Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 3

message: The introduction mentions that "some" Paiutes were involved in this massacre; however, there is no supporting evidence or cites that support this. (The traditional story is that the attackers were white settlers disguised to look like Indians.) Does anyone have material to support this claim? If not, then it should be removed. -- llywrch 17:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, see the court records of the trial of John D. Lee as well as Juanita Brooks work on this. Both point to the Mormon militia paying piutes or playing on the hate between the piautes and other white groups to assist in the massacre. -Visorstuff 18:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: On the contrary, I think it is not a black eye for the paiutes at all - but shows how the euro-americans manipulated them. Paiutes were not found to be responsible in any of the hearings, the guns were fired by the Mormon militia (as mormons didn't love to supply the natives with guns), not the paiutes, but they were definitely there and helped detain the fancher party. Remember that this event came on the heels of the walker war - and mormons were friendly, but still skeptical of the native groups in the area. -Visorstuff 23:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paiute involvement? 

message: I came here looking for a citation for some information Duke53 requested about Pauite involvement. All I found was: 
"Whether Mormons or Paiutes initially attacked the party on Monday is debated."
followed  by a footnote with:
Some feel Paiute Indians initiated the attack (perhaps with Mormon encouragement).  Others believe that Indians were never involved, and that, from the beginning, the attackers were Mormons disguised as Indians. (Oral tradition among Paiute tribe holds that all its members refused the Mormons' request to participate.  Other accounts, including Maj. Carleton's 1859 report presented before Congress and Lee's 1877 Confessions, assert Paiute involvement).  Brevet Maj. Carleton of the US Cavalry made a report in 1859 that was submitted in the Congressional record in 1902, detailing his investigation; he noted the different accounts of the attack, including those holding the Indians solely responsible. His own conclusions were  accounts that blamed only the Indians were extorted lies. While noting uncertainties, his conclusion held the Mormons and Brigham Young primarily responsible and advocated immediate action against them. He also showed a dislike of Mormons in general, stating the following:
"The expenses of the army in Utah, past and to come (figure that), the massacre at the Mountain Meadows, the unnumbered other crimes, which have been and will yet be committed by this community, are but preliminary gusts of the whirlwind our Government has reaped and is yet to reap for the wind it had sowed in permitting the Mormons ever to gain foothold within our borders."— Maj. Carleton's report May 1859. 
I don't see why this has to be buried in a footnote, perhaps we can expand this info to a full paragraph and add it to the disputed facts section? Currently the footnote is weasel-worded and doesn't state who is actually arguing, so sources will need to be provided. --Lethargy 21:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: "On 1961 April 20, the LDS Church posthumously reinstated Lee's membership"
:This seems like a rather significant event, which might deserve more than a sentence, but before that happens, what has the source (Bagley, p. 361) actually written about this? The original version had a different date, so perhaps there is more than one source for this information as well. --Lethargy 20:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it was a baptism/endowment for the dead, rather than just saying "he's a member again", which I thought it meant. It was approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, so it wasn't one of those names (e.g. Adolf Hitler) that have been submitted that shouldn't have been (see Baptism for the dead). The current wording might be incorrect, since all the quote says is that it was approved on April 20, but it wasn't necessarily done that day. --Lethargy 19:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Utah Education Network says this: "1961: Lee reinstated as a church member. This was largely because of Juanita Brooks. Lee’s family had been pushing to have him reinstated for many years". I don't know much about UEN but this how they are described: Utah Education Network in partnership with the Utah State Office of Education and the Utah System of Higher Education. This is from a lesson plan that they have online. Duke53 | Talk 01:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... that doesn't really have much that we can use to expand it. Perhaps the current source (Bagley, p. 361) has more, but I don't have a copy on hand to check it out. --Lethargy 02:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it really wouldn't be much in the way of 'expanding' it, since his reinstatement is not mentioned there any longer. Is the UEN considered a good source? Some folks may believe that his being reinstated has some significance in this article, since his excommunication is mentioned prominently. Duke53 | Talk 02:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably a fine source, but what is (or was) there is probably more reliable. Both would be fine IMO. --Lethargy 02:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I feel that whoever deleted it should then revert their deletion. I did not delete it, so I won't be reverting it. p.s. aside: If I lived in Utah I would hope that this group that is creating lesson plans with the State Office of Education would be a little better than "probably a fine source". Duke53 | Talk 02:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could add insults about the State Office of Education, but I won't. :-) It was deleted by Tinosa  with an edit summary of: "Lee's involvement with the Mountain Meadows Massacre ended 3/28/1877, the day of his execution. His religous affiliations in 1961. ???" --Lethargy 02:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote request 

message: I think it is worth noting (in the article) that Young had his followers tear down the first cairn that was erected as a monument to the slaughtered victims. Duke53 | Talk 21:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brooks gives the source of this story as "a legend in the writer's own family" (her grandfather, Dudley Leavitt, as retold by three of his sons).  She writes, "Brother Brigham read to himself and studied it [the inscription] 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 wasn't one stone left upon another. He didn't have to tell us what he wanted done.  We understood."  On the other hand, in the following paragraph Brooks presents contradictory evidence from "later travelers who refer to it as standing."  She quotes Lorenzo Brown, went past the monument in May 1864 (3 years after Young's visit) and provided a detailed description of the cairn, cross, and inscription. I don't think a story described by its source as a family legend meets the WP:V criterion, so I've deleted the story. BRMo 04:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West 1847-1896. Bigler states the same; is he not a credible author? Apparently those men kept journals; are journals not considered credible sources? Duke53 | Talk 04:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did Bigler cite a source?  Since he's quoting Dudley Leavitt (Brooks's grandfather and the same person that she cites as the source of her "family legend"), I suspect Bigley's source is Brooks.  If Leavitt had recorded this event in a journal, letter, deposition, or other contemporary document, surely Brooks would have cited it, rather than describing it as a family legend. BRMo 05:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: According to Mormon Apostle Wilford Woodruff's diary, Mormon President Brigham Young visited the site of the Mountain Massacre: "May 25 (1861)... The pile of stone was about twelve feet high but beginning to tumble down. A wooden cross is placed on top with the following words, Vengeance is mine and I will repay saith the Lord... Pres. Young said it should be Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little." This was taken from his journal; are we to believe it? . Duke53 | Talk 04:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Woodruff's diary is a contemporary source, and I didn't see any reason to question it.  In fact, I believe it was my edit that added the information that Woodruff's diary was the source cited by Brooks.  There's a lot of legend and folklore about the massacre (on both sides).  The better historians have tried to focus on contemporary information, such as diaries and letters.  I do not think the article is improved by including folklore that is contradicted by contemporary sources. BRMo 05:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedits to monuments

message: Are we now allowed to edit out quotes because we think it promotes a POV? That is what is happening: "13:13, November 8, 2006 Trödel (Talk | contribs) (remove non-neutral adjectives -)". This is a factual document; if this continues then we can probably expect edits to other journals and diaries that are quoted here and in other articles. Duke53 | Talk 20:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please! I am not sure if you are trying to bait me or what - That is exactly what happens in other articles all the time - it is called Editorial Judgement. When writing an encyclopedia you try to keep things concise - you use quotes from sources and paraphrase them or make other editorial decisions using proper markup: "[not included in original quote] ... and then we skipped stuff." --Trödel 04:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do not accuse me of anything; it's really odd how the quotes are edited. Don't flatter yourself; what gives you the idea that your thoughts and words are important enough to me that I would bait you? Your 'editorial judgment' might not be somebody else's idea of editorial judgment.  If I make wholesale edits to the Mormon apostle's journal don't you think there would be some quick reversions? Play fair ... there is no real easy way to make a bunch of murderous kidnappers sound decent, but some editors here keep trying to do just that. Duke53 | Talk 04:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: In an article about a conteniuous issue - using extensive quotes from one POV is giving undue weight to that pov. --Trödel 12:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing journals

message: BRMo, this will continue until it is resolved by an external faction. There has been no consensus on this matter. You should not have removed the part about the children who were slaughtered during the attack; according to WP policy you don't delete, you ask for a source. You seem to want to quote the 'rules' so you sould have known this one. Duke53 | Talk 02:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what incident you are referring to, but you are completely wrong about the policy:
The policy:
# Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
# Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
# The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
In other words, he can remove unverified stuff if he wants. Of course, it is probably more polite to just request a source, but it is not necessary. --Lethargy 20:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting the mention of kidnapping

message: The last two paragraphs, as well as the mention of the 1859 rock cairn in the Siege on September 7–11 1857 section seem out of place. This section should describe what happened on those days, not what happened years later. I'm not sure if this can be merged elsewhere or if it belongs in its own section. Suggestions? --Lethargy 22:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like most of the article, it's been fragmented by the edit warring. All it needs is a rewrite. Gwen Gale 21:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siege section 

message: Yet another problem with this article. What did maj. carlton actually say. The article first quotes him as saying:
 "Here lie the bones of one hundred and twenty men, women and children, from Arkansas, murdered on the 10th [sic] day of September, 1857."
Yet with the recent edits at the bottom of the article it is stated:
Here 120 men, women, and children were massacred in cold blood early in September, 1857. They were from Arkansas.
No explanation is given for the discrepency.
This article is getting worse by the minute...
::"At the base of the monument, facing north, an engraved granite slab was placed with the words".
::"Here 120 men, women, and children were massacred in cold blood early in September, 1857. They were from Arkansas".[35]
::That is the inscription from a monument; I don't believe anybody ever said that it was a quote from Carleton. Duke53 | Talk 06:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to a copy of the report this is what he said: "Here 120 men, women, and children were massacred in cold blood early in September, 1857. They were from Arkansas.". I don't know where the second one came from. Duke53 | Talk 07:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet more problems with this article.. What did Maj. Carleton actually say? 

message: By now we should realize that neither side is going to stop reverting over the 'kidnap' / 'no kidnap' issue; if the 'no kidnap' faction is so certain that they are correct, why haven't they asked for outside intervention in deciding this issue? I attempted twice to get outside help, but apparently did it incorrectly; nobody from outside came to help. I will continue to revert until this issue is resolved once and for all. Duke53 | Talk 17:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have requested that this page be protected. Hopefully some ouside intervention will be forthcoming.Duke53 | Talk 23:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I will go the mediation cabal and ask if someone would be interested in mediating the conflict on this page.  What will stop is the incessant fighting over the term "kidnapping" and other editorializing that you and Duke insist on.  If I am dissappointed with anyone, it would be you Sqrjn; you know better and have learned the benefits of compromise and working with other editors.  The fact that you pander to Duke, and his objectives, defeats the ability of anyone that has a conflicting position (i.e. those who seek to just state facts without spinning), to participate in a progressive manner.  The one objective that has been completely forgotten is to produce an informative, encyclopedic article.  Storm Rider (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside intervention

message: So what's up Centrx? Is this a temporary freeze? A brief cease fire before a resumption of hostilities? Have you opinions on the issues we've been discussing? Are we gonna try and resolve any of those? Sqrjn 02:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned above, I have made a request at the Mediation Cabal, what happens from here depends upon a mediator accepting the challange of working with current group of editors to this article and the issues involved.  Storm Rider (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, hey, hey, I just found out that Duke53 actually got the article protected.  What an CAPITAL idea.  Well done!  However, it was funny that he told Durova that I somehow was aware of his request and was being disingenuous for asking for a protect; what can I do when others think I am omniscient! Sorta wierd that he would think so highly of me.  I think I am actually flattered.  Duke you have made my day; grazie mille.  Storm Rider (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection on Article

message: :I have requested that this page be protected. Hopefully some outside intervention will be forthcoming.Duke53 | Talk 23:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I will go the mediation cabal and ask if someone would be interested in mediating the conflict on this page.  What will stop is the incessant fighting over the term "kidnapping" and other editorializing that you and Duke insist on.  If I am dissappointed with anyone, it would be you Sqrjn; you know better and have learned the benefits of compromise and working with other editors.  The fact that you pander to Duke, and his objectives, defeats the ability of anyone that has a conflicting position (i.e. those who seek to just state facts without spinning), to participate in a progressive manner.  The one objective that has been completely forgotten is to produce an informative, encyclopedic article.  Storm Rider (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As mentioned above, I have made a request at the Mediation Cabal, what happens from here depends upon a mediator accepting the challange of working with current group of editors to this article and the issues involved.  Storm Rider (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, hey, hey, I just found out that Duke53 actually got the article protected.  What an CAPITAL idea.  Well done!  However, it was funny that he told Durova that I somehow was aware of his request and was being disingenuous for asking for a protect; what can I do when others think I am omniscient! Sorta wierd that he would think so highly of me.  I think I am actually flattered.  Duke you have made my day; grazie mille.  Storm Rider (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yeah, okay

message: It is very difficult to assume good faith when somebody writes the following (WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement talk page):
::""Fish, I saw you removed your name from the LDS community group; that is unfortunate. It is true that article topics founded in relgion are quarrelsome; LDS/Mormon related articles are particularly so. However, to be successful you can not take things personally. I know that we have a gadflys [sic] (read obnoxious anti-Mormons with no objective in producing excellent articles, but only in grinding down their pathetic little axes), if I had my way editors of that ilk would be allowed to work with a coach for a period of time and then their case reviewed. If they continued in their POV editorializing, they would then be banned forever. They serve no purpose and produce nothing positive. It is one of the significant downfalls of producing a public encyclopedia; one must just accept it comes with the territory. Take a breather, reconsider your decision and then come back. I hope you will find the wisdom in doing so. Peace. Storm Rider (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, a personal attack would be talking about a specific person.  Was the singular or the plural used?  One could have assumed you just overlooked it, but you corrected my misspelling so you must have been aware. Also, have you and Fish had a conflict?  If so, on what article?  Who was I addressing?  How does that apply to this article?  You might want to understand the context of the comment rather than stretching everything to be about you.  ANOTHER WAKE UP CALL, the world is not about you, Duke53. Wikipedia is not about you and you are not a blip on my activity on Wikipedia.  I am curious how you seem to follow me around checking my edits...appears you are stalking me.  Stalking others will get you banned; this will serve as a warning.  Storm Rider (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: A few points to consider:
* "Sic is a Latin word meaning "thus", "so", or "just as that". In writing, it is italicized and placed within square brackets — [sic] — to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, or other preceding quoted material is a verbatim reproduction of the quoted original and is not a transcription error". I am not aware of any corrections I made to anybody's 'misspelling'. Copy / paste works just fine.
* Could someone explain what a 'watchlist' is for? It is not stalking. :) Wikipedia supplies this tool to us precisely for the tracking of items that are of interest to us.
* A personal attack occurred; I never said it was against me. Better use of the language would probably have pinpointed exactly which editor it was intended for. (my guess would be that it was meant for Dev920). Some editors have a record of using personal attacks against many people; if they don't want them where the entire WP community can always see (and cite) them, I would suggest using E-Mail or a telephone.
* It is certainly obvious how some editors feel about other editors who don't share the same beliefs on certain subjects: "read obnoxious anti-Mormons"; "they would then be banned forever", "They serve no purpose and produce nothing positive:, etc. This can't be ignored when NPOV enters into the discusssion; seems that those editors might be the ones with "an axe to grind". 
* I am getting awfully tired of being 'threatened' with bans; if anybody has the necessary items and info for getting me banned, I say go for it; it will get interesting. I will not be threatened or bullied or swarmed into abandoning any articles; get used to it, I will be here (and in others that are gaining my attention). 
* Unfortunately the time stamps on Wikipedia leave very clear evidence as to what times and dates posts are made; follow the dotted lines to see whether I was telling the truth. Duke53 | Talk 00:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, Duke53, you self identify as an "obnoxious anti-Mormon"?  Interesting self image.  WBardwin 01:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I don't; if you bothered reading the entire thread it is very clear that I was guessing that the editor being referred to was Dev920. Maybe you did read it but didn't understand; nice try. Duke53 | Talk 02:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To all other editors

message: : A few points to consider:
* "Sic is a Latin word meaning "thus", "so", or "just as that". In writing, it is italicized and placed within square brackets — [sic] — to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, or other preceding quoted material is a verbatim reproduction of the quoted original and is not a transcription error". I am not aware of any corrections I made to anybody's 'misspelling'. Copy / paste works just fine.
* Could someone explain what a 'watchlist' is for? It is not stalking. :) Wikipedia supplies this tool to us precisely for the tracking of items that are of interest to us.
* A personal attack occurred; I never said it was against me. Better use of the language would probably have pinpointed exactly which editor it was intended for. (my guess would be that it was meant for Dev920). Some editors have a record of using personal attacks against many people; if they don't want them where the entire WP community can always see (and cite) them, I would suggest using E-Mail or a telephone.
* It is certainly obvious how some editors feel about other editors who don't share the same beliefs on certain subjects: "read obnoxious anti-Mormons"; "they would then be banned forever", "They serve no purpose and produce nothing positive:, etc. This can't be ignored when NPOV enters into the discusssion; seems that those editors might be the ones with "an axe to grind". 
* I am getting awfully tired of being 'threatened' with bans; if anybody has the necessary items and info for getting me banned, I say go for it; it will get interesting. I will not be threatened or bullied or swarmed into abandoning any articles; get used to it, I will be here (and in others that are gaining my attention). 
* Unfortunately the time stamps on Wikipedia leave very clear evidence as to what times and dates posts are made; follow the dotted lines to see whether I was telling the truth. Duke53 | Talk 00:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, Duke53, you self identify as an "obnoxious anti-Mormon"?  Interesting self image.  WBardwin 01:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I don't; if you bothered reading the entire thread it is very clear that I was guessing that the editor being referred to was Dev920. Maybe you did read it but didn't understand; nice try. Duke53 | Talk 02:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Again, to <i>other</i> editors