Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Untitled

Material archived from the Mountain Meadows massacre Talk page. (Oct-Dec 2006 approximate)

This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved.

This article is undergoing a complete re-draft at Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre/draft

What is the dispute or what are the disputes?Tinosa 16:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I only know of one, although its certainly part of a larger debate about POV. The survivor children were kidnapped. I want this in the article, I believe duke agrees. Trodel feels it does not apply to all and changes it to abducted. Storm Rider as usual behaves badly and is pushing a LDS agenda regardless of the issue and without an attempt at logic.

Trodel hasn't responded to my suggestion that we say "the mormon militia kidnapped the children". What do you think? It gets rid of the implication that the caretakers were kidnappers, except those caretakers who were also militia.

To be fair this is Storm Riders position "choice was simple for the Mormons, murder the children along with the parents or provide assistance."

The statement is ludicrous of course, but he is sticking to it. I think most people can see logically it is a false choice, whats more it ignores the varius definitions of kidnapped put forward in the debate, all of which apply. Sqrjn 20:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

My position is that this article suffers from POV issues through the use of language to describe what happened, and undue weight. Rumors and innuedo are presented as fact - and bias from LDS based sources is assumed, while the bias of other sources is ignored. (see above) Instead of describing the events dispassionately, they are described passionately, defenses abound, objections to defenses, etc. The whole thing is not encyclopedic or neutral. The agenda of assigning blame is not encyclopedic when there are so many conflicting accounts. As I have stated several times, the events are heinous. Thus, we owe a duty to the victims to provide an accurate accounting. --Trödel 21:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine fine, stop being general please. Your position is entirely correct, even nobel in that it holds to a moral duty of truth owed to victims of crime. But how are we to execute that?

do you accept my proposition on the use of Kidnapped? Do you have alternatives?

How are LDS sources considered biased, while others are not? How are you to present a simple encyclopedic view, without presenting all the conflicting accounts and allowing readers to decide? Why do you think people can'd do so? Readers know that a contemporary source has a POV and can judge it if given enought context. I am much more concerned about your use of 'neutral language' and Secondary 'scholarly' sources, for which some may assume neutrality.

Cite some examples of things you take issue with and how you would change them. Where are rumors presented as fact? Where innuendo? Where is there undue weight? WHY? Back up your positions instead of just whining or we can't proceed. Sqrjn 23:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to demonstrate that through my edits - but they have been immediately reverted and now it has been protected ... --Trödel 03:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean reverted in the same manner as your edits of the last ten days? Look through these and you can see a pattern emerge: they all revert the use of the words kidnap or abducted. You also seem to be focused on one issue in the article.

• (cur) (last) 12:30, November 16, 2006 Trödel (Talk | contribs) (yes please read talk - and add another area for neutural words)
• (cur) (last) 12:04, November 16, 2006 Trödel (Talk | contribs) (restoring neutral intro)
• (cur) (last) 08:59, November 16, 2006 Trödel (Talk | contribs) (agree is not an anti-mormonism article - also restoring neutral introduction)
• (cur) (last) 01:22, November 16, 2006 Trödel (Talk | contribs) (lets leave it as is)
• (cur) (last) 10:56, November 13, 2006 Trödel (Talk | contribs) (totally disputed)
• (cur) (last) 07:27, November 9, 2006 Trödel (Talk | contribs) (removing charged adjectives (and non-standard italics))
• (cur) (last) 19:16, November 8, 2006 Trödel (Talk | contribs) (?Survivors - I assume you didn't mean to leave out that one was not returned. Removing the non-neutral adjectives - leaving the full quotes - although they are confusing and not necessary)
• (cur) (last) 17:44, November 8, 2006 Trödel (Talk | contribs) (to make sure this is encyclopedic instead of a soap box)
• (cur) (last) 13:13, November 8, 2006 Trödel (Talk | contribs) (remove non-neutral adjectives -)

I'm not sure why we haven't received outside intervention in this matter yet, but I would much prefer arbitration rather than mediation; then we would have a final decision on this terminology. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I am comfortable with my actions - this article has serious POV problems and my attempts to improve it have been unceromoniously reverted. --Trödel 21:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Trodel thats a total cop out. if you dont want to discuss things then dont make the edits. What a disappointment coming from a admin. Sqrjn 04:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear - I see how you could see it that way - I have stated my view - and then made edits in support of that - I objected to non-neutral adjectives and the failure of this article to use a sympathetic tone, and the use of specific sources creating undue weight. Then to demonstrate specific sections where I objected I made specific edits to the adjectives being used. --Trödel 21:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect there is a high degree of frustration among some of the editors of this page. Instead of violating polices, it would be best to just take a Wikibreak and allow things to cool down. The issue has not been an unwillingness to engage in discussion by Trödel, but completely ignoring his comments in the past. As long as the article is protected at the request of Duke53, which I STRONGLY support and thank him every time I come to this page, no further edit warring will be demonstrated. After a few days have gone by it may be possible to begin a discussion. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Definitions: kidnapping. abduction. child stealing. For more definitions and case law, see Blacks Law Dictionary. English Dictionary: Abduct. Carry off. Kidnap.

On 9/11/'1857, the Fancher-Baker Train (with an estimated minimum worth of well over $30,000) had been under siege for more than four days. Under a flag of truce, Lee (representing the Mormon Militia) offered the Americans safe passage to the nearest village under the terms of surrender. The Americans, with several wounded, no water, and low on ammunition, accepted the terms. The terms, the Americans were to be divided into three groups: (1) The wounded, the weapons, and most of the children under the age of six were to be loaded into two wagons supplied by Mormon teamsters. (2) The women, with suckling babies, and children older than six. (3) Each of the American men was to be accompanied by an armed member of the Mormon Militia.

The massacre as executed. The wagons left the siege site first followed two yards hundred distance by the women and children, followed by the men and militia at a considerable distance. When the wagons reached a point where they could not be observed, the signal was given "do your duty". The men were immediately cut down, followed by the women and children, and then the wounded in the wagons. The surviving children were then transported to the nearest ranch house.

It is apparent that the Mormons had no intention to provide safe passage and reunite the children with their parents, but was their plan? It turns out a mail express rider rode the massacre site and delivered the first news to CA (it seems UT was not as isolated as we are led to believe). A Mormon supply wagon traveled through the site the next day. The Duke Train traveled near the massacre site a few days later. Three opportunities to return the children?

Did the Mormons abduct the children in the belief that they could provide a better life? Eighteen months later according to Federal Marshall Rogers, Mrs. Hamblin said "Lee went through the form of selling or bartering off the children by two". Forney, Supt. Of Indian Affairs " The children were sold out to different persons in Cedar City, Harmony, and Painter Creek".

What is, or are the arguments that the Mormons were not involved in Kidnapping, abduction and, or child stealing? Tinosa 17:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be a good argument against Massacre - since the train was fighting back and apparently successfully - and the Mormons used trickery to win the battle. Now I don't really believe that; however, I think you can see why we need to present things neutrally - using many first hand accounts (primary sources) fails to provide context in some cases, and the secondary sources used here have differing motives - thus this will be very difficult to address - and a very difficult article to come to concensus - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. --Trödel 21:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

" ... since the train was fighting back and apparently successfully" People who are being massacred are not allowed to fight back? Where did that little rule come from? Oh, if they had been successful there would have been a large amount of dead Mormons, not emigrants. I also feel that there is a difference between trickery and deceit. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to urge all editors involved in this debate to please review the policy, Wikipedia:No original research. It seems to me that most of the arguments being put forward (on both sides) are taking the form of original research, that is — "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." BRMo 03:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Some day soon (hopefully) we will have some arbitration on this matter and then we can move on to working on other aspects of this and other articles. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with Trodels new position. Massacre is a perfect example of a potentially loaded term, which is in fact neutral given its definition applied to the historical facts. Similarly Brmo is wrong. Applying defintions to historical facts is not original research, it is simply accurate use of language. Writing an article without doing so would be impossible, the only way to meet Brmo's understanding of wiki policy would be an article consisting entirely of block quotes from other authors. Sqrjn 04:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Reading through the posts, and looking at the edits, I don't see "kidnapped" as the proper term. It implies that the masacre occured as a means to kidnap the children. It seems that the children's fate was a by-product of the events, and so placing them with local families was a necessity, and not a consious objective as the term "kidnap" implies. As to the return of the children to their families, I think the "rescue" depends in the events of the exchange from the locals and the feds. Did they just offer the children, or was there a dispute. I can't see a "rescue" happening if there was no dispute in the exchange. The "rescue" just sounds too "Waco", and I don't think the known facts support this view. Bytebear 08:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we agree to disagree. A start?? Could someone help me? What is a primary source, what is a secondary source, & what is an unpublished fact? Possibly, if we are all on the same page, we can agree on something. Tinosa 20:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Attribution --Trödel 20:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term mainly refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. Primary sources include official reports, letters, eyewitness accounts, autobiographies or statistics compiled by authoritative agencies. Primary-source material may require training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or subject to "Using online and self-published sources" section of this procedure, and may use them only to make purely descriptive claims.

• A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources.

• A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources. Encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, are tertiary sources. Wikipedia articles may not cite Wikipedia articles as a source, because it is a wiki that may be edited by anyone and is therefore not reliable. However Wikipedia may be used as a primary source about Wikipedia, subject to the constraints above. Publications such as the Encyclopædia Britannica, World Book, and Encarta are regarded as reliable sources.

---

Verifiability The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

|}

Sqrjn wrote: Similarly Brmo is wrong. Applying defintions to historical facts is not original research, it is simply accurate use of language. Writing an article without doing so would be impossible, the only way to meet Brmo's understanding of wiki policy would be an article consisting entirely of block quotes from other authors. This is more than just a dispute about which word is more accurate. Kidnapping is a serious crime — a crime that, as far as I know, none of the massacre participants was ever indicted for or convicted of. Furthermore, I am not aware that any of historians who have written books on the Mountain Meadows massacre has described their actions as kidnapping. The arguments that have been put forward on this page all seem to me to fit the following description of "original research" (from WP:NOR): "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." Please review the section of WP:NOR entitled "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position." I think the example given in that section is analogous to our discussion, except that rather than using an unpublished synthesis to argue that the MMM participants committed kidnapping, the example uses an unpublished synthesis to argue that "Jones" did not commit plagiarism.

Tinosa wrote: Unfortunately, we agree to disagree. A start?? Thanks. Yes, we can certainly agree to disagree. I hope we can also all agree to be willing to compromise and to recognize that a Wikipedia article on a controversial topic must acknowlege alternative points of view. Tinosa also wrote: Could someone help me? What is a primary source, what is a secondary source, & what is an unpublished fact? Possibly, if we are all on the same page, we can agree on something. There are articles here in Wikipedia that can describe these terms more accurately than I can. My simple understanding is that primary sources generally come from direct participants -- for example, a contemporary journal or letter. I think the testimony given at the trials and John D. Lee's confession would also be described as primary sources. Secondary sources are from others who have written on the subject. These include books, such as those written by Brooks, Bagley, and Denton, and newspaper and magazine articles. An unpublished fact would be something that one of the editors knows, but which other editors can't verify because it hasn't ever been published. For example, if an editor were a descendent of one of the participants and had access to the participant's unpublished diary, that would represent an unpublished fact and it would be against Wikipedia policy to include it in an article, because it couldn't be verified from a published source. BRMo 05:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are interested in understanding sources and attribution: Please see here. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed outline

I don't think I have changed my position, but if further elucidating it results in more concensus - YEAH!! The point I was trying to make above is that we should report the facts and then leave the charged words out of it. An outline: (not the intro)

• Wagon Train enters Utah - rumored threats (establish the why - but don't go back to kirtland/nauvoo)
• Attack (use attackers and settlers, to avoid issue of mormons/indians/mormons and indians) (establish the what)
  • Wagon train under seige
  • attackers enter under flag of truce
  • settlers killed
  • not all children killed, local people provide care
• Following deaths there were many versions of what happened (now get specific with diffent version) Concensus is that Mormons were involved in some way - find a good reliable source to state that (establish the different whos)
  • Mormons were attackers
  • Indians were attackers
  • Mormons and Indians attacked together
  • Local decision
  • Brigham Young decision
    • Destruction of stone pile (is this disputed - I can't remember - if so, maybe not mention it as too much detail)
• Official investigations
  • Local indian representative
  • Army General
    • Efforts to return children to relatives
  • Trial of John Lee
• (not sure of title)
  • Monument
  • Survivors want apology from Church
  • Church statements

I think this would help things stay more encyclopedic - just describe everything. Be concise and do not attempt to draw any conclusions. That is a quick mind dump. Maybe include a section about different authors conclusions - but again may be too much detail for an encyclopedic article - so start without it. --Trödel 19:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds helpful to me. Gwen Gale 21:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

How about this for an intoduction? (not word for word ,of course)

Mountain Meadows, small valley in extreme SW Utah, where in 1857 a party of some 140 emigrants bound for California were massacred. It was a period when friction between Mormons and non-Mormons was acute, with Mormons bitterly resenting the coming of U.S. troops to enforce federal laws in their territory. Earlier that year a Mormon convocation had declared the independence of Utah from the United States, and Mormon hostility toward westward-bound travelers had escalated. In Sept., 1857, a party of emigrants from Arkansas, with a few from Missouri and Illinois, led by Charles Fancher, encamped at Mountain Meadows, a well-known camp site on the Spanish Trail. There they were attacked by a large band of Mormons, many disguised as members of the local Paiute tribe, allegedly accompanied by real Paiutes and apparently led by Mormon John D. Lee. After three days (Sept. 8–11) of defending themselves behind their wagons, the emigrants were approached under a flag of truce by the Mormons, who offered to protect them in a retreat to Cedar City but instructed them to go unarmed and on foot, ostensibly to allay the suspicions of the Paiute. While following these instructions, the entire party, with the exception of 18 young children, were massacred. The Mormons were charged with inciting and directing the attack, and anti-Mormon feeling was intensified; Mormons attempted to blame the attack on the Paiutes. Several investigations were made, but it was not until 1874 that Lee, a fanatical Mormon and adopted son of Brigham Young Young, Brigham (brĭg`əm), 1801–77, American religious leader, early head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, b. Whitingham, Vt. ..... Click the link for more information. , was arrested. In 1875, Lee and three associates accused of complicity were excommunicated. Lee was convicted of murder and in 1877 was put to death at the Mountain Meadows site. No other members of the raiding party were ever charged. Into the 1990s the Paiutes continued to be widely blamed for the massacre, which remains a controversial event in the history of the American West. http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Mountain+Meadows Tinosa 03:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This introduction assumes conclusions that are disputed, and is not neutral. --Trödel 04:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Erm, yeah, it's needlessly polemical and way too long, how 'bout this:

The Mountain Meadows Massacre is noted as a mass killing in 1857 of approximately 140 California-bound European-American settlers which took place at Mountain Meadows, a stopover on the Spanish Trail in southwestern Utah. The causes and circumstances remain highly controversial.

(From here, I'd go into the body of the article, first introducing background on the Fancher pary.) Gwen Gale 15:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 15:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that is much better --Trödel 15:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Terminology

Although the terms massacre and kidnapping are wholly supported by the historical record (whether or not Young personally ordered the attack, we don't know), since they're so "loaded" and open to misinterpretation by some sensitive readers, of whatever PoV, it's not necessary to use these words in the text. Murder and abducted would be less loaded, but could also be avoided without misleading readers. Gwen Gale 21:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

How did we get to a discussion about kidnapped, to the position that Massacre is inappropriate. When this conversation started, I tried to use that exact point reductum ab adsurdum, to show how stupid it was to argue that kidnapping is inappropriate. I will not bow to "sensitive readers" its an article about a horrible monstrous event and it is not to be sanitized.

The suggested intro is equally wrong. Your attempts at neutrality are destroying the historical accuracy and leading you to trivialities. Sqrjn 10:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

:) ... Sqrjn, I've been watching this 'draft' evolve and can't help but wonder why some editors think that others of us will allow this 'Disney' version to be used as the article. The direction in which this article is headed is almost inevitable: 1) The members of the wagon train were entirely at fault for the massacre; 2) Those orphaned children were ingrates and should have given thanks to the Lord that the rest of their families had been slaughtered so they could 'be taken care of' by the kindly Mormons. This issue is headed for arbitration, and I am sure that the finished product will be vastly different from this 'draft'. It was a massacre and the children were kidnapped; no amount of tap dancing can change either of those facts. 11:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Your insistence on misreprenting the views of those that are after a neutral version of the events is irrisponsible. I would find an article that blamed the wagon train members not neutral. Our duty here is to present the information, the various published views and let readers draw their own conclusions. --Trödel 02:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive me, but your interpretation seems like utter codswallop to me. I wrote the beginnings of that draft and I think the Fancher party was murdered/massacred in cold blood by a bunch of greedy, isolated Mormons who then plundered their property, kidnapped the kids and then paraded about in front of them wearing their parents' clothing and jewelry. I also think John D. Lee may well have raped one of the girls before killing her (though I can't think of a scholarly way to flawlessly source that one into the article, I may try). Might I suggest you take a step back from this and ponder that an objective encyclopedia article is not a polemical tract, that whilst Brigham Young may have ordered the massacre there is zero evidence that he did and never mind the Mormon church has some wacky, secret pseudo masonic rituals and may have been formed by a bunch of geezers who liked the notion of plural marriage... all religions have followers who have murdered in mistaken religious zeal and the LDS has been a project of economic survival and adaptation since its inception. Meanwhile, although the core of the Fancher party seems to have been quite well-behaved and respectable, some of the Missouri members did taunt Mormons in Salt Lake City and there is evidence they were up to worse on the trail but so what? The Cedar City crowd brutally murdered 12 dozen innocent people, including lots of women and kids, the end. If the article is written to scholarly standards from the historical record, that's spot on what readers will get from it, not some anti-Mormon screed that'll give "apologists" or whatever plenty of material with which to attack its underlying credibility. Anyway here's a helpful hint, if you go into RfAr with the sort of attitude you expressed above you'll not be happy with the outcome and meanwhile, I'll be long gone, I'll not be part of any edit war, I'm here only to help write an acceptable encyclopedia article. Gwen Gale 18:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I would dare say that you are missing the whole point of the problem here. The pro-Mormon editors involved have not allowed the use of the words kidnap or abduction in this article at all, though that is exactly what took place. Their stance is that unless 'verifiable' sources state in no uncertain terms that "these children were abducted" then the incident 'couldn't' have been a case of kidnap. Period. The official LDS stance does not mention the incident in those terms: therefore it can't be called that (in the opinion of those editors). Since the LDS took so many years to acknowlege that Mormons were even involved in this mass murder it is no surprise that they worded their 'version' of the events in such a way; the terminology that these editors have been using ('children not killed', 'taken care of', etc.) is almost word-for-word the exact terminology used by the LDS. Good Luck in getting these phrases included; so far it has met with resistance by the pro-Mormon editors. What you are saying in the preceding paragraph is spot on as to what actually occurred; getting it into the article will not be easy. Was it murder / kidnap? Yes, but others aren't accepting of that little fact. Your attitude seems to be that even though it was murder / kidnap we shouldn't express it in those terms. Why? Here's a hint for you: read the edit history of this article (and the talk page) for the comments on why it wasn't kidnap. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no LDS worded version of the events here - only an effort to document the events as neutrally as possible. You obviously have a view of the events and are sure what happened. I, on the other hand, am not sure what happened exactly. I see many conflicting views - all should be represented. --Trödel 02:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. There are a couple of things to consider here. First, Wikipedia works by consensus and online "politics," not scholarship, which makes controversial articles very inefficient, sometimes impossible to edit accurately. Although I wholly agree with you that murder and kidnap are accurate terms to describe what happened at MM (never mind rape, slaughter, plunder, theft, looting and so on), there is no way those words are going to make it into the article, not with edit warring, RFC, arbitration, whatever, trust me, it will not happen. Even so, the whole story can be told using excruciatingly neutral language, directly from the historical record, and the tale comes out the same. Second, the true controversy here is whether or not Brigham Young ordered it to happen. So far, there is zero evidence that he did (though there's no evidence proving he didn't, either, like say, a verifiable letter delivered in Cedar City before the event saying, "Hey bretheren, don't kill those Gentiles!") Most of the unhelpful spin attempts we're seeing on this page are an attempt by (IMHO) confused LDS folks to at least deflect any possible responsibility from the institution in Salt Lake City, never mind we don't care a wit, in encyclopedic terms, what Young's role was. Our only job is to edit an article about the event using verifiable secondary sources. Extremes of PoV from either side (Mormons are God's chosen and it's impossible to even consider the Fancher party was murdered by anyone other than native Americans- or a few irresponsible apostates maybe ... to Mormonism is based on a 19th century attempt by a few clever conmen to establish a harem cult with some wacko secret rituals stolen from the Masons thrown in to satisfy the love of some folks for mysticism and ritual) can be dismissed out of hand. Meanwhile, like any religion, Mormonism has its dodgy aspects but the faith as it is practiced today in the mainstream was built for the most part by family oriented people who wanted and still want, one way or another, to be happy, healthy and secure and raise kids who have all the advantages and love caring parents can offer. There is no overwhelming reason to slap anyone in the face with polemic language. Tell the tale as the record relates it (this includes the death walk with a Mormon militiaman to the right of each adult male victim) and that'll be helpful enough. John D Lee was excommunicated and shot by firing squad, after all: Scapegoat? Erm, whatever. Was there a coverup? Way! It's still on, with the participation of the governor of Utah (who like most politicians is interested mostly in his own consolidation of power) but it doesn't matter. The neutral, sourced facts are stark enough. Gwen Gale 22:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"Although I wholly agree with you that murder and kidnap are accurate terms to describe what happened at MM (never mind rape, slaughter, plunder, theft, looting and so on), there is no way those words are going to make it into the article, not with edit warring, RFC, arbitration, whatever, trust me, it will not happen." And that is why Wikipedia will never be an 'encyclopedia' ... online games being played with facts. It is also why I voiced a preference for arbitration, rather than mediation; I much prefer a binding decision and not another 'opinion' that can be discarded by other editors to suit their whims. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about accurately describing the different views of the subjects of articles and doing so in the most neutral way possible. There are no binding decisions on the language of an article - no mediators that will determine content. You need to read the relevant policies and examples on how to write effective articles, i.e. neutral descriptions of published sources that can reach concensus. It is not for pushing a particular viewpoint. --Trödel 02:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes and yes! Wikipedia is an alphabetized metablog and online community with mega traffic, not an encyclopedia, not even a reliable source, according to its own disclaimers. Please believe me when I say you will be more than unhappy if you try to get an "encyclopedic ruling" or whatever from arbcomm, nod nod, wink wink. Ok? Qualified, knowledgeable editors throw up their hands and leave the project every day. I mean, in polite conversation I call this an encyclopedia but it's not even... rather, it's 25% looney bin, 25% boy teen frenzy, 20% marketing hacks and 20% botch heads with too much time on their hands who wouldn't know the meaning of scholarship or encyclopedic methodology if it pogged them in the ear. Whatever. Next? (Yawn) Meanwhile, I'm here to hopefully give a hand in writing a helpful article that won't have to be in hard protection. No worries though, as it stands the protected article is such a complete docking mess, it's a screaming, weeping testament to mass murder and an oddly frantic wish to erase it from recorded history (or at least all those Wikipedia/Google-ad scrappers on the web), never mind with all the clumsy muddying the article wards straight back at the LDS and Salt Lake City as a bloody, dripping flag reading omfg Brigham did it more keenly than I'd ever think fitting for an encyclopedia, given the known historical record, so leave it as it is then :) Gwen Gale 00:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Gwen Gale.

I hope that you will continue with your draft.

There will be plenty of time to debate and dicuss the issues. After all, most students of American History have never heard of the "Mountain Meadows Massacre" & there are many who would like to keep it that way. Tinosa 23:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will as time allows. Gwen Gale 00:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Gwen, I appreciate your efforts in assisting to edit this article in a neutral manner. I support you, but remain "observant" because of how caustic the editing has been. I am not a patient editor and I am particularly ineffective when I think participants have moved from logical, neutral writing into polemics. It is interesting to note that all those terrible LDS writers had no problem with the term massacre, which was used no less than 63 times on the main page. I feel that is more than bending over backwards to appease the polemics.

I also agree that it would be better for all concerned if arbitration was not necessary, but I am certainly not against going to arbitration because I am confident in the process and I like the odds given the position of some of our editors. I will fully support your efforts and hope that arbitration can be avoided. I believe you will not have problems with any of the editors that seek neutrality. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I do think a neutral article is possible. I only want to say, arbitration is a process of evaluating and sanctioning behaviour, not ensuring scholarship. An editor can be spot on in terms of encyclopedic methodology and verifiability yet be severely sanctioned for conduct (which would include edit warring), whilst an always polite and persistent editor who knows how to game the system and does little other than heavily PoV seeding based on dodgy sources will be allowed to keep on with it. Gwen Gale 12:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"it is interesting to note that all those terrible LDS writers had no problem with the term massacre ...". Perhaps that is because that is what the incident has been called historically. A couple Google searches pretty much prove that.

• A search for "Mountain Meadows Siege"[1] yields nine results .

• A search for "Mountain Meadows Massacre"[2] yields 64,300 results .

I don't think that pro-LDS editors had much choice in this matter. Duke53 | ^Talk 12:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I do wholly agree with you on the historical name (Massacre is the accepted term). Mind though, Google term searches of the Internet are not scientific or reliable, and require original research in their interpretation. On the other hand, your search yields a difference of 4 orders of magnitude, which is so overwhelming one could at least argue it's a reasonable indication :) Gwen Gale 13:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I just reviewed the Haun's Mill massacre article. That appears to be a more balanced approach to writing an article. It is interesting that it uses the term "skirmish". I am no advocating deleting the word massacre, I used it several times in the article myself. The point that I attempt to make repeatedly is the overall tone of writing. The new direction is superior writing and does not have the flavor of cheap, crass anti-Mormon literature I have come to detest. Our job is to just report historical fact and not interpret it for readers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That one's written helpfully and truth be told, has the same detached tone as what I think should be done here (or in any article). I also think that if one sticks to the staunchly documented, consensus historical outline on this- and avoids much discussion at all of the hotly disputed stuff no one's ever likely to know, such as what John D. Lee's "orders" truly were (anything he said later can't be trusted), or if Brigham Young had anything to do with those (that's a hopeless rabbit trail with no support either way), readers can, as you say, draw their own concluions. I'd like to add that I've never liked that tale about BY riding all the way out to MM and "wordlessly" ordering that the cairn be pulled down, it's weakly supported and sounds made up by angry 19th century anti-Mormon (or anti-Young) tract writers. I'd leave stuff like that out altogether. Gwen Gale 17:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Begin a draft

Copied to Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre/draft for collaborative editing

The Mountain Meadows Massacre is noted as a mass killing in 1857 of approximately 140 California-bound European-American settlers which took place at Mountain Meadows, a stopover on the Spanish Trail in southwestern Utah. The causes and circumstances remain highly controversial.

Fancher party

The European-American wagon train consisted of about forty families, mostly from Marion, Crawford, Carroll, and Johnson counties in Arkansas. In the spring of 1857 the party assembled at Beller’s Stand, south of Harrison, Arkansas. This group was initially referred to as both the Baker train and the Perkins train but, making its way west, was soon called the Fancher train (or party) after "Colonel" Alexander Fancher, who had become its main leader, having already made the journey to California twice before. By contemporary standards the Fancher party was prosperous and well-equipped for the journey and they were subsequently joined along the way by families and individuals from other states.

Siege at Mountain Meadows

They arrived in Utah Territory in July, traveling southwest and running low on some supplies. The Mormons they encountered, however, were wary and declined to trade with them. A popular Mormon leader had died a few months earlier in Arkansas under questionable circumstances and meanwhile, the United States Army was advancing troops towards Utah, which many Mormons perceived as a threat. Moreover, difficult economic conditions among the Mormon settlers may have further influenced a reluctance to sell food, which was already in short supply throughout the region. The Fancher party found water and fresh grazing for its livestock after reaching Mountain Meadows in early September. On September 7 the party was attacked by a group of Native Americans and according to some accounts, Mormons dressed as Native Americans. The Fancher party defended itself by encircling and tipping over their wagons, along with digging shallow trenches. The attack continued for five days, during which the besieged families had little or no access to fresh water and their ammunition was depleted.

Comments please. Gwen Gale 17:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think starting a draft is a great idea. I have copied the proposed language to Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre/draft to make it easier to edit and allow this page to continue to have discussions about the edits. --Trödel 19:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to write a draft, at least use the footnote structure. I think the best idea is using the current article as a draft, because alot of good work has already been done. Sqrjn 23:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol, I think you show zero interest in encyclopedic methodology and are simply reverting the draft to make editing difficult and further your own unscholarly PoV but whatever, have fun then! Gwen Gale 00:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

omfg Brigham did it!

I only now saw what someone has done to the draft...

The intro is too long, there is zero background or context given, the 19th century quotes make for a boggy narrative. There is no need to go on about BY, even if he did order it the evidence was burned 150 years ago and nobody has been able to lay that on him, other than some culpability for the general hysteria and maybe artful coverup work later on. Gwen Gale 13:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This is just a wholesale copying of some language from the original article. I restored your version - I would appreciate it if you continued to improve the language. --Trödel 14:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Trödel. Gwen Gale 15:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

reference

The following links have info concerning the Baker-Francher Train: origin. wealth. maps. travel info. ect. May be interesting to some. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wallner/mmm11.htm http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wallner/mmm_trails.htm Tinosa 18:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"The Mormon Prophet and His Harem". Catherine Waite. On line book. (published 1866) Link: http://www.elmerfudd.us/dp/lds/lds.htm MMM starts at about p.71 Tinosa 16:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Life in Utah". J H Beadle. On line book. (published 1870) link: http://www.antimormon.8m.com/beadleindex.html Tinosa 01:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO only the rootsweb.com links usable for wikipedia. The last 2 links are laced with pejoratives calling mormons "idiots", "cult", "sociopath", "brainwash" et. al. Not even close to any standard of objectivitiy. Davemeistermoab 05:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but they're published secondary sources. WP policy does not prohibit citing verfiable sources with a PoV. Gwen Gale 06:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Wife No. 19". Ann Eliza Young. On line book. (published 1875). Chapter XIII. THE MOUNTAIN MEADOWS' MASSACRE. - "VENGEANCE IS MINE: I WILL REPAY." link: http://antimormon.8m.com/youngchp13.html

wholesale revert war already?

Haha, user:Sqrjn has wholly reverted my draft without comment! Gwen Gale 23:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he didn't like this...

A few who escaped the initial slaughter were quickly chased down and killed. Two teenaged girls, Rachel and Ruth Dunlap, managed to clamber down the side of a steep gully and hide among a clump of oak trees for several minutes. They were spotted by a Paiute chief from Parowan, who took them to Lee. 18 year old Ruth Dunlap reportedly fell to her knees and pleaded, "Spare me, and I will love you all my life!" [3] (Lee denied this). 50 years later, a Mormon woman who was a child at the time of the massacre recalled hearing LDS women in St. George say both girls were raped before they were killed. Gwen Gale 23:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I just went and took a look at the draft [4] and saw over 30 edits you made to it without comment. What is the problem again? Duke53 | ^Talk 23:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Erm, I was carefully building a draft on a sub-page, he reverted it in one swoop but hey, never mind, I'm bored with all this wankering. Goodbye and have a happy Wikipedia experience :) Gwen Gale 00:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Gwen, I know it is difficult to edit when individuals have very strong POV and resist, or aggressively deny, any possibility for an article except one that only appeals to their narrow POV. If you have already been burned out on working with these fine editors, how would you recommend moving forward? Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I mean, these editors are so desperate, they're reverting/blanking a good faith draft on a fricking sub-page. Weepin wombats, John D. Lee had something like over 50 kids who survived childhood. For all I know, one or more of our little friends here are his great great grandkids or whatever, there must be a couple thousand.

Anyway I'm not burned out, but I don't want to waste my time (lol, don't have it waste). So, don't even think about arbitration, that's not for editorial stuff, take the offer for mediation below, speaking of which, I've been to St George, it's kinda cool there, great place to raise kids, lots of wonderful people and I happen to know, 148 years ago the dish among LDS in St George was Ruth and Rachel Dunlap were raped first. Gwen Gale 03:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Gayle, dish is the key word. The rape accusations do not have any factual basis. I'm not saying they didn't happen (IMO they probably did). Remember this is an encyclopedia, not reporters of the dish 150 years ago.

I've been to the McDonalds in Cancun and thought the fries were great. Doesn't prove I know anything about Mexican Cuisine. Sorry to use such an absurd example. But the larger point is none of us are experts, none of us are eye witnesses. The best we can do is report what is known, not what we believe or what to believe happened. Unfortunately not enough people lived to tell if people were raped or not.

Also for the record, several of John D. Lee's descendents left the mormon church in disgust. One, Thelma Geer has wrote a book (I can't for the life of me remember the title) where she talks about the pity she has for mormons for not seeing the light. She also does not defend the actions of her grandfather(????) but does say J.D. Lee was a scapegoat. So it is not safe to say that any relatives of J.D. Lee would make a pro-mormon edit.

Davemeistermoab 05:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Unfortunately not enough people lived to tell if people were raped or not". Well, that's partially true. How many of the Mormon attackers were killed? There were plenty of people who were part of the massacre who could have told about the murders and alleged rapes, but instead they became part of the LDS coverup of the incident. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If you read the text I put in the draft, it's presented as a sourced allegation. As for Lee's relatives, in or out of the LDS they'd have a motive to downplay grand-dad's historical role as a mass murderer. Gwen Gale 12:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, this bit is straight vandalism. Gwen Gale 13:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I am glad the page has been protected. I would like a list of the disputed content here so I can request a revoking of the protection. WikieZach| talk 01:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And for those who don't know me...I am the mediator handling this case from the MedCabal (we try to solve disputes before they grow into wars), WikieZach| talk 02:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try

1. Failure to use an encyclopedic tone
2. Use of long quotes on specific issues that create undue weight
3. article is disjointed and random
4. Why were they attacked - no context for the event

to start --Trödel 04:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Whether or not the children were kidnapped by the people who murdered their parents.

• Were those children being 'taken care of' or held captive by the other Mormon who they lived with.

• Did the U.S. Army rescue the children from their captivity?

• Are editors allowed to edit quotes to promote a POV? Duke53 | ^Talk 04:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikizach, It is my understanding the "war" started when a group of people insisted on including the word "kidnap" in the article where the original word was "gathered" or something like that. That started a revert war. Frankly I think people on both sides of the aisle were acting out of passion rather than desire for a good article. Now I think it is degenerated into the typical flame war where one side is bound and determined to spite the other. Unfortunately this occured only shortly after a revert war was resolved about the inclusion or exclusion of the "oath of vengance" from the temple ceremony.

I'll start a list below, with my opinions. 04:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

BRMo: I guess I'm coming late to this discussion. I'd like to say that I think the "list of disputed topics" doesn't really get to the core of the dissension about this article. For real progress to be made and edit wars to be avoided, I think some type of consensus will need to be reached on the overall structure of the article, including some of the following questions:

• What are the most reliable sources to use?

My opinion is that two in-depth scholarly books by Brooks and Bagley best represent the current state of knowledge about the massacre. Denton's book tends to be less reliable in choice of sources, but still deserves to be cited because it presents some interesting and innovative interpretations. I recommend cutting back on the use of primary sources, which often present POV or OR problems, and use of 19th century secondary sources (such as newspapers), which tend to raise issues of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.

• Should this article include allegations that may be published in reputable histories, but for which the histories source as oral tradition or folklore?

I'll give two examples. The article says "All but one of the children were returned to their families..." Both Brooks and Bagley discuss the folklore that one of the children was not returned and was raised in Utah. Brooks thought the tradition may have been true, but Bagley thought it was likely untrue. In the article, it is presented as a fact, which is clearly inappropriate. If the story remains in the article, it clearly should be in the section "disputed facts." But there is little evidence other than folklore. Another is a recent addition to the article, saying that when Brigham Young visited the memorial, "He just lifted his right arm to the square [a temple gesture], and in five minutes there wasn't one stone left upon another." The original source appears to be Brooks, who describes it as a family legend in her own family (her grandfather was a participant in the massacre). However, in the same footnote, she follows up by saying that contemporary journals from several years later report seeing the intact memorial. The family legend doesn't seem to be reliable, so should it even be cited in an encyclopedic article? I note that Brooks herself relegated it to a footnote.

• What strategies can be used to achieve NPOV?

I've looked at other articles on controversial topics, and often the editors manage to work out an approach that provides balanced treatment to both points of view. I'd like to achieve that here, but to do so, the editors will need to develop a willingness to understand both points of view and to compromise. BRMo 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

List of disputed topics

1. Were the surviving children kidnapped?

Background: Originally the article stated the surviving children were taken to Cedar City and distributed to the locals for care until the Army came and returned them to Arkansas. Some members insist this is kidnapping and the article should state this.

Opinions:

Davemeistermoab: It's semantics, but I can find no source of any investigator at the time that considered this kidnapping.

Sqrjn: Kidnapped is factually and legally correct. Abducted is also accurate. 'gathered' 'cared for' ect. are white wash. Some have argued that it wasn't considered kidnapping at the time, because no one was prosecuted for kidnapping. I would remind Everyone that only one man was ever tried and on only one charge, no one would claim Lee killed them all himself would they? Many crimes were involved, murder, robbery, kidnapping, theft/larceny, rape, assault/battery, misprison of felony, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to commit all those crimes, conspiracy after the fact to cover them all up. The investigators wanted a practical solution to a political problem, just because they didn't charge anyone of a crime doesn't mean it didn't happen. Crimes can exist without convictions, ask a crime victim

This is probably the main issue of conflict. There is NONE, ZERO, NADA evidence for kidnapping. I have never read any historian that ever used the term or the allegation for this incident. This is puffery, plain and simple. First you have a group of people murdered. How does one kidnap children only to turn around and give them up. It is not logical. If the Mormons had left them in the wilderness, one would cry foul for abuse. What were the Mormons supposed to do? What would have been the humane thing to do...that's right, care for the children.

It does not meet the definiton of kidnap. This concoction of historical reconstructionism. It fits very well within typcial, crass anti-Mormon literature, but as for historians; it does not exist. It is original research and POV. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"What would have been the humane thing to do?" For starters: not slaughter all those innocent people. Kidnap is not always done for a ransom; the Mormons didn't exactly "turn around and give them up them up" ... The United States Army went and got them back, about two years later. Duke53 | ^Talk 09:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The word 'Kidnap' doesn't feel right to me. 'Taken' would be a neutral term, neither positive nor negative. 'Stolen' is another alternative, commonly used in Australia for taking children against their parents will in situations that don't meet the definition of kidnapping. My dictionary defines Kidnap as "carry off by force, especially for ransom" and while force had been used, it was in the slaughter of the adults and older children, not in the taking of the younger children. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

kid·nap (kdnp) KEY

TRANSITIVE VERB: kid·napped or kid·naped , kid·nap·ping or kid·nap·ing , kid·naps

To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom. (American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language)

Okay, let's review:

1) Did the murderers seize these children? Yes.

Took, yeah. Cared for, yeah. Seized? Cite a source. Gwen Gale 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

2) Were the children held against their will? Yes.

This question is rife with pitfalls when discussing people who haven't reached a legal age of responsibility. Sure, they weren't there by choice and they were crime victims, but then, those little kids weren't part of the wagon trains by choice either. Gwen Gale 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

3) Were the children held unlawfully? Yes.

Probably... an argument could be made that they should have been delivered to Salt Lake City and some sort of legal authority as soon as possible. Gwen Gale 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

4) Did the Mormon 'caretakers' ask for money for 'taking care' of the children? Yes.

After the fact, yes, but it was not characterized as ransom (yes, yes, it does have the appearance of a kind of ransom). Gwen Gale 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then you can infer that it is indeed a duck, even if it is not wearing a label that explicitly states its identity. Duke53 | ^Talk 09:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, it does swim rather much like a duck, but doesn't look or quack like one. Gwen Gale 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Kidnapping is not used in any historical document. Should the children not have been taken and cared for by the community they would not have survived. Is there evidence they were held against their will, as duke53 claims? I've not seen any. On the contrary, when the army came they were given to these folks. As to point #3, what would have been the lawful way to take care of children after parents were killed? Duke53 is judging the caring of these children by today's standards, not by 19-century remote utah standards. Who should have taken care of them? There was nowhere else for them to go. You cannot rightfully a term that no other historian (mormon or not) has used and be reputable. Our job is not to interpret events, but to report what is written and available from primary and secondary sources. We are an encyclopedia, not a research journal and the use of Kidnap in this case is primary research. -Visorstuff 00:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Is there evidence they were held against their will, as duke53 claims"? They had the same choice of being kidnapped as the rest of their family had being slaughtered: none. To even pretend otherwise is disingenuous, to say the least. "Who should have taken care of them"? Their parents, but the murderers made that impossible through their cowardly actions. "when the army came they were given to these folks"If by 'given' you mean Mormons demanding money for 'caring' for them ... then, yes, they were given back. This whole incident was mass murder / kidnapping undertaken by a group of gutless cowards whose church then proceeded to undertake a ~100 year coverup of the incident. Period.Duke53 | ^Talk 02:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to describe it as kidnapping in the article and I must agree that doing so would likely be original research (even if it was kidnapping by today's standards). Gwen Gale 01:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If those kids were 'NOT' kidnapped, why were they 'SOLD'? Sell, Property, Person, Slave, mmnn??

(A) Brooks, Appendix X1, Federal Marshall WM.H. ROGERS. "Lee went through the form of selling or bartering off the children by two".

(B) Brooks,Appendix 1X. J. Forney, Supt. Of Indian Affairs Utah Territory. "The children were sold out to different persons in Cedar City, Harmony, and Painter Creek".

Tinosa 02:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

" ... If those kids were 'NOT' kidnapped, why were they 'SOLD'"? Amen, brother. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Kidnapping is a common law kidnapping crime it has existed since before the 17th century but i'm sure you knew that Gwen Gale. Visorstuff I'm also sure that You know that children are not legally or morally able to give consent. The fact that you kill a parent and then carry off a child makes your actions kidnapping. The only way it would not be kidnapping is if the state had authorized you to act in loco parentis. Which is a very interesting debate, did the local government sanction the massacre and abductions? If so your position may have a 'colorable' legal argument. I like your creative thinking. Sqrjn 04:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Kidnapping is not used in any historical document.

I don't think we need to be bound by that. Even if it wasn't thought of as kidnapping at the time, if it fits our definition of kidnapping, then we should call it kidnapping.

To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom

1) Did the murderers seize these children?

Yes.

2) Were the children held against their will?

Mu. The question can't really be answered and isn't really relevant.

3) Were the children held unlawfully?

I'll say no, though I'm prepared to be persuaded otherwise. The murders were illegal. The taking of the children did not add to (or detract from) the criminality.

4) Did the Mormon 'caretakers' ask for money for 'taking care' of the children? Yes.

Wrong question. Was money the motive for taking the children? Personally, I doubt it, though I don't know and neither does anyone else, it would seem.

It's the ransom bit that makes me feel kidnapped is wrong, not because of the 'strength' of the word but because it doesn't 'fit' with what I think of when I think of kidnapping. And it doesn't fit with the apparent good treatment of the children. Someone go get the thesaurus out and give us some more choices please! Regards, Ben Aveling 08:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The kids weren't deliberately kidnapped, for starters... they were "spared" by the killers as "too young to tell." Yes, one could interpret the "compensation" paid to some Mormon families for taking care of them as a kind of ransom, but to use that interpretation in the article would require citing a reliable secondary source describing it as ransom, along with, IMO, a note that the notion has its controversies. Never mind we're talking about greedy killers here, there is zero evidence the kids were separated and not killed for the purpose of ransom or other leverage (other than perhaps soothing some warped consciences or whatever). There was some opportunism later, when compensation was offered to the families who cared for them but most sources I've seen have treated that more as an ordinary by product of human nature mixed with the economic hardships of settlement life, not ransom. Gwen Gale 15:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. However the term kidnapped does not require ransom although it is often used in that context. A parent who takes their own kid, without legal custody is kidnapping. "to young to tell" does anyone know what that meant? Is it tied up with mormon beliefs on the capacity to sin? Why were 10 year olds killed but not 6? Sqrjn 18:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, a kidnapping doesn't require ransom, but ransom requires kidnapping (so to speak), I mentioned it to provoke thought. My understanding of "too young to tell" is that they meant it literally, believing that very young children wouldn't have the understanding or ability to converse (or articulate) to be reliable witnesses. I've also read some sources which tried to tie this to the Mormon age of responsibility, which I think is 8, but I've not seen this linked with any primary sources. I think there likely was a bit of compassion here too, in that most folks know a 6 year old can be very observant and articulate and indeed, some of the Fancher party kids later provided rather vivid accounts of what they saw. Gwen Gale 19:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

BRMo: When this debate came up again in October, I looked at trying to follow the advice in WP:NPOV, which suggests structuring balanced statements like "Historian A regarded this as kidnapping because..., and historian B said it was not kidnapping because..." But when I looked through the various sources to try to find sources that said it was kidnapping, I couldn't find any. I wrote that I would be happy to include the description as kidnapping if it could be attributed to someone, but no source has yet been identified. Please re-read WP:NOR. This case is almost exactly parallel to the example of original research given there -- they describe an editor using a dictionary definition to try to prove that a professor had not committed perjury, even though that argument had not appeared in the published literature. In this case, appeals are made to dictionaries and other unpublished reasoning that the crime of kidnapping was committed. Without citing a published source that has previously made these arguments, this line of reasoning is clearly original research according to Wikipedia policy. BRMo 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

1b. What word to use instead?

Imagine the word kidnapped didn't exist. What other word would you prefer? Ben Aveling 20:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

how about the words of historians? The article reads currently (without the word kidnapped):

"Seventeen young children escaped the massacre. These children were distributed to local Mormon homes for care."

A couple of the historical sources read as follows:

"The survivors of the slaughter were seventeen children, from two months to seven years of age, who were carried, on the evening of the massacre, by John D. Lee, Daniel Tullis, and others to the house of Jacob Hamblin, and afterward placed in charge of Mormon families at Cedar, Harmony, and elsewhere."

or

"but when she told of the 17 orphan children who were brought by such a crowd to her house of one small room there in the darkness of night, two of the children cruelly mangled and the most of them with their parents’ blood still wet upon their clothes, and all of them shrieking with terror and grief and anguish, her own mother heart was touched"

I don't think any of those accounts read particularly "pro-mormon" yet don't use the word. There are dozens of sources used by historians - none of which use the word, until it was introduced into this article as original research. -Visorstuff 20:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Does sufficient proof exist to merit an inclusion that some victims may have been raped?

Opinions:

Davemeistermoab: All I've seen so far is conjecture. I say they probably were, that is what I would expect to happen in a situation like this. But until a verifiable sources can be found it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.

Sqrjn: I don't know people dont bother to cite, they just throw things in. Footnotes Forever!

Storm Rider ^(talk): This is an encyclopedia in its intent. Conjecture is a wonderful thing for tabloids and tracts, but it has no role to play in any article on Wikipedia. If there is a reputable source that states it; it should then be included. If not, it should be left off. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the text I wrote was read carefully before the kneejerks started whacking chins. I cited the allegation, I did not write it as an event, I did source it. Gwen Gale 12:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine with saying one person claimed that his son witnessed a rape. However, it didn't hold up as evidence in the court then, nor would it today. As a historian, it is irrelevant and hearsay to me either way. And my family desends from the father of the witness, (Hamblin) and incidentally, the convicted (Lee). -Visorstuff 00:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not a courtroom. The allegation is part of the event's documented history. Gwen Gale 01:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think another reason to say no to "possible rape" is this is sure to start another revert war in the future. There is only anecdotal quotes that a rape may have occured. It is only a matter of time before someone edits this out. Sorry Gwen, I respect what you are trying to do. But I honestly think you're going to lose this one. Wikipedia is not a court room but its claims need to be verifiable to a similar standard as a court and this one is not. Davemeistermoab 05:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So cite the historical record, that there are anecdotal references (rumours) that Ruth and Rachel Dunlap were raped before they were murdered. Gwen Gale 12:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

BRMo: This is that fundamental issue again - to what extent do we want to include hearsay, folklore, and allegations? If we include it, shouldn't we also include discussions of why historians like Brooks didn't consider the allegation reliable? There's an awful lot of folklore and hearsay associated with the massacre, and the more we include, the more cluttered the article will become. BRMo 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Is is appropriate to include the "vengeance oath" from the temple ceremonies?

Background: Previous versions of the Mormon temple ceremony had an oath for people to pray for the vengeance of the killing of the founders of the church. Mormons are taught that it is taboo to discuss what happens in the temple outside the temple. Although it has not happened yet, previous revert wars in this article have involved removing the mention of this oath.

Opinions:

Davemeistermoab: Keep it. Though some mormons feel it would be sacrilegious to keep it, it does show the animosity that existed at the time, and helps put some context as to why the massacre occurred.

Sqrjn: I put it in. I think it adds alot. Its from a primary source and addresses motive.

Storm Rider ^(talk): The way it is done on WIKI is to quote a historian that attributes a specific influence (the oath in this instance) as a reason for the massacre. If we are just adding conjecture, you could probably go back and begin listing the atrocities committed against the Mormon people before coming to the Utah valley. I reject that reasoning just as I reject many other reasons. The fact is that these people were murdered. After that fact, stick to the interpretations of historians and reputable sources. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It is clearly original research to juxtapose this comment with the article unless there is a reputable source that already mead the connection. --Trödel 00:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Trodel - is wikipedia supposed to determine motive that other historians have not connected or is not in another adademic source? Stinks of original research. -01:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen some sources which assert that Lee and others justified their actions through the so-called vengeance oath, though I'm not sure about the documentation they drew upon. If it could be solidly sourced (say, from letters written during the era), by all means. Gwen Gale 01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

BRMo: As presented in the article now (citing the Smoot hearings from nearly 50 years later), it is original research. However, Brooks and Bagley both mention the vengeance oath, and Bagley provides the text of the oath, so if Bagley were cited instead of the Smoot hearings, I think it would meet the NOR standard. BRMo 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree that quoting Bagley is acceptable, however, it should not be used to show that it was acceptable for Mormons to act in this way. The text clearly states that God would do the work, not man. -Visorstuff 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Is massacre POV and inflammatory?

Opinions:

Sqrjn: This is as silly as kidnapped, but apparently an issue now. Massacre is a factually accurate description.

Davemeistermoab: Every source I've read agrees this was a massacre. My vote, keep it. However I take issue with "as silly as kidnap". I have seen no credible source use the word kidnap. I've done google searches etc. and come up with a goose egg.

Storm Rider ^(talk): I see no reason to delete the term massacre. However, I see no reason to use the term 63 times in an article of this length. If for no other reason in that it makes for poor writing. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Massacre is what it is. I don't think anyone disputes the term. -Visorstuff 01:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been referred to as a massacre for almost 150 years now, why call it anything else? Gwen Gale 01:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

BRMo: I agree that it was a massacre. BRMo 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Latter-day Saint. I refer to it as a massacre. It's the most accurate and complete description of what happened. 208.110.158.207 07:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been widely and consistently referred to as a massacre, and called a massacre, for over a hundred years. Moreover, I think it's NPoV to call the slaughter of 120-140 innocent men, women and children a massacre. Gwen Gale 17:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Long Quotes?

Which long quotes do people take offense with? Why?

Opinions:

Sqrjn: more not less. shortening quotes is more likely to show the bias of the editor than make to the article unbalanced. Solution is more material and links to the original sources.

Davemeistermoab: Some long quotes are OK. The article was getting ridiculous. Towards the end people were trying to paste in every quote they could find to paint a more rosy/dire picture of the article. If the article gets too long nobody will read more then the first 2 paragraphs. This article should not try to explain every detail. Cover the basics and provide external links for those who desire more information.

Storm Rider ^(talk): I personally don't take offense with quotes: long or short. I do disagree with quotes that are redundant and only ding the same bell. If a quote does not add something new, then remove it. Redundancy is just poor writing. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

While I personally feel that reliance on long quotes show a lack of sources on a topic, and typically smell of a POV pushing, in this article they are fine, as long as they don't say the same thing an earlier section has. There is too much reduncancy in this aritcle as it is, and the long quotes are used to push ones personal view, rather than a balanced, multiple sourced statement. -Visorstuff 01:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Visorstuff here. One of the reasons these long quotes bog down the narrative is that they seem to have been chosen as a means of nudging the reader to infer things otherwise not said and that's a trick which gets tried rather a lot on Wikipedia- smothering an article in quotes in an attempt to hide original research. Besides, "Wikipedia is not a text dump." Gwen Gale 01:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

quote To quote is to repeat something from another source without changing it. Unforunately, people edit quotes to eliminate what they feel are "unnecessary adjectives" or "charged" words, which changes the meaning. Often(in this article)when quotes are not used, the editor misinterprets the author to promote their POV. Personely, I would rather have long quotes than garbage. Tinosa 02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Syntax, usage and meaning change over time and thus, too much reliance on 150 year old quotes can easily mislead readers (both by design and accident). Gwen Gale 02:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I recently read Herman Melville's "MOBY DICK" which was written in 1851. Because of "syntax,usage and meaning change over time and,too much reliance on 150 year old quotes', I was misled (both by design and accident)? Damm, I didn't understand one 155 year-old sentence.

Should I throw away my 1960's Websters Collegiate Dictionary, my Mark Twain books, the Family Bible, etc? When I receive Sports Illustrated in the Friday Mail, should I throw it away(It's out dated you know)?Tinosa 03

29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Syntax, usage and meaning change over time and thus, too much reliance on 150 year old quotes can easily mislead readers (both by design and accident)". Does that apply to everything written 150 years (or more) ago? I'm very interested on how and where you came up with this theory. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a theory. Anyway yeah, a 1960 dictionary might be ok for some etymological research but as a guide to current usage, it could get dodgy. Gwen Gale 12:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"I didn't say it was a theory". No, no you didn't ... you stated it as fact, but didn't back it up at all. So, apparently it's just your opinion, with which you are willing to dismiss a source. Explain to us again how 'meaning' changes over time. Duke53 | ^Talk 13:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Learn then, by starting here. Gwen Gale 15:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

BRMo: Some of these quotes are not only unnecessary, but seem to be included to circumvent the WP:NPOV policy. For example, if an editor inserted text saying Mormons were "relentless, incarnate fiends," it would be immediately stricken as religious bias, forbidden by the NPOV policy. Similarly, an editor couldn't write Mormons "believe it is no great sin to kill gentiles." So is it consistent with NPOV policy to include these same statements as direct quotations? What information is conveyed by these quotations? It seems to me that they were inserted primarily to present a POV that would not be permitted if it were written by the editor. The article loses any sense of being balanced with some of these long quotations. BRMo 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

6. encyclopedic tone?

Opinions:

Sqrjn: Trodel imposes his worldview through a lens he justifies as encyclopedic. Removing negative words like 'murder' 'massacre' 'kidnapped' is not only a discrace to the victims of a horrible crime, but factually inaccurate.

Davemeistermoab: Partially agree. I like the example someone used above about Hitler. If an article about Hitler is full of adjectives like "murder, evil, racist, hatefull" the article becomes a diatribe and people will gloss over the article. Everybody knows Hitler was evil, just as everybody knows the Mountain Meadows Massacre was evil. A well written article states the facts such that people know this was an evil act without having to be told. Certainly Massacre belongs in the article (as most historians call the event the mountain meadows massacre"). Murder has to be mentioned as that is the crime Lee was charged with. However, words like horrible should be minimized. If the article is written well enough the point will come across without them and be better for it.

Storm Rider ^(talk): The conflict on this article is all about tone. Trodel did not have a problem with massacre or murder. It is obvious when you have an article that mentions massacre 63 times that no one had a problem with the term; the facts speak for themselves. I reject original research, POV and polemical writing regardless of which side of an issue is doing it. What I seek, and I demand, is articles that are well written about topics that inform and provide information sufficent for readers to grasp an understanding of an event. Let judgement fall on the readers' shoulders; it has no place being on ours. Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Amen to Storm Rider. -Visorstuff 01:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Aye to that here. Gwen Gale 01:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

BRMo: I agree with Storm Rider. BRMo 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

7. Paiute Involvement

[[5]]

Opinions:

Sqrjn: This needs to be its own section under disputed facts. The description of the massacre also should recognize the possibility that the native americans were not involved. Maybe someone can find the original source of this article or the research abstract.

I'm unaware of any historian who says they were not present? Could you point me to one? In the states, even in the 1800s, if you were present, you were an accessory to murder. At the same time, I don't think we should say they pulled the triggers, but rather they were there. The responsibilty of what happened (and I don't think anyone argues this) falls on the Mormon militia. -Visorstuff 01:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Davemeistermoab: I don't understand why this is a disputed fact. Most everything I've read agrees there was a minimal ammount of Paiute involvement. The Paiutes were the first attempt at a scapegoat for the massacre but few then or now believed they had any significant involvement. Even the article mentioned is consistant with this by saying the Paiutes oral tradition was that they were not involved with the massacre itsself but did pillage the property of the wagon train afterwords.

Odd that you guys are saying this, since the intro to the article (in its present form) states: "Mormon militia and some Paiutes killed an entire wagon train of Arkansas farming families known as the Baker/Fancher party". Hard to mistake the intent of those words, isn't it? Duke53 | ^Talk 04:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure who included those words, but I don't think anybody here is in agreement with them. In case you haven't figured it out this article is a patchwork from dozens of authors =-) P.S. Who are "you guys"? Aparently my membership card hasn't arrived yet, AFAIK I was speaking solo =-)

Davemeistermoab 04:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Didn't bother going back to see who inserted them originally but here is when they were last reverted to their present form: revert. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is blatently obvious that trodel was reverting the article because of the word "kidnap" and this is one of the phrases that happened to get restored in the revert. Why do you always feel the need to make such childish insinuations? The world is not a vast conspiracy against you. Davemeistermoab 05:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If the name calling tickles your willie, by all means continue with it. I wasn't insinuating, I was pointing out which side was characterizing in such a 'matter of fact' way. If you'd bother going back in the history of the article then you would see the same group of editors who continually reverted to the phrase 'some paiutes' (from 'possibly', 'a few', etc.) when other editors disputed it. Past edits must be taken into acount now if we are to get anywhere with this; their consistent LDS POV contributed to the dispute we are in now. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

During the ensuing coverup there were some efforts to blame it all on the Paiutes, tempting enough since they were there, more or less as "allies" to the Mormons. However, we have specific bits of evidence concerning individual Paiutes who were present. We also have witness accounts saying some Mormons disguised themselves as Paiutes. No need to bother with past editing tiffs though, stick to the sources, note controveries/conflicts between sources, and get on with it. Gwen Gale 15:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

BRMo: My understanding is that prior to Denton, historians generally agreed that the Paiutes were direct participants in the massacre, and that Denton was the first writer to argue that they did not actively participate in the bloodshed. There are some holes in Denton's argument, but I agree with Sqrjn that this should be a section under disputed facts. BRMo 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

8. Blood Atonement

This is sourced by several of the prominent authors as motive and context. In the past its been taken out for some of the reasons Trodel and Storm Rider seem to be arguing.

Opinions:

Sqrjn: It needs at least a paragraph, cite, and link. It should be addressed in the Reasons for Masscre section, before the Vengenace Oath.

Davemeistermoab: I'm iffy on this one. It is well known by historians that BY preached Blood Atonement fervently. However, if we are going to list the vengence oath, blood atonement; then some mitigating factors will also have to be thrown in (i.e. The paranoia over the removal of BY as govenor, Haun's Mill Massacre, Extermination Order, etc.). Otherwise we'll be back to POV where the article paints all mormons as nuts, and the revert wars will begin anew.

There is circumstantial evidence (but I've never seen proof) that, again, John D. Lee, for one, did try to rationalize his supervision of a mass murder through Joseph Smith's borrowed notions about blood atonement. I'd avoid bringing it up since many murderers tend to rationalize without end, but wouldn't object if it was done in a neutral way with solid sourcing. Gwen Gale 15:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, blood atonement is for those who live under a theocracy - so only Mormon apostates would qualify for shedding their own blood to atone for their own sins, not those who were travelling through. however, there is another similar teaching that is often confused with blood atonement that states that those individuals and nations who shed the blood of prophets will be destroyed or killed themselves (hence the oath of vengence)[6]. Three different doctrines that are being confused here - and frankly, none has any merit in this article - as the oath of vengence was seen as called upon at the rallying cry at the second coming of Christ if needed [7], but then was clarified that Christ will fight battles requiring blood [8] - and Zion in this generation could not be redeemed by the saints shedding others blood according to the doctrine and covenants - it needs to be redeemed by land purchases - see [9] and [10]. Completely different doctrines - likely tied together by someone who doesnt' understand historical mormon teachings very well - which is easy to do. -Visorstuff 18:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Visorstuff, from that perspective, I'm thinking anything I've read about blood atonement and vengeance oaths relating to John D Lee must have been codswallop. Though he did otherwise rationalize, straight up to the moment they shot him. Gwen Gale 19:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

BRMo: I don't know a lot about this issue, but my general advice is let's stick to what historians of the massacre have written and be careful not to bring in original research. BRMo 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

The problems still remain: the use of unreliable sources, juxtaposing different information together to draw conclusions which create original research, and the insistence that non-neutral terminology be used. --Trödel 01:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The article has too much original research where no historian has stated anything on the matter. Have an anti-mormon site drawn a connection? probably (they draw connections between raelians and mormons) but they are not reputable scholars. Anyone can put up a site and say that Americans eat their children, but it doesn't meet the standards required in an encyclopedia. -Visorstuff 01:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Some authors are bound and determined to make this article as long as possible and point out everything that could have possibly happened. Then those same authors want to use the most inflamatory words they can find to describe it. Similary, some LDS editors are in denial about what happened. But the fact that the article contains some objectional edits favoring one side is no excuse for the other side to go on a rampage with adjective and quotes. That is what has happened with this "kidnap" thing IMO. Davemeistermoab 05:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Any notion that Paiutes were not present is wholly unsupported by the historical (and more lately, archaeological) record. Gwen Gale 01:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Resolution

Do any believe a staw poll vote would be good? WikieZach| talk 20:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not believe that one would be good. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Why? WikieZach| talk 21:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I want a poll on who is LDS and who is not. Sqrjn 21:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If there is disputed facts, a poll is the only way to see where everyone stands. WikieZach| talk 21:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would expect that if a poll is taken that we will be 'swarmed' by many 'new' editors who suddenly develop an interest in this article. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I will ensure that only those who have participated in the talks would vote, if someone new comes along, email me and I will check into it. WikieZach| talk 21:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic verifiability cannot be measured or even estimated by polling unverified usernames. It would be a waste of time. Gwen Gale 01:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Party Observes: As a neutral party I have not read either side of this issue, however, it should be noted that right or wrong will not be an issue in deciding. Citations (WP:Cite)will relieve both parties. Should AFD or similar means be attempted, other neutral editors are at hand. Respectfully, --meatclerk 23:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I offer the following as a mediator, for a final resolution:, "We agree that even though there is disputed content at hand, we promise to keep our cool. We will discuss the issues fully and ensure that we can reach a compromise. We will also cite sources that need to be cited. We also promise that in the case of ANY further dispute, we bring it to an informal Mediator, once not previosly associated with the case." WikieZach| talk 00:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've already agreed to all that - including taking short 1-2 day wikibreaks from the article. So I agree. It would be appreciated if you could provide some guidance on original research and the use of neutral terms as you can see above I have been accused of not understanding these policies. --Trödel 00:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV, for an ex (used everywhere) On Abortion, a sentence reads as, "An Abortion kills a child" would be POV, while a 'neutral wording would be'... "an abortion procedure detroys an embreyo". Just use wording that is what happened. If someone got kidnapped, call it that. Original research means you can't cite a source as saying it's from me. WikieZach| talk 01:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent example. Abortion kills a child is POV because it depends on a definition of child that is POV. Kidnap is taking a person especially a child illegally and or by force. Trodel what is POV about using that definition in this situation? In the past you said that it was because you felt that the use of kidnap applied it to the caretakers and not just the militia. Please respond to my suggestion that we use 'kidnapped by the mormon militia'. It really looks to me that you just dont like the word because its negative and you are trying to make the article as sanitized towards Mormon sensibilities as possible. If so you should be more forward about your prejudices like stormrider. Sqrjn 01:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Responding again[11] [12] - to use the word kidnapped is to unnecessarily make the article polemic - if we describe it neutrally then some readers will say - wow that's kidnapping, or whatever - they can draw their own conclusion. By using a neutral term we make no implications about the intent of the people who were near the children at the time of the killing (which is unknown - remember that the group was separated during the march to the local town) - did they protect them from the attackers, did they know what was going to happen, etc. All Questions we can not know - thus we should just describe it (or imply any stance). --Trödel 03:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, cite both 19th and 20th century sources describing the treatment of the kids as kidnapping. Without support, use of the term is not only polemic, it's original research (forget that to my mind, in 2006, the whole tale is indeed morally equivalent to kidnapping). Gwen Gale 16:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Final statements please

WP rules show no prohibition against straw polls, it allows a mediator to see where everything stands. I will make a NON-BINDING straw poll later this week on the issues at hand. If you wish for a particular question to be asked, please send me a message on my talk page, please not my email. Thanks! Your mediator. WikieZach| talk 17:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Good decision. I do not see a better alternative at the moment and it will at least end the discussion and put effort into drafting the article. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I do think that all involved should at least read the final "confession" of John D. Lee found here, as all others were placed under oath not to say anything (and likely to destroy all records), it is probably one of the most accruate statements, as he does admit his involvement. -Visorstuff 22:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

He claims he didn't kill anyone, but takes credit for saving the life of Charley Fancher (who by the time of JDL's confession was widely known as a very sympathetic figure in the tale). He says he led the massacre, but other Mormons along with the Paiutes did the killing, not him. Truth be told the confessions of mass murderers are wontedly self-serving. This one seems more so than most I've read. That said, the bits not having to do with John D. Lee claiming he didn't kill anyone are likely to be somewhat accurate. He calls himself a scapegoat, reason enough to avoid the word editorially (but one could quote him claiming it). Gwen Gale 02:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts from Gwen Gale

I'm sympathetic to both perspectives on the "murdered-kidnapped" semantics question but I think it's a trivial problem, after all. The event is called a massacre, which I think is most fitting anyway. Likewise, whilst I wouldn't call the compensation money ransom, it would be helpful, I think, to mention that some Mormon familes aggresively asked to be reimbursed after caring for the kids and that accounts of the childrens' condition during this period do vary (likely because some of the kids fared better than others, depending upon whom they were with).

If the edit warring was truly over tone, then neutral language is called for. People who read encyclopedias (or a website like Wikipedia which resembles an encyclopedia but is in truth an alphabetized collaborative metablog) can generally be relied upon to infer the PoV that murder is not helpful. Those who think murdering 140 innocent emigrants was ok (or tragically unavoidable, whatever), either as an act of war against a persecuting US government or as some kind of vengeance oath fullfillment will only be further radicalized by anti-Mormon polemics. Clearly, everything should be succinctly sourced and cited.

We don't know if Brigham ordered this and the article should succinctly cite a couple of widely recognized but conflicting sources to highlight the questions this brings up. This said, the story about him ordering the cairn's destruction is dodgy at best and I'd suggest leaving it out of the article altogether. There was a coverup though, which in the end may have made Brigham look more guilty than he was (again, we don't know).

The Paiute question is interesting. Some were undeniably present and most sources seem to indicate they outnumbered the Mormons. The archaeological/forensic evidence indicates lots of death by blunt trauma along with point blank gunshot wounds, which supports the widely told version that both groups were involved. There are also multiple accounts that among the Paiutes were Mormons disguised as native Americans.

There is no evidence that a 17th child remained in Utah and married a Mormon, only rumours, these can be mentioned as such.

The rumours of rape were widespread in the Mormon community at the time, these can also be mentioned as such.

Was John D. Lee a scapegoat or the leader of a mass murder? Personally I think he was both and that the documented record supports such a take. Either way, this should be dealt with.

Finally, the widely reported looting of Fancher party property (including disposing some of it at auction in Cedar City) should be included.

Anyway these are my thoughts, not presented as comprehensive though. Gwen Gale 16:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't know if Brigham ordered this and the article should succinctly cite a couple of widely recognized but conflicting sources to highlight the questions this brings up. This said, the story about him ordering the cairn's destruction is dodgy at best and I'd suggest leaving it out of the article altogether. There was a coverup though, which in the end may have made Brigham look more guilty than he was (again, we don't know).

"dodgy"?

Do you have access to "MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE. by Juanita Brooks? (Library of Congress Card 62-18053). Chapter 9 "The Church Acts"?

Journal History of the Church?

Diary of Wilford Woodruff?

A Comprehensive History of the Church?

Statement of Dudley Leavitt verified by three sons. One(son) preserved it in these words quoting his father:

"I was with this group of elders that went out with President Young to visit the spot in the spring of '61. The soldiers had put up a monument, and on top of that a wooden cross with words burned into it,"Vengeance is mine , saith the Lord, I will repay." Brother Brigham read that to himself and studied it for a while and then he read it out loud, "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord; I have repaid." He didn't say another word. He didn't give an order. He just lifted his right arm to the square, and in five minutes there wasen't one stone left upon another. He didn't have to tell us what he wanted done. We understood."

Which portions of Brook's book are acceptable? Which portions of Bagley's book are acceptable? Which portions of Denton's book are acceptable? Which portions of Gibb's book are acceptable?

With very little effort this article can be reduced to that of a Utah State Textbook used in the 1950's. "MOUNTAIN MEADOWS. WASHINGTON COUNTY. Nearly 100 California Emigrants were killed here in 1857. Paiute indians were involved"

Save alot of bandwidth,Eh? Tinosa 18:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Tinosa, had you read the above discussion, you'd realize why about quote of a quote of the son of the only person who ever said that about brigham having the monument "destroyed" the monument when he was in actually in parowan at the time (parowan and santa clara/mountain meadows are hundreds of miles away) is problematic. Brooks uses it in her early works, she doesn't in later works, as it is unproven family legend (ie, it is her recollection of her family recaalling another family member recalling the event). In any case, Brigham's direct involvemnt is uncertain [13], although it is very apparent that speeches he and other church leaders and the speeches and threats of US president buchanan and Johnston's army leaders, and the fancher party themselves, all contributed to the furor. I'm not placing blame on any of the above, but am saying there was massive paranoia in the utah territory due to the utah war at the time. A lot of factors, and there are none that directly tie any of these groups to teh event aside from the local militia, including John D. Lee and John Higbee. as a relative of Lee, I'd love to place the blame on others and exhaunerate him, but there is hard evidence, only hearsay. Something that most of the MMM association and fancher party descendants typcially agree on as well. It is an unfortunate sitiuation, and fingers can be pointed in multiple directions. [14], Chronology of events, [15], [16], -Visorstuff 19:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What?

"you'd realize why about quote of a quote of the son of the only person who ever said that about brigham having the monument "destroyed" the monument when he was in actually in parowan at the time (parowan and santa clara/mountain meadows are hundreds of miles away) is problematic".

I-Utah Dital News Papers. Deseret News. May 15, 1861. "President Young's Visit South".

(A) On Wednesday, May 15....Elders Wilford Woodruff(a member of the entourage)..

(B) On Saturday,25'th, the company traveled through the Mountain Meadows, and passing over the rim of the Basin.

II- Brooks, Chapter 9, The Church Acts

(A) May, 25. A very cold morning...Young said it should be Vengance is mine and I have taken a little..." Wilford Woodruff.

(B) My grandfather, Dudley Leavitt, was present, and told the incident repeatedly, so it has been verified by three of his sons. One preserved it in these words, quoting his father: "I was with the group of elders that went out with Presiden Young..."

Which one of these characters were in Parowan?

IA - correct.

IB - is not confirmed - but believed based on other accounts'

IIA - not taken from dailey journal, but later recollection

IIB - Already discussed in detail above.

Parowan had a stake conference when Young came down which he presided over - you can read about it in minutes of parowan stake in BYU special collections, Hosea Stout's journal, journal manuscript history and other sources included in this article, including. The dates of travel are questionable based on his time at the conference. Perhaps, neither of the accounts are correct or they both are. All i'm saying is that they seemingly contradict and so neither can be used as they are not reliable enough. -Visorstuff 22:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"One of Young's escort lassoed the cross [on the burial site] with a rope, turned his horse, and pulled it down. Brigham Young "didn't say another word," recalled Dudley Leavitt. "He didn't give an order. He just lifted his right arm to the square [a temple gesture], and in five minutes there wasn't one stone left upon another. He didn't have to tell us what he wanted done. We understood." (Bigler; Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West 1847-1896, p. 178). Duke53 | ^Talk 10:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok... so here's another cite of a secondary source describing this anecdote. So what? Put the tale in the article and if need be, characterize it as to provenance and reliability (verfied as an extant anecdote, not verified as to reliability). Gwen Gale 16:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Duke, I'm curious what source Bigler cited for the Leavitt quote. Does he cite Brooks or does he have an earlier independent source? BRMo 03:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok: The Deseret News is wrong. The Woodruff Diary is wrong. Dudley Leavitt is wrong. BY was in Parowan at a steak conference on May 25,1861. I'm not from the SHOW ME STATE, BUT IF YOU WOULD BE SO KIND TO PROVIDE A LINK?Tinosa 05:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, its stake not steak (please attempt to understand Mormonism if you write about it).

Bagley's research shows why the Leavitt and Woodruff accounts corraberate and are suspect - enough so that Brooks left out her own family legend (Leavitt) in future research on the topic. See for example: John Doyle Lee: Zealot, Pioneer Builder, Scapegoat [17]. You ought to read the source material.

Second of all, how is the Deseret News wrong (in fact, I said "correct" under IA above? Parowan and Santa Clara are both "South?" Second of all, you'll notice that this entire event took place within the boundaries of Parowan stake (not neccessarily Pawowan City, Had you really read any source material, or the article in its entirety, you'd know this. I'm amazed at how many people don't know a thing about this, other than what they've read on the internet and think they are scholars on this topic. Incidentally, I readily admit, I made a mistake above, Parowan and Santa Clara are approximately 25-35 bird miles away - not the hundreds i mistakely stated above. However, your response just proves my point that editors should actually read source materials if they add in detailed and controversial content. I'm not disputing that Young visited the site in May 1861, but I am disputing the date.

Third, not everything in the world is online. I've given thee sources - a journal and stake minutes from Parowan Stake both readily available in special collections at BYU - and I believe University of Utah as well. You may use the inter-library system to request the records yourself. the journal history is available at the LDS historical office - all you have to do is sign in and request the item. Joel Johnson, who was with the party reports leaving on the 16th of may [18], (and other sources verify this) so the DN report was premature (not suprising due to the weather, trips were often delayed). And due to the lack of a railroading system at that time, on the trip Young travelled about 18-25 miles a day. It is uncretain if the first night he stayed in fort provo or pleasant grove (17th friday), and as best as I can put together he traveled to Manti on the 18th and 19th for conference (sat and Sun), visiting fort Gunnison, on Monday the 20th, Filmore on the 21st, Cove Fort on the 22, Beaver on the 23 and Parowan city on the 24 - conference on Saturday and Sunday, the 25 and 26. The soonest he could have visited the site is monday the 27th. Even if he was able to be there friday night, He would not have gone down to santa clara and the mountain meadows area in the middle of a stake conference on a saturday. Anyone familiar with Mormon stake conferences should know this. Stake meetings in those days lasted ALL day saturday and sunday (and meetings are still held on both days today). -Visorstuff 17:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have facts that are pertinent to this article, please present them? ["Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please." - quoted by Rudyard Kipling in From Sea to Shining Sea] Tinosa 21:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to Tinosa, I believe that the only one of the three sources you've mentioned that says the monument was destroyed during Young's visit was Dudley Leavitt (as quoted by Brooks). But Brooks describes the story as "a legend," and in the next paragraph Brooks cites the journal of a Lorenzo Brown who reported traveling past the intact monument in 1864, three years after the Leavitt quote says it was destroyed.

Professional historians are very aware of the fallibility of oral tradition and memories, which is why they emphasize using contemporary primary sources. Another interest of mine (on which I sometimes edit) is the history of baseball. For several years a prominent baseball researcher, Bill James, put together a series of columns called "Tracers," in which he would take a story recounted in a baseball history, autobiography, or similar source and go back to the original game accounts to see if the story matched the facts. In most cases, important elements of the story turned out to be incorrect. Quite often, two separate events became conflated in the player's memory as a single event. (For example, a player may have hit a home run off Johnson in the 3rd inning and in another game he hit a home run in the 9th inning, but in his story -- and presumably, in his memory as well -- he hits the home run off Johnson in the 9th inning.) In the case of Leavitt's story, we have a conflict between a family story that apparently was passed along orally until it was finally put into writing more than 90 years after the event and a contradictory journal entry that was written shortly after the writer traveled past the monument. I think it's fair to regard the family story as questionable. BRMo 03:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

In one of the many articles I've read it was stated that the cairn was rebuilt many times through the years; I will look for it, but I believe it said ~30 times or so. A guy seeing a cairn a few years later could have been viewing a replacement. Did Lorenzo Brown mention the cross, or just a 'monument' ? Duke53 | ^Talk 04:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

IMHO both of your comments bear pondering. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. It may be of some use immediately after an event if it's confirmed ("triangulated") with other credible witness reports. However, with the passage of time, for sundry reasons, the later recollections of witnesses become almost worthless. Family anecdotes are likely the least helpful of all. They may or may not contain the odd grain of truth, but are almost invariably distorted with each telling. All we really know here is that US Army personnel constructed a cairn on the site, that a cairn was variously reported during the early 1860s, that there is no record of any maintenance efforts and that by 1900 or so it had dwindled in size. Gwen Gale 08:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Bagley. Chapter 13. VENGEANCE IS MINE. p. 247. note 106. "George F. Price's company of California Volunteers restored the monument in May 1854"....Lorenzo Brown saw the monument on 1 July 1864. Written below the bible verse. "Remember Hauns Mill and Carthage Jail"Tinosa 04:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

And it was supposedly destroyed by Young in 1861. So the dates don't match up on the restoration of the monument. -Visorstuff 17:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to Visorstuff, you're obviously much more experienced here at Wikipedia than I am, but I have interpreted WP:V and WP:NOR as emphasizing citing published sources, so I was surprised at your argument based on primary sources available only in library special collections. I don't believe that this type of material is generally regarded as "published." BRMo 03:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Primary sources are acceptable, not primary research. Any quote of a witness is a primary document. Most WP articles wouldn't exist if it weren't for reliance on primary sources.

My understanding of WP policy (which as written is ok, sadly not implemented enough though) is that primary sources are welcome so long as no interpretation is thrown in: Interpretation should come from reliable, published secondary sources. Moreover, source verifiability (not "truth") trumps all. Gwen Gale 08:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Visorstuff,What is wrong with you? Arguing about the facts is stupid. If you have contradictory material, cite it and put it in. What don't you understand about this process. You will make a better article by including the data you're refering to rather than trying to keep stuff you dont agree with out. Sqrjn 20:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sqrjn, thanks for your assessment of my work at Wikipedia. I'm not arguing, nor trying to keep things "out." I'm trying to show that the research is problematic, and we should only include as fact what is verifiable. If you want to inlcude the other in a disputed section, great - all for it.

I'm quite familiar with the Wikipedia process, as I've helped create some of the policies. I've been editing WP for neary four years and was one of the first 100 administrators. If you do your homework, you'll notice that I don't make a lot of edits to articles, like many of the early contributors - rather I revert vandalism, provide common sense in historical sources (like the above), provide sources on talk pages for others to draw from and try to help resolve conflicts. I also correct misperceptions of LDS doctrines (by both mormons and others) and edit a few pages when i get around to it.

Incidentally, if I seem like I am arguing, it is because I'm arguing "over facts" that are not correct or questionable, or over POV. Both are acceptable to do at WP - as not sticking up for facts here would be ludicrous. Arguing is not my intent. As i'm not part of the mediation group, and the page is protected, it seems strange that you'd coax me to use my administrative powers to add in citations and improve the article while no one else can. As part of following the process as you recommended, I'll keep my discussion here, thank-you. -Visorstuff 22:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

" ... it seems strange that you'd coax me to use my administrative powers to add in citations and improve the article while no one else can". Yeah, that's what he said ... sheesh. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks duke, you said it for me. Sqrjn 03:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts of Sqrjn

Two points. One, If you can cite a reputable primary or secondary source I would be very hesitant about keeping it out. Why you include something is important. Introducing a rumor for the truth would be wrong. Introducing and citing a rumor, for what was being rumored is maybe ok.

Two, semantics are very tricky. But the most precise and most accurate word should be used. Using a word repetively is a style point, not POV. Kidnapped is both historically and currently most accurate. Just like murder is more accurate than killing. Sqrjn 20:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Disputed content

If you have any question you wished to be asked, please send me a message on my talk page. The poll will start tomorrow (25 hours) WikieZach| talk 22:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't take a weatherman ...

... to see which way the wind is blowing. Some editors are now 'strongly suggesting' which sources we should all read and 'suggesting' in what instances HOW those sources can be used. If a source is to be used then ALL of it can be used ... let's not start accepting parts of sources while rejecting other parts of them. That's called 'cherrypicking'.Duke53 | ^Talk 02:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

p.s. If we're going to start nitpicking over typos then I guess we should have some real doubts over someone changing geographic locations (oops!) by hundreds of miles.

I must say, this seems to be going on, here and there. Relying, for example, on John D. Lee's rambling, self-serving, post-conviction, written confession (in which he denies killing anyone) for a reliable historical narrative is, forgive me, unscholarly. Anyway one doesn't know if Brigham ordered MMM and there is no reliable evidence that he ordered the dismantling of the cairn. There is evidence that Brigham's declaration of martial law contributed to the hysteria and that, in the aftermath and to this day, LDS leaders have done all they could to distance Salt Lake City from the decisions made in Cedar City during the 1st week of September, 1857. Gwen Gale 09:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Duke, I readily admitted my mistake - and try to when I make them. I am shocked however that no one else caught it in the 24 hours until I did - especially on such a critical point. It just furthers my point that most of the editors in this conflict have no idea about the topic. Gwen Gale does, and I respect her viewpoints.

Now, I'm not saying that we need to rely on the confession as the only source, however, I am saying that you should not edit this article for content without having read some source documents. The same way one shouldn't edit United States Constitution for content without having read it. I do strongly suggest that there be at least a few documents that help one understand the MMM, and that is one. I'd include Major Carleton's account in that as well, and Mark Twain's review of public perception of the time. My guess is that 80 percent of the editors of this article haven't read a chapter of Brooks work, let alone the above mentioned primary documents. I know of no-one who has had more access to the church's source material than brooks, until the current book committee. how can you not read and claim you have an opinion? You shouldn't have an opinion on something you know nothing about. Granted, Gwen Gale, who I do respect, has studied the issue. Duke53 and Tinosa, on the other hand, have little if any real academic knowledge of any of the research, and you have demonstrated that again and again. -Visorstuff 16:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? first off "edit the constitution" wtf dude? Nobody edits the constitution. Its amended maybe, but generally people tend to take it sort of as is. Second Duke is not saying sources shouldn't be read or used. He said you shouldn't cherry-pick them. Also accusing him of little knowledge is pretty 'un-wiki' of you, as you constantly remind us you are an admin. Third generally when admitting a mistake the best policy is to do so then shut up about it for a while. Sqrjn 19:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Erm, he was clearly talking about editing the Wikipedia article United States Constitution, not the historical document itself. Now, you were talking about admitting mistakes...? Gwen Gale 20:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sqrjn, your post proves my point. -Visorstuff 21:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I've discussed my admin status in only one post on the current page - after you suggested I edit the article in its current state. In archived discussions, Duke53 and Storm Rider each have brought up my status once each. When have I "constantly" reminded you of this? And why not be proactive and admit you've made a mistake when you know you have? Then you can move forward. That's the beauty of collaborative editing and the genius of Wikipedia. Why wait for others to point them out and beat you up over them? I'm not ashamed of making mistakes - everyone does, its part of life for most of us (however, my wife is pretty darn close to perfect, she is truly amazing). -Visorstuff 23:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong and misunderstood your post, my other points remain valid. Also you seem to have misunderstood me as well, I never suggested you edit the article. In fact I suggest you stop doing so, I generally dont like your edits. I'm picturing your wife, she's something alright. Sqrjn 03:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Visorstuff,What is wrong with you? Arguing about the facts is stupid. If you have contradictory material, cite it and put it in.....You will make a better article by including the data you're refering to rather than trying to keep stuff you dont agree with out. Sqrjn 20:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be where you suggested he edit the article (the emphasis and ellipsis are mine). Since the article was protected at the time, he would have had to use his admin powers to do so, hence his reaction. alanyst ^/talk/ 04:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sqrjn, can you point to an edit in the article of mine that you disagree with (aside from a wholesale revert)? also, I'm trying to figure out another way to interpret, "you have contradictory material, cite it and put it in," but now realize that was probably not your intent. As I've said elsewhere, even though I don't always agree with your conclusions, I think you are a fine editor and contribute a lot (and generally bring balance to articles such as this, which we are grateful for), but you tend to get egged on by the negative actions of others (groupthink) to say immature things like your latest post on this page above, and seem to sell yourself short by thinking this group attacks you and by using sarcasm. Its unfortunate that you hold animosity for me - I hold none for you - my issues are with the actions and POV pushing of others as stated above. Please don't think I lump you in with others in this discussion - I definitly don't. Don't sell yourself short and include yourself in the same group of folks who don't really read research, as you do. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 14:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I support those statements. Sqrjn has been a respectively long term editor on this article and has demonstrated in the past an ability to work with other editors. He brings a needed balance to the article and does so properly referenced sources. He does, I think admittedly, fall within a group of thinkers that is highly critical, but not within the intolerant.

We are alike in that we both appreciate sarcasm. It is an unfortuate shortcoming in both of our styles; at times it does not help the tone of the conversation whereas at other times it both lightens the conversation and makes a needed point. I hope the animosity is simply a poor judgement and upon reflection he drops those types of comments; Sqrjn, if you think they are necessary just put them on Visor's talk page. Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that sarcasm, without tone of voice and facial expression, never mind rapport, wontedly comes off like patronizing belligerence and sophomoric baiting, like when Sqrjn blanked my draft with a sarcastic para about homo sapiens at MM or whatever. I didn't think that was helpful. Truth be told I don't think my take on MMM is that far from Sqrjn's so I'm doubly thwarted to grok what it is he wants. Gwen Gale 17:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee. Some participants name's have been left off; Visor's was the first I noticed and shouldd be added; please do so. The request can be reviewed here. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Rumour, anecdote, hearsay and so on

I think it's ok to include references to the more widely known of these so long as they're clearly cited as being described by secondary sources as what they are... rumour, anecdote, hearsay and so on. The helpful thing about doing this is that lots of folks think some of this stuff is "fact" and the article could help clarify that. Gwen Gale 21:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If it weren't for Rumor, Anecdote, Hearsay, Legend, and so on, the Mountain Meadows massacre would not exist as an Article.

"Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable". First let's eliminate the people at Lee's trial: Klingensmith. Samuel Knight. Samuel McMurdy. Nephi Johnson. Mr. Lee.

Mr. Haslam makes a fast ride to SLC with a letter to ask permission of Mr. Young to (1) murder the Americans of train or (2) save the Americans? Unfortunately there is no record that the letter ever existed (the darn letter disappeared). Must have been a rumor.

Next,let's not forget the abducted children. They surely had some interesting comments concerning the death of their parents & there treatment while living among the insurgents. Rumors all.

"Vengeance is mine & I've taken a little". Never happened. B.Y. was in Parowan, not Mountain meadows on that date.(see BYU above) So we can eliminate the Diary of Wilford Woodruff, and also The "Journal History of the Church"(Woodruff). Mike Quinn, A mormon historian who published Lee's journals, was kicked out of the mormon church. Rumors?

Of course, there is the family legend of Dudley Leavitt (the vandalism of the Carin monument) that was verified by his three sons. Since it is common knowledge that this never happened we can eliminate the following historians. (1) "The Mormon Prophet and His Harem". C.W. Waite. Published 1866 (p. 453). (2) "Rocky Mountain Saints". Thomas B.H. Stenhouse. Published 1873. (p.71). (3) "A Comprehensive History of the Church". Vol.IV. With the exception of the apostate Quinn, all of the above people either were "notoriously unreliable eyewitness" or received their information from "notoriously unreliable eyewitness". Historian's business is rumor.

Historians: Bagley. Benton. Brooks. Gibbs. Which historian was eligible to receive the most "notoriously unreliable eyewitness" accounts" from rumors? It turns out Bagley and Benton were to young. Brooks may have received unreliable information from her three uncles and Nephi Johnson. Gibbs, Since he was from that era, he is the guilty one. He may have walked and talked with the participants of the Massacre and listened to rumors.

The US Government Investigation? Judge Cradlebaugh, US District Court. Supt. of Indian Affairs Forney. Federal Marshall WM. H. Rogers. Frontiersman (Capt) Lynch. Capt. Cambell. Maj. Carlton. Maj. Prince. Surgeon Charles Brewer. ETC. The US Army has this no nonsense, tell it as you see it deal. They deal in FACTS. Not much sympathy for the mormon "patriots"'. Since these fellows arrived 18 months after the liberation of the seventeen children, their only knowledge of the event was derived from rumors.

You might want to look that word up in a dictionary, for starters. Gwen Gale 08:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

To prevent controversy and save band width I suggest the following from Britannica. Of course the charged word "slaughter" would be replaced with "BLESSED' and the word "Mormon" would be replaced with "Patriot".

(September 1857), in U.S. history, slaughter of a band of Arkansas emigrants passing through Utah on their way to California. Angered by the U.S. government's decision to send troops into the Utah territory, Mormons there were further incensed in 1857 when a band of emigrants set up camp 40 miles (64 km) from Cedar City. On September 7 or 8, the travelers were attacked by a party of Paiute Indians and some Mormon settlers led by John Doyle Lee. The attackers, promising safe conduct, persuaded the emigrants to lay down their arms. Then, as the band of 137 proceeded southward toward Cedar City, they were ambushed, and all except the young children were massacred. Details of the atrocity leaked out, but Lee's trial in Beaver in 1875 resulted in a hung jury. Retried the following year, he was convicted of first degree murder and on March 23, 1877, was shot at the site of the massacre.Tinosa 04:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Tinosa, you're clearly knowledgeable on this subject. You've mentioned some sources (Waite, Stenhouse) that I wasn't aware of. I'm willing to be persuaded if the evidence shows that I was wrong. But I'll suggest that this discussion will be more productive if it can be presented without the use of sarcasm. BRMo 07:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It was northeast by the bye, not south. Gwen Gale 08:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Number of those killed; kidnapping revisited and unprotection

Couple of items - I've just dusted off my research notes on this topic. The opening says about 120 people were killed. The plaque at the site said 123 for many years, and even brooks said about 120 were killed, until the paperback version of the second edition was printed. She cites the history of those in the fancher party who stayed in SLC, went the northern trail, stayed in Wyoming, in Manti, and other locations. She revises her number to 54 or 57 deaths and 17 children. See preface of her book.

I've looked at every souce on the kidnapping angle I could over my long weekend, and for those sources that use the work "taken" or "captured" cite the mountain meadows massacre as a battle in the Utah War. Capturing people, children or not, during war, is not kidnapping, but rather part of war. To move past the wordage, I recommend we use the word capture (as it is in primary sources) but place the context of the event as part of the Utah War (as it was).

Brooks and a few other of my sources are also quite convinced of which paiute warriors were involved and did some killing, but did so as part of Mormon encouragement. Brigham Young stated that the Paiutes wnated to kill all americans who were not Mormon, and that he tried to restrain them (due to indian policy of the US; which interestingly enough coincided with similar policies on the Mormons; including official non-recognition of the church), but that the time woudl come that indians would no longer be restrained by their mormon friends. I think we have some good quotes to push into the article on this.

Now, as the mediation was rejected as all parties refused to agree within the window, can agree that the page needs unprotecting and let's get back to work - citing every source, and using only terminology that is sourceable. Anyone want to ask User:Tariqabjotu for unprotection? -Visorstuff 22:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree unprotection is needed. I do think, however that the structure is hard to follow. We should basically summarize, then describe what happened chronologically - that way the events would be in a neutral historical context. Then there would be less arguing about what they mean (which is OR) and more about what happened according to sources (encyclopedic writing). Then we could summarize the leading reports (again to outside sources) in a section on impact or something. --Trödel 22:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're ready. I recall reading comments above saying "I WANT the word Kidnapping in the article". To me that says we have some determined people who are intent on making this THEIR take on MMM, not a common ground approach. Unless those people announce they are now willing to stick to common ground, I believe we'll be right back to the current status. I would prefer to attempt the mediation once again. I did not respond to the mediation because I wasn't on the invite list (which is fine) but if you want me to join a new request I will. Davemeistermoab 04:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Until those involved in the dispute agree to a structure (i.e. only use reputable sources), I think all that will be achieved is a return to Protection. I see no reason to have any article that is just an opportunity for grandstanding for a particular POV by participants. We need more input from all sides in the dispute before requesting to unprotect the article. Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let's see what Duke53 says and then we'll either begin mediation request again, or we'll move forward. Hopefully we can at least agree on next steps. -Visorstuff 14:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you sign the arbitration Visorstuff, just curious? Dave from moab utah I'm assuming one more mormon for the pro-lds crew, the common ground is not your ground. You accuse people of intending to make it "THEIR" article when you are doing the exact same thing. Common ground means consensus and compromise. So far in this long and pointless discussion I have seen few attempts at compromise. All I hear is OR, NPOV repeated over and over regardless of reason. One compromise that has been floated by me is to use 'abducted'. Captured is also interesting although I think we need a debate about viewing children as POWs of an undeclared war. Taken is weasely and an attempt to minimize a criminal act. I do agree that there is no reason to remove protection without consensus. I have not been convinced or swayed and see no reason not to continue removing bias. I will tell you that the way some editors act polarizes me. I am willing to be more extreme to counter-balance their blantant mormon pandering. The struggle seems to work somehow as long as the sides are balanced, you should look at the article from a year ago and as it is locked now. Sqrjn 20:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm gald that you are willing to compromise; however, before you claim that no one here is willing to compromise - I draw your attention to Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre/draft - which User:Gwen Gale started. And your rejection of her compromise language:

• deleting everything and replacing with the a version of the disputed text]
• deleting everything again and replacing with a version of the disputed text]
• replacing neutral proposed wording with language that could be seen a violation of WP:POINT
• making sure not only mass killing but murder are both used

I am not sure why you would want OR or non-neutral terminology in the article. That is all that I have asked for - and there is no need to compromise our basic values - they are not negotiable. There is room for concensus - and although I didn't like all of Gwen's wording at Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre/draft, it was neutrally presented. --Trödel 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sqrjn, per your question to me, I didn't sign to partipate in any possible arbitration as I was not notified or invited to participate in any arbitration (and frankly am unaware of any such attempt). However, I was notified and signed to participate in the mediation [19] (I was the fifth to sign), but was unaware of any request for arbitration. Can you point me to the request for arbitration? No worries either way, just curious on what discussion points took place in the request. Hope this answers your question.

Back to the use of the word kidnap, I do think we are making progress - especially with your interest in the use of the word capture. I don't want to minimize that this was a massacre, but I also want to use generally accpeted words, and that is not one. I think we can draw parallells to Korea, Vietnam and both Iraq conflicts (and even the US civil war). They were not wars (aside from civil war). However, in the first three, the USA took prisoners of war, and in the last Iraq one, we arrested people. In, "Buchanan's Blunder The Utah War, 1857-1858." Military Affairs (Lexington, VA) 25, 3 (1961) by Richard D Poll and Ralph W. Hansen, they do say that by President Buchanan sending troops to sqelch the "rebellion" in utah, and not notifying the current governor (young) of why he was sending troops which told everyone on the oregon trail that they were going to Utah to "put down the mormons" that govenor young was within his right as territorial head to declare martial law. In effect by so doing, Utah territory and the US were both marshalled against each other in an armed conflict. With the militia being rallied and martial law declared (placing the military in charge), the military unit was then the one responsible for keeping order. Not only was this massacre a result, but so were the sytematic burning of orchards, fields and even the capture of one of my ancestors from Johnston's army. If we could apply today's terminology (but it is not applicable), I could see more of a debate on whether or not this was a war crime (see War_crime#Definition). However, this was pre-geneva convention and the point is moot. I think captured or taken are historical terms used to describe the event by both sides. I agree that taken is a weasley word. "Abducted" implies hostage taking in its basic connotation (even the definition:s eized and detained unlawfully, often for ransom). When you look at those abducted during vietnam, and the gulf wars, they usually request something in return - look at the public beheading of folks in iraq - they were "abducted" and wouldn't be returned unless the USA withdrew their troops. I'd like a cleaner word that abducted, but can be swayed. I do think given the context of the utah war, capture implies that the fancher party were taken against their will, although I'm not sure the children would have chosen freedom after their parent were killed - not to seem insenstive to the atrociety that took place.

Sqrjn, there is no doubt that you have probably single-handedly improved the article from where it was a year ago. You've done more, and while you and I have disagreed on certain edits over the year, I've by and far agreed with most per the revisions prior to this current conflict. We thank you for the balance and content. I think we are close to making a break through on the current dispute with your level headedness and Gwen Gale's neutrality. Let us know more details about what you think about the use of the work capture.

All - I also think that we need Duke53's agreement on this, however, based on his previous determinedness, not sure it will come. Duke53, what do you think of the proposal? -Visorstuff 21:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Number of those killed:

"History of Utah, 1540 - 1886" by Hubert Howe Bancroft San Francisco, The History Company, 1889

Chapter XX. The Mountain Meadows Massacre 1857. page 544

2 U.S. Attorney Wilson, in his report in Sen. Doc., 36th Cong. 1st Sess., ii. no. 42, p. 102, states that 119 were killed, and it is certain that 17 children were rescued. Forney and Burton say that 115 to 120 were massacred; Waite, The Mormon Prophet, 66, that the party consisted of 150 men and women, besides a number of children. Stenhouse, Tell It All, 324, mentions 120 to 130. Other reports vary from 120 to 150.

"Mormon Prophet and His Harem" (published 1866)

Mrs C.V Waite pp 75&76 "The train consisted of 40 wagons, 800 head of cattle, and about 60 horses and mules. As near as can be ascertained, there were about 150 men and women, besides many children." Tinosa 22:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Tinosa, you are correct in saying that is how many were in the train, however, there were a large contingent of those who didn't stay with the southern route of the fancher party - a fact that was discovered by Brooks accidentally, and susequently revised in most histories. According to Brooks, there were only a few of these others (54-57). There is nothing to prove more than this died (and only 29 differnt remains have been found). As we can't edit the current page as it is, and as I mentioned before, I'll add in the sources and details later. See Mountain Meadows massacre/Fancher party names and cross reference to the names at [20] and [21]. Using newer research is more helpful in this case than sources pre-1900. i think the discussion is very much about the use of the word capture right now, and what you and Duke53 have to say about it. -Visorstuff 23:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sqrjn,

Trivial I know but you have made an accusation and I MUST defend my honor =-)

For the record, I have only made 4 edits to this article -1 rv vandalism (someone deleted the vengance oath without explanation -2 Corrected an edit that said the Francher Party was following the old spanish trail (They were not, just look at a map of the Francher party journey and then look at a map of the Old Spanish Trail, not even close.) -3 Combined 3 scattered mentions of 1 surviving child possibly raised as a mormon to a single paragraph (however the only content change in doing so was to to delete a claim that DNA evidence proved that this child did not exist, which is just absurd. In order for that to be true a decendent from every person raised in southern Utah at the time of the massacre would have to be DNA tested for a DNA match with Francher part genes) -4 moved mention of "some members of the Francher train claimed to be members of the missouri Wildcats" to disputed facts Every one of those changes is a responsible edit. None of my edits were pro mormon or anti mormon. I have NOT tried to make this article MY article.

Also for the record, Moab Utah is only about 25% LDS and is one of the few places in Utah were Mormons are outnumbered. A quick check of any stastics from Grand County (from demographics to presidential voting trends) will show that Moab is not the typical Utah small town. It is not safe to assume my religious inclinations just because I'm from Moab, Utah. Davemeistermoab 04:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Since Brooks last wrote on the subject, there has been additional research on the number and identities of the victims, and this research has tended to move the number back up. The Mountain Meadows Association compiled a list that identifies 82 known victims of the massacre; their names were listed on the 1990 memorial at the site. A number of other partial or incomplete names were also identified. We will never know exactly how many persons were killed at Mountain Meadows, but the number was probably between 100 and 140, and if we need to cite a single number, 120 isn't a bad estimate. BRMo 05:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the 120 number, but agree that it is citable (I can't come up with that many names). My own research is pretty close to being able to find evidence of about 80, but not nearly 100 (though there could be, and I'm open to it). As they didn't keep good journals and there was evidence of a sickness that delayed the party, they could have lost dozens due to disease and desertment before they ever reached southern utah. See my partial compilation of names at the link above. Unfortunately, any life lost is too many. My problem is that Tinosa keeps citing and using accounts from the 1800's to demonstrate how many died, when there is much more accurate data availalbe since 1950. I think we should say that it is generally accepted that more than 100 people have died in the massacre, and then link to a list of names - that way we show respect/honor those who were killed and allow the fancher party descendants to clarify and add to the names with research not all of us have access to? thoughts? -Visorstuff 19:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Holy Plated Plates!! Talk about original research. Visorstuff your research sounds 'interesting' maybe you should write a book. My suggestion is we cite the contemporary sources, if you want you could even list the 80 names you've found with sources. Why is 100 people generally more accepted than 120? We arn't bargaining for a used car here. Sqrjn 00:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

you are correct, Sqrjn, it is original research if I put my own findings and professional research in the article (which I have not), however, adding in details about what happened to each party members, citing sources, and listing each individually, is not - as it can be cited. This is why I carefully labeled the sub page as reference during the current dispute only. I don't care which number is used, I only think we should try to get as close to the real number, and be as specific and detailed as possible. It would improve the article - and it was only a suggestion - I'm not set in stone, especially how dynamic wikipedia is. -Visorstuff 14:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Proceeding Straw Poll

"Should we proceed with straw polls on disputed issues?"

Remember to sumbit your requests to be asked to Wikizach

• VOTE WILL CLOSE ON MONDAY AT NOON EST
• A Staw poll on disputed issues will start as soon as the first poll closes

Support

1. Support --Visorstuff 00:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Support --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support --Trödel 22:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC) (any informal/formal mediation of the issue here is good)
4. Support--straw poll--Tinosa 00:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Support --BRMo 03:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Support --Davemeistermoab 20:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC). However under some protest, I was sincerly hoping for an answer to my question below voting.

Oppose

I will not count users who didn't contribute to the article dispute, Wikizach

1. Oppose --Marschv 06:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI - This editor has 8 edits as of 07:43, 14 December 2006 including this and has not been involved in the current mediation attempts led by WikiZach -Visorstuff 14:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose--Foosem 06:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI - This editor has 7 edits as of 06:50, 14 December 2006 and has not been involved in the current mediation attempts let by WikiZach -Visorstuff 14:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

1. To determine whether or not I should vote yes or no on this straw poll as to whether we should conduct straw polls, I am conducting the following straw poll:

Straw poll: Should COGDEN vote "Support" in favor of the straw poll asking whether or not there should be straw polls? COGDEN 22:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Question: Before I say support or oppose, What is the expected purpose of the straw poll? I think we know where all of us stand on this issue, so I'm confused as to what this will accomplish. Davemeistermoab 03:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Abstain

Gwen Gale 02:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Abstain

Sqrjn 05:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC) I don't know why you have to have a vote about a vote anyway. Frankly I Really dont have an opinion, I dont know if it will helpful or not. Although I will repeat my request that peoples religious affliation be included in the poll.

Factual accuracy disputed?

What factual accuracy about the article is disputed?--Azer Red Si? 18:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the children orphaned were kidnapped by the murderers. Some here think that it was more of a compassionate act by the murderers than a kidnapping. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We should keep in mind that what we think it was or whatever has no sway, language based on cited secondary sources is what goes in the article, including citations of published discussions and disputes, if any. Gwen Gale 04:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So the entire article will be a collection of quotes (properly cited, of course) ? Duke53 | ^Talk 04:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Gwen Gale, Are you back in this discussion and decision now ?

The saga continues. How will the article describe the transportation of the children from point A (the killing field where their parents lay murdered) to point B (the ranch house located several miles away where they were bartered and sold to Mormon insurgents)? Tinosa 04:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Actual, the dispute is mostly in regard to the use of the word kidnap which is not used in any historical documents. I've missed where someone said it was an act of compassion.

Duke53, are you ever going to respond on whether or not we should re-open mediation? Or should we just skip to arbitration? -Visorstuff 15:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Please explain how the families that showed compassion to the orphaned children were kidnappers!" (Check the archives. :)) Duke53 | ^Talk 15:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks - just saw the Storm Rider comment. Hadn't remembered it. -Visorstuff 15:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it Monday already, boss? "VOTE WILL CLOSE ON MONDAY AT 6PM EST" Duke53 | ^Talk 15:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And you haven't voted on the straw poll either. The process would move faster if people would vote sooner. We wouldn't have to wait until Monday. It seems like you want this page out of commission as long as possible. And just because a straw vote is being held, doesn't mean you can't say if it fails you'd like to go back to mediation. -Visorstuff 15:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, yeah, they were kidnapped. Personally I agree with that take but for the term to make it into the article it must be supported by usage in a reliable, published secondary source. Cite the source, and the term can be used and no, I'm not saying the article should be a string of quotes. To be encyclopedic it would be a succinct and crisp, linear narrative fully supported by reliable secondary sources (cited and footnoted) with minimal quotes. Gwen Gale 02:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Gwen on how an article should be written, i.e. "succinct and crisp, linear narrative fully supported by reliable secondary sources (cited and footnoted) with minimal quotes." - Thanks for summarizing the goal so well!! --Trödel 14:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As an aside to the mediation note above, Duke53 you still haven't answered the request to move forward or not to the mediation or even answered the straw poll within your own stated deadline. Since we all seem to be waiting on you, could you let us know which way you'd like to move forward? Mediation? Straw polls? Something else? Anything else? Now is your chance to chime in, or don't be dissapointed if we move on without you. -Visorstuff 23:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I see a spot to sign up for 'proceeding straw poll' but none for mediation. Where is that? Duke53 | ^Talk 00:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Right here is fine. Aside from requests under this heading, I've asked if you wanted to go back to mediation [22], [23], [24]), [25], [26], [27],

Just let us know here if you are unwilling to compromise and that's how you want to proceed. Just need your opinion. -Visorstuff 00:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no official notice like this one we got before; that's what I've been waiting for. All this idle chitchat has gotten us exactly nowhere. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Everyone got official notice from the Chair of the mediation committe on the original request for mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mountain Meadows massacre (since deleted per mediation policy). Essjay said, "If there is still desire to do this, one of the parties will need to notify everyone that it has been reactivated; if nobody is willing to do so, I'm inclined to leave it rejected." Since you responded to Essjay's note about an hour later, I figured that you read the notice and knew what to do. However, I have not seen any post by you either there or here that said - "I want to reactivate the mediation."

Personally, I favor compromise and concensus building over mediation and dispute resolution, so I chose not to reactivate it, but I am willing to participate if there is no other way. I had hoped that during the time the article has been protected others felt the same way - that we could figure a way to resolve the concerns. However, if you are unwilling to make any compromise, then I guess you should reactivate the request. --Trödel 19:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to cite your sources? I mean, I'm not trying to be smart with you or anything but if you want certain vocabulary items in the narrative and can support them with citations of reliable secondary sources that's ducky by me. For example, as much as I may personally agree that those wretched kids were kidnapped by a bunch of socially isolated and more or less brainwashed, half starved, plural marriage wankers, then foisted off on their wives for a few years... oh, you know what I mean. Meanwhile this would be a wonderful time to produce a couple of reliable sources which use the term "kidnap" since that word will never make it into the article without them. Meanwhile, when the time comes, I'll be tryin' to include the rape rumours, as documented rumours mentioned in encyclopedic language, into the article. Gwen Gale 02:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You are just as able to file such a request as the rest of us. I must point out that the rest of the group seems to be willing to move forward without mediation (or are at least participating in the discussion about how to move forward), and were waiting your opinion on whther or not to move on with or without it, as you do not seem to want to make any compromises. That said, I'm going to assume that you wish mediation to be re-opened and will re-file a request as soon as I can get one drafted tomorrow (or if someone beats me to it). Please sign up quickly so we can move forward with the article. -Visorstuff 01:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Category

Please move this articlke to the sub category [[ | Category:Massacres in the United States of America ]] from the current [[ | Category:Massacres ]]RaveenS 21:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As this is an administrative action, we should make the change (and it fits within the guidelines of editing a protected page). However, in accordance with Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Editing_protected_pages, need at least another comment from those involved in the dispute. As an admin, I can make the change if there are no objections within the next day. -Visorstuff 23:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If you need another comment to do it right away, here is a comment to go forward with the change. Val42 23:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Per the "discuss" clause in the policy, I'll wait until tomorrow. It may or may not be more or less than 24 hours, but 18 hours in this case on such a heavily-watched page is likely sufficient for this type of administrative change. -Visorstuff 23:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10