Gibbs:

[W]ho after reading the testimony of Laban Morrill, and noting his sincerity under the most trying conditions - to tell the truth, and to shield others of the elders, can deny that the conspiracy to murder the emigrants was initiated by[...]the chief ecclesiastical authorities of the Parowan stake of Zion?
________
The "lawyerly" <lol> mister Bishop: Did you say that a messenger was to be sent down to John D. Lee?
Mister Laban Morrill: I did[...].
[...]
[...]
To have the thing stayed according to contract, to agreement made.
What do you mean by the thing being stayed? Was the massacre of that emigrant train discussed there at all?
It was, sir; and some were in favor of it, and some were not.
Who were they?
Bishop (Klingen)smith I considered, was the hardest man I had to contend with.
Who else spoke about it?
Isaac Haight and one or two others. I recollect my companions more than any one else.
They were very anxious and rabid were they not?
They seemed to think it would be best to kill the emigrants. Some of the emigrants swore that they had killed old Joseph Smith; there was quite a little excitement there.
You have given us the names of two who were in favor of killing those emigrants - who were the others?
Those were my companions, Isaac C. Haight and Klingensmith. I recollect no others

Since Haight himself never broaches the massacre (even in his journals, as far as I understand)--really, for us to have any kind of Brooks-versus-Bagley style "he said, she said" here, we're first going to have to find ONE single person who thinks Haight wasn't all about "Let's use 'em up!" et cetera. (Although there's indications Haight wavered some.) --GERANIUM Justmeherenow 04:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how it is an "audacious" question. I see that you did not actually give a good cite where Lee was ordered. I am not asking the question: "Who conspired?". I am asking "Who ordered Lee?" This is a very distinctly different question. If, for example, Lee was chiefly the culprit then no one had to order him. If Lee was part of a mutual conspiracy, then no one had to order him. If he was an innocent dupe, then someone ordered him. So, the question still remains: "Who ordered him?" The question as audacious as it is, remains unanswered. What you have answered is a different question: "Who were some of the characters who wanted to destroy the emmigrant train?" That is not the question I asked. --Blue Tie 22:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

№ uno:If I'm a private and you are a sergeant and we are part of a mutual conspiracy then you counsel with me and me with you, we agree, and then you order me and I consent to be ordered. But still you order me.

№ dos: Same thing (me a private, you a sarge) and I'm a dupe--we counsel and you decide you must trick me, for the greater good or whatever else your motive, or withhold info from me, since you judge the situation to require my being informed, as they say, only as I "need to know"--then you have ordered me.

№ tres: Same thing (me with one stripe, you with three) and it's instead me who has tricked you through whatever subterfuges, then I still succeeded in obtaining the self-same orders as in above cases numero uno y numero dos! And, should you have a problem with that, you have to report me up the chain of command for screwing up the system; and should you neglect to do wo, you forfeit your right to escape responsiblity. So if somebody is to come along and claim that actually Haight's criminal orders to Lee were only due to Lee's bad faith (bad info, bad anything)...well, a person making such a claim must point to where Haight says, "The buck doesn't stop here, BECAUSE ___?___ ." WHICH HAIGHT NEVER DID!--but instead said, "Yes, I decided to order them killed and did so BECAUSE... (/x/ /y/ & /z/) --MISTER GREEN JEANS Justmeherenow 06:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. An order is an official military matter. Things done in private are not. The question remains: Who ordered Lee? This is a matter of NPOV and RS. If you cannot cite an order, you cannot claim it under the guise that it was private and secret. Where is the cite for the order? As audacious a question this is... it is reasonable per wikipedia policies. --Blue Tie 16:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. How about the bee-gees?*

And who...can deny that the conspiracy to murder the emigrants was initiated by the direct agent of the Mormon leaders, and was discussed in a priesthood meeting of the chief ecclesiastical authorities of the Parowan stake of Zion? --GIBBS (published 1910)

...[A] pivotal meeting occurred that same evening [Friday, 4 September] in Cedar City between Major Isaac Haight of the Second Battalion and Major John D. Lee of the Fourth. What emerged was a plan to incite local Paiute Indians to gather at Mountain Meadows with Lee as their leader. --BRIGGS (published 2002)

______
(*NOT "brothers Gibb" but that apologetic-polemic duo of Briggs and Gibbs ;^) Justmeherenow 21:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent)Am I speaking a different language than English here? What is it about "Cite the Order" that is too hard to understand? Let me be very clear. I am not challenging:

The law of gravity
Man's primacy over animals
Or that there was a conspiracy involving Haight, Lee and others.

I am asking for a cite to affirm that Lee acted under orders. Do you have it or not? Its ok to say "I do not have it". But that would suggest a change in the wording, right? What's so wrong with removing unsupported wording? --Blue Tie 21:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Achieving consensus on structure.

Since I've been heavily involved in the article over the past numerous weeks, and we need consensus if we want to get FA status, I'm planning to step back a bit and let some others tinker with the structure, so that we can all be on board with something. We need both consensus and a really good article, and maybe someone has the creative chops to tell a non-linear story here. Though it's very unusual in non-fiction, some novelists can do it, and it can work, so I'm willing to entertain the idea, as long as it doesn't become too confusing and inscrutable.

However, we need to decide on one of several non-linear alternatives:

Background, lead-in (July-Sept. 6), climax (massacre), aftermath. This is the straightforward linear way that most historians write about a historical event, and it is the way the article was until a few days ago. My hopes for achieving consensus using this structure, however, are not high at this point.
Climax (massacre), background, lead-in, aftermath. You see this kind of structure sometimes in fiction, where the pivotal point of the story is told first, then the audience is told how the characters got there. This would be my second choice, but it's very hard to do this well with fiction, let alone non-fiction. If everybody else prefers this, though, I'd be on board.
aftermath, background, lead-in, climax (massacre). This is a backwards re-telling of the massacre. This sometimes works in fiction, but I think it's way too "cute" for non-fiction. This is the way the story would be told from historian's point of view: We're told the raw details of the massacre, then as the investigation is discussed, we learn about the details of the massacre, based on the testimony of the participants. I remember hearing some comments favoring an article roughly along these lines, however, so I thought I'd throw it out there.
Lead-in, climax (massacre), aftermath, background. This structure is my fourth choice, but it has problems. Because the background is saved until the end, the audience has no clue why the massacre and the events preceding it are occurring. They don't know who Brigham Young is or how much power he has, they don't know why some Mormons would think it was their duty to avenge the prophets, they don't know why the U.S. was in such an uproar over the massacre during the 1870s, etc. The lead-in here refers to the period of time between Utah's mobilization for war and the beginning of the siege.
Lead-in #2, climax (massacre), aftermath #1 (pre-1880s), background, lead-in #1, aftermath #2 (post-1870s). This is how the article stands as of today. The lead-in #1 begins with George A. Smith's circuit through southern Utah and Brigham Young's meeting with the Indians and arguable ordering of the massacre. The lead-in #2 begins with the fanchers' travel in Utah. This organization is not workable, because Brigham Young gives the (supposed, imho) order to massacre the immigrants at the very end of the story, just before the aftermath #2 (post-1870s).

COGDEN 23:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest the following outline

Summary Introduction

General Historial Context (but not to explain theories of why it happened)

Mormons Flee US - settle Utah

Utah War

California Settlement - Gold Rush, etc.

Fanchier Party

Composition and Background

Travels to and Through Utah

Interactions / Confrontations with Mormons

Planning to attack the wagon train

The Siege

Decision to massacre

The Massacre

Investigations

Trials & Execution

Monuments and Memorials

Explanatory Theories & Debates (Normally peaceful Mormons became butchers.. why?)

Annotated Bibliography of Major Studies including conclusions and points of view.

This is somewhat like COGDEN's 4th choice which he does not like because it does not explain reasons why in advance. I prefer a "just the facts" approach first and then get into disputed theories (and the backgrounds that support those theories) about reasons why, later. Partly, this is because a question "Why?" does not spring into the mind of the reader until after they read about the massacre. Then it is logical to answer that question. And I think it should be presented as exactly that: a suggested answer (theory) to the question, who it is that proposed that answer, the ancillary evidence supporting that view and problems with that theory, or objections or contrary views as presented by whom. For example: Reason--> Brigham Young Ordered It for Reason ___ and the evidence is the note and meeting with indians. However, others point out that Brigham Young did X,Y Z and which does not support that theory. Or: Reason ---> Mormons did it for revenge and the evidence is that they said and did such and such. However, Person X points out that Mormons __________ and says that this shows revenge was not a motivator. Sometimes complex theories may require a less simple approach. For example the theory that Haight and Lee masterminded it is not sufficient without some discussion of why the militia were willing to obey them.

Something like that. --Blue Tie 01:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've never advocated including "reasons why" in the background. That stuff belongs later in the section on scholarship. The only things that should be in the background section are facts. I guess maybe where we differ is what we call "facts" and what we call "theories". I see a fact as anything that is verifiable. For example, I see Dame's patriarchal blessing prophesying that he would lead the Indians and Mormons to "avenge the prophets" as a fact, and I'd include it in the background section, because it is relevant and it's a fact. And personally, I wouldn't even bother with telling the "why" in this case, because nobody knows "why". On the other hand, as I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong), you infer from this fact some implied "theory" (e.g., that the patriarch's prophecy came true, or became a self-fulfilling prophecy). Therefore, you would withhold the telling of that fact until after other facts are told first. Thus, there would be a telling of "clean" facts followed by a chronologically-out-of-order telling of facts contaminated by implied theories. COGDEN 02:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I accept that a fact is not just verifiable, but also something about which there is no substantive dispute. That difference between our views may not produce any conflict most of the time. However, I also believe that the "facts" to be presented in the background should have a direct connection to the Massacre itself -- or failing that, at least a gentle easy narrative flow into the article (for example, immigration to California had been a fairly recent but substantial national trend of which the Baker Fanchier party was a part). On the other hand, if they are "facts" that are required to buttress a theory of motivation but they do not otherwise strongly relate to the massacre, or discussing them is like taking a side detour, then they belong with that theory and not in the background of the massacre. And I think that is a difference in our views that is very large. Your way of putting my position though, is very interesting. I do not disagree with how you view my thoughts but seeing them come out in your words sort of looks weird. But I think you are right. And perhaps it boils down to differences of opinion on relevance. For example, I do not believe that Dame's patriarchial blessing is at all relevant to the massacre UNTIL one accepts the idea that this was a motivation for his actions (and if that is never accepted it remains irrelevant). And that is a theory that I believe could be in dispute. On the other hand, you view this information as directly relevant, bypassing the issue of its relationship to the theory of what motivated Dame and attaching it straight to the massacre. To me, that relationship is too tenuous. --Blue Tie 06:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess the question is, who says what is relevant? If the rule is that everybody has to agree that Dame's patriarchal blessing is relevant to the Mountain Meadows massacre, then it should be left out. If the rule is that a notable faction (or even a majority) of scholars have to agree it's relevant, then it goes in. COGDEN 19:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"I see Dame's patriarchal blessing prophesying that he would lead the Indians and Mormons to "avenge the prophets" as a fact"

And the subject is "The Mountain Meadows massacre" for those who have lost touch with realty. Unbelievable!Tinosa 03:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Current ordering" isn't one--but's just pieces of the puzzle dropped out of its box and halfhazardly arranged in makeshift categories. While Robbie's doing a great job in her sandbox, I think she just happens to be doing "Fanchers" at the moment (with certain parts of its build-up or lead-in straight to its climax)--that's the only reason it's first right now. But we'll see which parts(/all?) of Ogden's background information she(/we) see fit to weave into the narrative--and where. <thinks to self>(Hmm, I wonder which one of Ogden's suggested orderings we'll end up with?) --GERANIUM Justmeherenow 04:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to go back to editing in the main article. I guess my idea was not a good one. At least we haven't messed up the original article. Here were my aims for editing in the sandbox:

1. Forget about the order and concentrate solely on editing the text we already have where it is now. The rapid pace of moving items around in the actual article was making it difficult to edit even one section in a consistent manner.

2. Identify where information is missing or the 'story' is not clear in each section.

3. Eliminate duplicate info as we find it and add it to the most appropriate section.

4. Trim extraneous or too detailed sections. Mark it as appropriate for a companion article.

5. Move the edited sections back in to the main article in the order agreed upon, not the order it is in now.

6. Do edits for flow. How does one section move through to the next.

7. Final edits for wikilinks, citations, spelling, etc.

So if you have a problem with a particular section, by all means, edit it. Show what you are changing, and list any points that need clearing up, or ideas you have for expanding, contracting the section. Get buy-in from the other editors, and we can move the edits to the main article.

I tried to explain this in both the talk page and the top of the sandbox page. I was unsure whether we had told the BAKER-FANCHER story. While editing this section, I don't care about anything else, unless I believe something might be more appropriate to another section. I ~~strike through~~ the sentence in the current section and move it to the new section. I make comments below the paragraphs (old and new) to show other editors right where the changes are. When I have it where I want it, I follow up with an unformatted fully edited text.

If you look at ARKANSANS, there are two paragraphs in the Baker-Fancher emigrant train section. I show the proposed changes with comments below each paragraph. Then I show the two paragraphs as they would be after editing. This allows other to critique my changes. It is a more inclusive way to do a group edit. If you don't like the changes which are proposed, either edit them again, or make comments in the comment boxes.

Yes, this is time intensive, but it will allow following the edits through from beginning to end. So start editing the places you have the most problems with. If you think a section goes into too much detail, try striking the text out. The editors can view it and make an informed decision. Another point to the strike through text is the ability to make sure it is in a companion article.

If this method is not appropriate, let's take it back to the main article. This was simply an attempt to isolate text, edit it, and move it back to the article. I would, however, appreciate comments on the ARKANSAN section. Do the edits improve the article? Do we need to answer some of the questions I posed? Then if the edits are accepted, move it back in the correct sequence to the main article. We may be able to tag the 'semi-completed' edits with a comment.

I will follow the will of the group of editors. I will make one rather pointed statement: It doesn't matter what order poorly written text is in. It is still poorly written text. Fix the text, and then fix the order. Poorly written text, no feature article. --Robbie Giles 05:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually Robbie, I think that your previous idea of how to proceed had some problems, but they were not as big as a free-for-all in the article itself. I have said that I think putting the outline together first and then working on pieces is the way to go. But I have read what you are doing on your Sandbox and so far, it looks great. I like the way you approach it and the questions you ask along the way. I would have commented but I could not find a place to do so except directly in the article and I did not have time to do any direct contribution. But I thought your work looked great. --Blue Tie 06:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You can make comments anywhere in the sandbox. Just bold them if you put them directly in the text. You can also add them in the comments box. It's not critical if the sandbox looks messy. Thanks for looking at the edits. I am trying to find information now on the martial law proclamation and whether other trains were given passes. I haven't found anything yet. I did find that one individual asked for and was given a pass. --Robbie Giles 13:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

MMM article vs Sandbox edit

I apologize to the group. The main article has been edited to match the sandbox version. I intended the main article would be left in the original order and I would work out of chronological order only in the sandbox. I had not looked at the actual article in several days, so was unaware the changes had been made. Do we want to go back to this edit before the realignment? There have been about 20 or 30 edits since. I am unsure how to proceed in the main article. --Robbie Giles 06:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

OK I just put the article back in roughly chronological order?

1 Mormons (1.1 Memories of persecution) (1.2 New dominion) (1.3 Teachings) (1.4 News of Pratt) (1.5 War)

2 "Unbridling"

3 Baker-Fanchers (3.1 Travel through Utah) (3.2 Escalating tensions [3.2.1 Smith's circuit] [3.2.2 Interactions on road] [3.2.3 Arrival at Cedar]) (3.3 Conspiracy and massacre [3.3.1 Meetings to decide fate] [3.3.2 Siege] [3.3.3 [Killing field]) (3.4 Spared children/ distribution of spoils) (3.5 Belated message)

4 Investigations (4.1 Re Paiutes) (4.2 /Militia) (4.3 Of 1959)

5 Prosecutions

6 Causes (Help fill out stub)

7 Commentary (7.1 Popular) (7.2 Stenhouse &c-- ) (7.3 Fiction)

8 Commemorations [-- ] --GERANIUM Justmeherenow 18:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Martial law and safe conduct passes

For editing purposes, I need information on wagon trains before or after the Baker-Fancher train which received permission to travel through Utah under the edict of martial law. The decree was first dated in early August 1857, but not published until mid-September. Bagley (p416) says

"printed copies of this document dated 5 August 1857 exist, but Young's diary reveals he did not ask Daniel H. Wells to write the declarations until 29 August. No contemporary record mentions seeing the August proclamation, which was probably misdated due to a printer's error."

Has anyone seen reference to the application of the requirement of a "permit from the proper office"? Thanks. --Robbie Giles 13:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line question: What difference does it make? If a requirement was issued -- does it matter? If it was not issued.. does it matter? If it was required but not communicated... does it matter? Who has said "The Wagon train does not have the right paperwork filled out so let's kill them"? Or who convincingly said "They did not have their papers in order so we are justified in killing them"? If they had this pass would they have survived? Who seriously said so?

So... again ... getting to the bottom line and cruft and so on... is this really important to the article? How is it important? I think its TRIVIA... cruft... and not important. (I will admit that its importance is somewhat proportional to the degree that popular images might make it important... for example, if the movie makes a deal out of it, then I could grudgingly see it as having some minor importance in the article)--Blue Tie 13:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In trying to edit and leave only accurate information, I asked for help. I did not inflate the article with opinion or unverified information. This is my style of working, and it is deserving of courtesy. If you don't know the answer, fine. I am well aware you think the article is full of unneeded information. You have certainly stated your opinion numerous times to that effect. In my tiny mind, it makes a difference if they were the only train refused a safe conduct. Otherwise, it is trivial. Better to ask before incorporating conjecture in the article. --Robbie Giles 15:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you took offense without reason. I have not suggested that you were not leaving accurate information. I did not insult your request for help. I did not accuse you of inflating the article with either opinion or unverified information. I did not critique your writing style. Indeed, when have I ever said anything but positive things about your work? So why take offense? You believe that it makes a difference if they were the only train refused a safe conduct --otherwise it was trivial. I would suggest that it makes a difference if they were the only train refused a safe conduct because they did not have this documentation. THEN it would be a clear difference between them and other trains. But other trains did not have this documentation and they were at least not destroyed and as far as I can tell, some were not even harassed. So was that the unique distinguishing thing about this company? I do not think so. I am unable to distinguish anything about this group that separates them from other trains traveling to California -- which to me emphasizes the weird randomness of this event. But the lack of this documentation was not a factor if we look at other similarly ill-equipped parties.

And... again, it is respectful to both the readers and editors to not explore things that are a tangent away from or that are not really key to the Mountain Meadows Massacre. If we go off and explore to find the answer to your question... is that a good thing if obviously the whole issue is a non-player in the article? Yet, once we engage in that investment in time and find the answer, we have a strong desire to include it in the article -- we feel it has value because we invested in it. But ownership of the content because of investment in its research is the way that bloat occurs.

Finally, I can see that you are exasperated that I continue with my approach to this article. But I have yet to see ANYONE here (except me) fully embrace the idea of respecting the reader by keeping this article trim and lean. And to me, the article has gone the wrong way. Why should I stop bringing this up when it continues to be a problem -- that goes unaddressed or insufficiently addressed? Suppose that the article were chock full of spelling errors and you were the ONLY editor who felt that this was inappropriate -- everyone else wanted to leave them in. Assuming you cared, wouldn't you work to correct the situation by showing the errors? Suppose an article about the Kennedy Assassination described virtually all of the speculative issues as though they were uncontested (or barely contested) fact? Wouldn't you think that deserved some reaction? Or would that be too offensive? --Blue Tie 22:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Not exasperated, just setting boundaries for myself with others. I don't like sarcasm and ridicule, which is what I saw your comments to be. You may contest what I put in the article, but have no right to be so confrontational about a question on a talk page. I have been conducting my edits off-site and moving them over only when I have major changes. We each of us bring strengths, weaknesses and biases to editing. My bias as a librarian happens to be ample background research. It does not mean I will use it all here. It may actually be better in another article. I have also stated numerous times that I believe the article is too long. You are not the only voice asking for an encyclopedic article rather than a research article. --Robbie Giles 15:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a single word was given in sarcasm or ridicule. Why would you think so? Where was there even a hint of sarcasm or ridicule? I was asking plainly and honestly -- "how does this matter?" You are wrong about my right to be "so confrontational". I have that right. It is what the talk page is for. You also have the right to take offense at such confrontation although I see no reason to do so. There was nothing to be offended about. Re-read it and see if you can find a good excuse to take offense if you remove sarcasm and ridicule from what you supposed my tone was. Ok, maybe you don't like me. I can live with that. But there was no cause to take offense. --Blue Tie 16:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought the talk page was a place for civil discussion of the article. (Note the sarcasm.) I do not want to discuss this further here, as this page is already too long. You are welcome to take it to my talk page if you prefer to continue. You can stick a fork in me, because I'm done here with this discussion which adds nothing to the editing effort of this article. --Robbie Giles 16:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Time is short!

How do we want to proceed with finishing this to nominate for featured article? I'm still seeing the same old arguments about order and what else to include. Here are some of my opinions and thoughts (never humble remember.)

The background needs to be trimmed, pruned or lopped. (See these comments from a peer reviewer.) There are already articles on the Reformation, Blood Atonement, Utah War, etc. Move any additional information to those articles and do one or two (max) paragraphs on the main background. Painful? Yes! Necessary? Yes!
Edit the text to be retained in a systematic way. I chose to begin with the portions dealing strictly with the Baker-Fancher group. I am also working on Paiute participation. I suggest everyone choose something, announce your intentions, and ask for feedback.
Read what others are doing. If they ask for feedback, give it. Not just, WOW! Great job! Specific - the quote by Abanes is too long and need to be in the footnote instead. Balance the polemic Gibbs with the apologist Crockett. This gives specifics the editor can address.
Worry about the order, intro etc. once the text is thoroughly edited and pruned. It will be much easier at that time.
Forget about the scholarship portion for now. There is not time to include it, discuss it, and edit it prior to 9-11.

I would like to start with Blood atonement for shortening the article, unless anyone else wants to take it on. I think two (at most) good sized paragraphs will be sufficient. I will do some editing on my sandbox page and notify when it is ready for review.

Let's get going. Time is short. --Robbie Giles 19:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Robbie's link to Remember_the_dot's peer review is broken; it's ...here

I've become aware that more than one or two long-time observers of the article are sort of--crying? I think it's because what was once at least a more pithy article is now amateurishly undisciplined, its supposed improvements not towards rewordings that shore up what's asserted according to conservative estimations of facts but instead a lot of crufty speculation? With regard to additions of speculation by amateurs, I've been guilty of a that...

One example? My mention of Leonard-Walker-Turley. Turns out it had been brought into the article a dozen times and experienced hands have reverted. Yet as the article stands Wikipedia claims it's likely to be published next year: riight. <lol> Waiting for joe kew public to find out some of what these historians know from the Jenson archives would be like for folks to have waited for Brigham Young's internal investigation back in 1857-77. (Instead the territory and feds tussled over jurisdiction until finally there was a formal abbrogation of territorial rights and Jacob Boreman's court could proceed with the Lee trials. Two nights ago I read two of these historians say in a 2002 issue of the Journal of Mormon History how they'd just sent the manuscript off to its publisher. The historians subtly advocate for more openness--one author tantalizingly even threw in the word "rape" with regard interactions between the Fancher train and local Mormons?--without further explanation. Except then he went on to speak of Lee's traumatizations in childhood and admissions in adulthood that sexual intercourse poured out from Lee "in a torrent" [huh? like for some people it doesn't?!-- But I get the gist, there's something wrong with Lee: violence prone with (not too subtly reading between the lines) rape dynamics. And yet (another example!) I'm the one who pushed Gwen Gale's coverage of Gibb's rape accusation against Lee to a footnote... ]) <sighs> --GERANIUM Justmeherenow 18:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

p/s The UofU ~~history~~--I mean, film--department professor Briah Patrick's "Burying the Past" has a soundbite where Bagley is saying that Mormons' testimony (and whether this was from internal LDS investigation or for Boreman's court, I didn't pick up) implicating Lee in rape had been orchestrated by Brigham Young to discredit Lee and help make him into a scapegoat. Which seems speculative as far as B/Y goes? (but is still interesting to me because of the strange bed fellows it makes of Bagley with Blue Tie!) Justmeherenow 18:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not buy that there was a rape (the source is ridiculous) nor do I buy into this alleged theory of Bagley's as to how it went around. I think Lee just became a boogyman with all kinds of theories swirling around him. I remember reading about how kids were afraid to take apples from him because he would poison them. Did Young spread that rumor too? --Blue Tie 12:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)]]

And you SHOULD have pushed the rape to a footnote... or deleted it. An author "tantalizes" you because they mention the word "rape"? Or because Lee had many children "sexual intercourse" poured from him like a torrent -- that means he was a violent rapist? This is rank speculation. Ok... rape speculation tantalizes... but does not belong in this article -- even as a footnote. Good grief. With such liberal acceptance of tripe, we MUST include theories of Alien construction of the Pyramids of Egypt. But I note that though this is a widely published speculation it does not deserve even a footnote in Egyptian pyramid construction techniques. I suppose though that we are such superior editors because we want to include all this cruft? Or are we actually being self-indulgent (prideful of our research) and disrespectful of the reader? Shall I speculate?--Blue Tie 13:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason to withhold or censor speculative information, as long as it's relevant. For example, the whole story about how the Fanchers were supposed to have poisoned the ox and the well. Although this story is highly speculative, and almost certainly untrue, it is very relevant to the article because that's one of the ways contemporary Mormons explained the massacre, and the story might have been in the minds of the perpetrators of the massacre. Likewise with the meeting between Brigham Young and the Paiute leaders just before the massacre. Although it's highly speculative whether or not the meeting was a direct causitive factor in the massacre, it's very relevant, for purposes of this article, because commentators like Bagley and Denton make such a big deal about it. Speculative information is good, if it's relevant and notable. If someone can cite a reliable quote arguing that Lee was a rapist, and that if true this had some bearing on the massacre, it's fair game for this article (so long as its purported relevance isn't a fringe theory, which it might very well be). COGDEN 20:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't think that there is ANY reason to withhold or censor speculative information? What about clarity and responsibility to the reader? There is a responsibility of editors to make reasonable judgments. Not every featherbrained speculation belongs in wikipedia articles. This is expressed in wikipedia policy. Yes the Ox story was speculation... but you are using the term badly in this example. The speculation was made at the time of the massacre. However, it is NOT speculation that this was part of the story used to discuss the Fanchier party. THAT is not speculation. It is a fact. Is it an important fact? Whether it is a cause for the massacre or an excuse, either way, it would seem to be considered relevant and important enough that every author has dealt with it, so its importance seems assured. One thing that IS speculation, however, is whether it was concocted AFTER the massacre and was not an existing condition BEFORE. That speculation is opinion, theory etc. It should be relegated to a speculations and theories section to avoid filling the article with cruft and argument by proxy. The meeting of Brigham Young with the Indians is not speculation... it took place. That can be reported as a fact. The speculative interpretations of this meeting, if they must be included, should be included in a theories and speculation section. This is like the fact that BY sent a letter. That is a fact, it can be reported and its contents are known. That some people see a code in this letter is also a fact... but... a fact that some people wildly (and in my opinion, injudiciously) speculate on things. And THAT is a different article. This is not an article about how people may speculate on things.. but on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The theories and speculations, if we insist on including them, should be very clearly identified as such and since there are SO MANY of them, they should have their own section. But even in that section, editorial oversight is appropriate... as you also indicate: "so long as its purported relevance isn't a fringe theory" I would suggest that the volume, in terms of number of words, given to such speculations should be severely limited -- perhaps with a brief statement of what they are and references for further reading. For example, here are speculations from what is deemed a credible source for this article: "the whole Mormon population was instrumental in the perpetuation of this crime". Or "evil must always exist as long as Mormons exist". "Mormons are an ulcer" -- and should be exterminated. These are all opinions, speculations or concepts from a respected source. Because it is a fact that such speculations exist, do they really belong in the article? No. All-in-all we should respect the reader and not trash up / cruft up the article with theories and speculations intermingled with facts. "Just the facts ma'am" -- ABOUT THE SUBJECT (and not off topic items)-- is the best approach. --Blue Tie 13:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that this article be included in a larger series of articles on the Utah War? Series sub-articles could include the Republican party's 1856 platform (the twin relics of barbarism), including the Democratic party's agreement with the polygamy part of the platform; the election of Buchanan; the sending of "Johnston's Army"; etc. We keep trying to put the MMM in context within this article, but it might work better to place it in the broader context of the Utah War by having a series of articles, with one of those navigation boxes off to the right. That being said, I think the article has shown vast improvement over the past few weeks. --TrustTruth 18:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this article can certainly be included as part of a Utah War series. However, the article still need its own background on matters specifically-relevant to the massacre. The background section is much shorter now than it used to be, and more directly pertinent, so I think we're on the right road there. My sense is that what we need most is some strong final editing on the "Conspiracy and massacre", "Investigations and prosecutions", and "Commentary" sections. The former two might be split-off as subarticles (as can the "excalating tensions" section, which I think is pretty good, though a bit long. COGDEN 20:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The Utah War was one of the top 3 of not the main dominating factor in this matter. The other two being 2) the lack of good communication and 3) the apparent animosity between Mormons and Fanchier's, particularly with regard to Haight and Lee. But #2 is part and parcel of the War issue, while it could be argued that 3 got its power from the same source. So, the Utah War is the main issue. All this other tripe you put in the intro is hugely distracting. It should be deleted, trimmed and or moved to the end of the article in its own theories section. --Blue Tie 12:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

One or two long-time observers of the article weeping

Yes, at this point I am merely a passer by. But also I am a long-time observer, no longer on strict wikiholiday. So how, may I ask, did this misleading sentence get into the first paragraph? Tom Haws 20:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"The emigrants stopped to rest at Mountain Meadows, close to anxious members of the Iron County Military District of the Nauvoo Legion (the Mormon militia in the Utah Territory).[1] The members had been mustered to fight the approaching United States Army, which Mormons thought intended to destroy them."

The above makes it seems like the militia just happened to be on a picnic when the emigrants camped nearby. How in good faith could such a sentence have creeped in? The article as it now stands is admirably complete, but when a red herring like this is thrown in the intro, I have to wonder about the rest. Tom Haws 20:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Tom. Welcome back! It's good to hear from you. I hadn't thought about this sentence in the intro, but now you point it out, I agree. How about this:

The emigrants stopped to rest at Mountain Meadows, in an area controlled militarily by the Iron County Military District of the Nauvoo Legion (the Mormon militia in the Utah Territory). The anxious members of the militia had been mustered to fight the approaching United States Army, which Mormons thought intended to destroy them.

COGDEN 20:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll implement it or a variant. Tom Haws 20:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. On second thought, the second sentence rubs me wrong. There was far more history in play that was just as important or more important than what is conveyed by that sentence, and so that sentence ends up being a diversion. I will propose something there. Tom Haws 21:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Controlled militarily sounds like a police state, which I don't think is the intent. How about:

The emigrants stopped to rest at Mountain Meadows. This area was within the Iron County Military District of the Nauvoo Legion (the Mormon militia in the Utah Territory). The militia members had previously been mustered to fight the approaching United States Army, which Mormons had perceieved had been directed to destroy them.

I think this does a better job of setting the context. Thoughts? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great (better) to me. Tom Haws 21:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That's good. COGDEN 17:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fresh eye

Hi, guys! I may be reading through the article more. I know I have no recent history here, but give me a chance. A fresh eye can be a good thing. :-D Tom Haws 21:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And your eye is always helpful, Tom. As my name was put forward as a final editor (see above), I'll be happy to help Tom "refine" things toward the end. What is the target date for FA submission? I'll try and block out some time. WBardwin 21:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, sorry in advance, I have no idea where else to put this: what the heck does this sentence mean? "On the September 27, Hurt, the last federal Agent in Utah Territory, escaped more that seventy five Mormons dragoons for the safety of the American Army with the help of Ute Indians.[163]" I'd just edit it myself, except I can't even figure it out. 66.113.27.1 22:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Wreave, 15 August 2007

My short wikibreak. i) Wreave (re comment directly above): Indian agent Garland Hurt's escape by scruff of his neck, an important angle that had been missing from the article, was offhandedly plopped into the article by Tinosa (I think?) But it's a beta version which you can probably only upgrade if ya check back in the talk page maybe a half-dozen archives back where Tinosa again (I think?) links to where the whole story is posted on-line from some Nevada historical site or something. (I know, my input here on the talkpage is useless sometimes, guys - sorry!) lol

ii) While I'm addressing you guys and gals here I should probably mention regarding Ogden's background info (which was based mostly on primary sources but was a bit raw at first, if still promising)-- that it now is all of pith and seamlessness and effortlessness in instruction--just: kudos! --GREEN MAN FROM MARS

(p/s Unfortunately I have to take a wikibreak for about a week (due real-world stuff I need attend to)? Yet I anticipate some new (and old) hands will have the article sparkling by the time I come back? <ruefully smiles...>) Justmeherenow 12:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not been able to participate and will not be able to for a while, but though the article is much improved (I like the addition of the many pictures) IT IS STILL TOO CRUFTY. There is too much "support of theories" in the introduction. I believe that the political structure, theocracy, persecution against Mormons, George Smith's travelogue, and so on, need to be removed or moved to the end of the article or something. They are not good parts to the article -- and they get in the way of the main point. There is still that silly reference to "local church and state leaders" that is not well supported. (ANYTHING that relies exclusively on Lee's testimony, particularly if calculated to mitigate his guilt, should be removed as a "fact" -- he is not an unbiased witness).

I think that if we could get rid of or move the GA Smith travelogue, the article would be HUGELY improved by starting with the Baker-Fanchier party section. That GA Smith stuff is way too long and involved with virtually no value to the article. And.. All the "He said she said", third and fourth hand reports of rumors of things people heard that someone might have said should be removed, particularly in that section on the interaction between the Fanchiers and the Mormons. The enlistment of the Indians should be tightened up (half its current size) and moved to near the Utah War section -- it was a part of the strategy for fighting the war and not some random thing that happened in the midst of all the other activities.

In some cases this article reads like some sort of legal complaint or trial. It should read like an encyclopedia article. For example "A witness said that a Mormon Indian agent, John D. Lee, left his home in Harmony on September 6, 1857 in the company of 14 Native Americans and headed toward Mountain Meadows." This sort of writing is just awful. Things should just be said as facts and then footnoted. Attribution should be given for opinions, but not for facts. If the validation or justification of the fact is too scant or slim or questionable for a footnote, it certainly should not be lengthened into the article!

I think that Higbee's complaint that he was misled into participating should be somewhere in the section dealing with his participation. I think that the general nexus of Lee-Haight as instigators and controllers of events is somehow hidden in the current article, even though the facts are there -- they are not brought into focus and conspiratorial elements they engaged in are not discussed.

I regret the whole participation of the Paiutes section. I suppose that it is politically correct to give this so much room, but it seems overdone.

I have my doubts about the prayer circle thing that is mentioned. I am confident that there were swearings and oathes to keep things secret (that sort of thing was strangely frequent in the 1800's both by Mormons and Non-Mormons) but the prayer circle thing seems to be unlikely and if the reference is not really rock solid, it should be removed. Mainly because such prayer circles are small affairs but the swearings involved large numbers. So I doubt that. I do not recall it from Bagley either.

I am unable to validate the reference to "bloody and bullet ridden clothing" taken at the siege of sebastopol. I tend to not like adjectives like bloody and bullet ridden, unless they come from a quote attributed in the article... and if it requires that attribution, it should be looked at with a squint.

We need more discussion of the pov or theories presented by different authors. Not that this needs to be very long. It can be just an annotated bibliography type of thing -- a short paragraph on each work, with some sense of the reliability or original content and effort in each source.

I like the ending better than the previous ending -- less bloggy stuff, though I do regret the loss of the "good feelings" things that were there before. I also note that the Holland quote appears somewhat wrong in tone. It reads as though Holland is saying that Young is innocent BECAUSE there is insufficient evidence... whereas I think the tenor of Holland's comments are that Young was innocent AND there is no evidence to the contrary. I think this is possibly a subtle distinction that is missed in the way he is quoted, perhaps because the "smoking gun" reference is nearly impossible to put correctly in context without quoting him in full. I also do not like the way the reference works... in particular I do not like a link to "The Mormons" stub on wikipedia. (The stub should be deleted I think). The link to the worthless stub is easy to click on.... before the transcript is clicked. I do not think that confusion should exist in the footnote. --Blue Tie 12:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not our place to judge the veracity of what anybody says, just to report all the relevant sources as neutrally as possible. So I don't think there's any cause to single out Lee and treat his statements as less "factual" than anybody else's statements. Frankly, if we only included information in this article obtained from unbiased witnesses, we wouldn't have an article. We shouldn't hold Lee to a higher standard than other witnesses.

As to the rumors and accusations between the Fanchers and the Mormons, this is crucial to the article. For example, we have to explain about the rumors of the poisoned ox and the poisoned well, and about people saying that the Fanchers made inflammatory statements in Cedar City. This goes directly to the state of what people in southern Utah were thinking just before the massacre. George A. Smith's visit is very important as well, for numerous reasons, not the least of which being that he met the Fanchers on the way to Southern Utah, he met with Haight twice, arguably discussing Indian attacks on emigrant trains, and definitely discussing Haight's use of military force without approval beforehand from Salt Lake City.

Although I'm sure the Indian recruitment section can be improved, I don't think it is really too long. It's a widely-discussed part of the story. And I think it has to be placed after the discussion of George A. Smith's meeting with the Fanchers, because Tutsegabit and Youngwids were part of Smith's party, and they were there during the supposed poisoned ox/well incident. Plus, the Indian meetings took place after Smith's tour, and just a few days before the massacre.

A lot of your other comments I actually agree with. I'm not sure what source Higbee's complaint he was misled comes from, but it should probably be included. I agree regarding the Paiute involvement section. The material there is important, but I think it can all be incorporated into other sections. Some of it is redundant, as well.

I think the citation of Holland's statement is fair and accurate, because he didn't affirmatively say that Brigham Young had no involvement in the massacre. He wouldn't be smart to say that, anyway, because he would lose credibility, since there is currently no way to prove conclusively whether or not Young was directly involved. I think he was just being cautious in what he was saying. And since he wants to be sympathetic and credible, he didn't over-claim and over-genera::lize. That's my take, anyway. The interview from The Mormons was edited, however, and it's possible that Holland said something stronger in another part of the interview that was cut out. COGDEN 00:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Lee, ...you are a lawyer. You know impeachment. Testimony against self interest, now THAT would register, but other testimony... it can be judged harshly. Yes, Lee must be scrutinized more seriously. He was convicted of evil acts. His testimony is impeached and tainted. And yes, we can and MUST judge sources. I do not understand where you get the idea that all sources are equal. That sort of democracy is nonsense to me. Some sources are just awful. Some are wonderful. It is appropriate to judge these. I can see where there are shades of grey that people might differ and have to compromise, but this does not happen with all sources and good cases can be made against some... like Lee (although I happen to believe at least half of what he said is objective truth and the other half may be true but through his lenses, not objectively). I do not believe that he lied except perhaps to make himself look sweeter and more innocent. But thats enough.

I agree that the rumors of things the Fanchiers did -- or at least the report that there were such rumors -- is significant because such a deal was made of it -- at the time. I think it is an interesting question (unanswerable here) as to whether those rumors actually existed prior to the massacre or whether they were made up after the fact. I tend to believe that they were wide and strong before the massacre -- to my mind, they help explain it. But I do not think we should report the encounters between the Fanchier party and the Mormons as a third person account of an reportedly overheard conversation. If we deem it to be a valid thing... we say X happened and then footnote it. If we do not deem it to be valid, we leave it out or perhaps relegate it to a footnoted comment (yech).

I do NOT think George A Smith's visit is very important EXCEPT perhaps as a convenient excuse by Lee. It belongs at the end of the article. It is very much a distraction up in the front. By putting it there, it AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMES that his trip and words instigated things. That is a violation of WP:NPOV. Instead, it should be put at the end of the article where we can go into the various explanations of theories about why it happened. But up front, it is CRUFT and it is really dense brush cutting for readers to deal with prior to the heart and focus of the article. It is just bad where it is. As for the Chiefs who were there with Smith, again, I think that is cruft and detail that is best left to later in the article. Its a bit like discussing the "man with the suitcase on the overpass" in the Kennedy Assassination. Ok, so maybe someone puts it in somewhere, but it does NOT come up in the front. Its just not that sort of information. If we want to discuss the idea that Haight may have felt authorized by GAS, we can deal with that in a sentence or two or even a footnote in the part of the article where Haight is making his decisions. ("Haight also considered his conversations with G.A. Smith of XX days earlier where he was told that in the war he needed to be ready to take independent action" or something to that effect with a footnote). We do not need a whole section earlier.

Id like to see the Indian Recruitment section shorter. I think something needs to be said -- because they did participate. It is fair to give a brief insight into that history.

As far as Holland's statement, if I recall it correctly, he did not say "there is no smoking gun" as the article states. He said there NEVER WAS ANY SMOKING GUN. It is a different flavor. Much bigger a denial. But quoting him more extensively appears to be reaching -- and I think that quoting people who are speaking extemporaneously is fraught with difficulty... as the words popped into their head, did they say exactly what they meant to say? So such statements need to be used with care. Perhaps, trying to bring out this distinction is too difficult. I do not know. But the way it is handled now is not great.

Thanks for your reply. --Blue Tie 01:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you about Lee's credibility. I'm just saying that we can't use that judgment as a criterion for including or excluding information in this article, consistent with WP:NPOV, since notable autorities disagree with us. What's important is not the credibility of a source; rather, it's the credence given by experts in the field. We also can't say anything more about the Fancher rumors than "X person said Y". We (and the experts) don't know for sure (1) whether the rumors were true, (2) whether the rumors preceded the Fanchers to Cedar City, or (3) whether the rumors were made up after the fact. We can't be more conclusive than to say what people claimed, and what the consensus of experts is, if it exists. As to Holland, he said, "try as people may, there has never been any smoking gun in Brigham Young's hand…. But there was clearly local responsibility." This is a weaker statement than saying "there is no smoking gun in Brigham Young's hand", or "there is no smoking gun", or "Young wasn't involved". COGDEN 18:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia technical issues

Is anyone else having the problem that if you save page you get the "Wikpedia is experiencing technical difficulties" page? I am getting this quite a bit.--Blue Tie 22:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I had that problem a few days ago, but not recently. Strangely, it only happened when I wanted to edit this page. COGDEN 00:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have gotten this notice several times on this article and wonder if this article is stressing the system because of its size. --Robbie Giles 15:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles of this size are usually no problem. A while ago, the server was having trouble because of the large number of citation templates, but I replaced the templates with generated code, which helped immensely. Since then, I haven't noticed any problem. The page loads relatively quickly for me, and I haven't had any problems. Does it happen when you do a section edit, or just during an edit of the entire article? COGDEN 17:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

New entry at peer review

There is a new peer review comment here. --Robbie Giles 15:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Question: How do these peer review pages get created? What is the technical process (or where are the instructions for them)?

I agreed with this review you linked to, in every respect. But I read the whole page. It is cool to see people actually respond and the thoughts of others are interesting. The one common/consistent comment: Well researched. That is absolutely true. --Blue Tie 16:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"memorials at Mountain Meadows" - Memorial service story

With the impressive effort to organize this article, I thought I would post a detailed explanation of my edit: The section about the 1990 memorial service, including the quotes attributed to Judge Logan and Catherine Baker, is a moving and uplifting story of reconciliation, but due to POV and a lack of Verifiability, I removed it. The sources are,

LDS FAQ, published by BYU Studies, which is not a Reliable Source:

The source page itself reads like a press release; it considers no alternative opinions.
The source appears somehow connected to GospeLink (per its HTML title and links), which is not a Reliable Source
BYU Studies says their motive is to to help promote faith, continued learning, and further interest in our Latter-day Saint heritage.

The second source is a blog post attributed to a participant in the event, neither of which is a Reliable Source. I understand bending the rules and accepting blog posts in some situations, but to suggest this reconciliation occurred is not uncontroversial. Also, with someone challenging it, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. WP:V
The Salt Lake Tribune, which is a Reliable Source, reports that things are not so harmonious; some quotes:

"That which we have done here must never be construed as an acknowledgment of the part of the church of any complicity in the occurrences of that fateful day," [LDS President Gordon B.] Hinckley said.
For families of the slain emigrants and descendants of LDS pioneer John D. Lee ... Hinckley's delineation of the church's position on Mountain Meadows compounded many of the misgivings they had about the entire chain of events during the summer.
First, a church contractor's backhoe accidentally exhumed the bones of at least 29 victims Aug. 3 while digging at the grave, even though the church had pledged not to disturb the ground. That was followed by a failed attempt at secrecy, leading to wild speculation and a schism among descendants.
Now, those who had hoped to hear some sort of apology on behalf of the modern Mormon Church from the man who had done more than any of his predecessors to salve the wounds, were left feeling they had come up short.

So we have two non-Reliable sources saying one thing, and a Reliable source saying something else. The issue seems relatively unimportant for this article, so I suggest the section be reduced to the bare facts. Guanxi 05:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Guanxi, I love your candor about apologetic sources. I hope you stay around and help us some more, since the demographics of folks interested in the massacre very seriously skew towards those being, or at some point having been, LDS (which maybe you have not?) Still, I think it's OK to say the 1990 dedication of the State monument, sponsored by descendants-of-both-murderers-and-victims, featured some kumbaya, since that's fairly well documented. The Tribune article you reference talks about the LDS church sponsored monument of 1999, nine years later--at which, yes, the small community (in comparison to the entire LDS church!) of descendants from-the-extended-families-making-up-the-Baker-Fancher-train were so pist at Hinckley's legalese and the concept of the LDS continuing to control their ancestors' burial site and interpretive markers? DESCENDANT OF DUDLEY LEAVITT (WHO APPARENTLY MAINTAINED SILENCE EXCEPT FOR AN ADMISSION HE HAD BEEN A PICKET RIDER AROUND THE SCENE OF THIS MANIFESTATION OF PURE EVIL, SO DIFFICULT TO DRAMATIZE (SEE NEXT TOPIC.)) Justmeherenow 18:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, and for pointing out the difference in dates. If you don't mind a little more candor, in a couple questions: 1) You say the 1990 dedication of the State monument. ... featured some kumbaya ... that's fairly well documented. Where is it documented? Where did that newspaper quote come from (date? author? link?). 2) Is the kumbaya important enough to include in an already long article? Does it help readers understand the MMM? If it is, than other reactions to the monument are also important (such as those in 1999). And then it's even longer. Is it worth the space? By the way, I wish I had thought of using the color. Guanxi 00:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

1) Webb, Loren (September 16, 1990), "Time for healing, LDS leader says about massacre", Saint George Spectrum:

2) Whatever you (or others) decide. I won't revert you again. Still, yeah, I felt that efforts at reconciliations are important--but I guess you're right that that, along with underlying controversies, belongs in another article, with only its summary here (however what we have now is pretty minimal. Although I suppose the reason I really recently threw in the Spectrum newspaper stuff was 'cause you'd pulled my baby, the Catherine Baker quote, out of the cute baby contest... <laughs>) But, as far as "other reactions," as you say, go: actually I feel it would be best if coverage of Emigrants' descendants pistofedness wouldn't be given short shrift, either. Justmeherenow 01:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

September Dawn

When the film debuts in 2 days there will likely be heightened interest in this article. If we keep it watchlisted and promptly revert vandalism, it might be possible to avoid the need to have it semi-protected, but that should be kept as an option. Edison 17:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Indian vs. Native American

I agree with many of the Indian to Native American edits, but I think it's awkward to convert the title of Indian Agent to Native American Agent. Isn't that going a little overboard? --TrustTruth 14:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It is reconstructionist history; the term never existed in this period. It should be reverted to proper historical terminology. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The term Indian has never been offensive, and there's an argument that most indiginous Americans in the United States actually prefer the term Indian. See Native American name controversy. Although I have no problem with replacing Indian with Native American, it definitely should not be inserted anachronistically. COGDEN 17:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll revise my first sentence to read "I am ambivalent about most of the Indian to Native American edits...." I don't feel pasionately either way, but calling an Indian Agent a Native American Agent is inaccurate, as Indian Agent is a formal title. I reverted all instances in the article back to Indian Agent. --TrustTruth 17:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fancher/Baker-Fancher/Fancher-Baker/Fancher-Baker-Duke Train

Howdy, I know it's been a few months since I've made an active contribution to this article, but I still have interest

Q: What will we call the party. All of the above have been used at one time. I have followed the following standard (taken from the Mountain Meadows Association home-page).

"Today some records and tales relate a story about one large wagon train, and the men, women, and children who were murdered at Mountain Meadows, which is often referred to collectively as the Baker-Fancher Train. This is not accurate. This designation developed in 1990, intended as a recognition that there was more than one wagon train involved in the massacre."

Shouldn't this be the Fancher train? Or is this quote not accurate? Davemeistermoab 08:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that source is a "Reliable source". I think that the published histories are better sources.--Blue Tie 20:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)