# Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre

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

Mountain Meadows. – an article originally published in the Cincinnati Gazette (July 21, 1875), then republished in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat(July 26, 1875). An affidavit of James Lynch's testimony taken in July 1859 about the human remains Lynch saw at Mount Meadows in March and April 1858, about the living conditions of the child survivors of the Massacre during that time, and about the children's statements regarding the perpetrators of the Massacre. Lynch accompanied Dr. Jacob Forney, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, on an expedition to the area. The affidavit was given in front of Chief Justice of the Utah Territory Supreme Court Delana R. Eckels on July 27, 1859, and sent by US Army officer S.H. Montgomery to Commissioner of Indian Affairs A.B. Greenwood in August 1859.
Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

You're far from the first to argue this. There's been multiple rounds of debates about it, and the title of the page has gone back and forth between MMM and MMm over the years. I'd check the archives of the talk page history and the move history to see what arguments have been made. There's legit arguments to both sides and its to the point that I no longer have a position one way or the other. Dave (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Here were the arguments made the last time this was discussed [1] Dave (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks so much for pointing me in that direction and providing me the link. I was looking at other massacre articles and capitalization, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency. That's probably why this article also went back and forth. Best, Bahooka (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

There is one important point that most of the theories discussed don't really address, namely, why did the Mormons attack a party that was merely passing through and had had minimal interaction with them? It is understandable that the Mormons would have felt threatened by non-Mormons intending to settle near them, but the Baker-Fancher party was headed to California, far from the Mormon Zion,  and was nearly in Nevada when they were attacked, so it was clear that they did not intend to settle in Utah. Furthermore, they had not attacked or otherwise seriously offended the Mormons on their way through. So why attack this party?Bill (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)