Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 16

message: The article currently is about 60 kB of readable prose. I can't find any featured articles longer than about 50 kB (e.g., The Lord of the Rings, Punk rock, Alcibiades). So that means we need to trim at least 10 kB or so by putting material into one or more subarticles, leaving behind a summary style section. Any thoughts on what parts to include? I think the Commentary and Commemoration sections are the weakest parts of the article as it now stands, so maybe it would make sense to put those into a subarticle. That way, we won't have to do the work to get them into shape for FA status, as long as we have a good summary. My second choice would probably be the "Conspiracy and massacre" section, since this is the section with the most potential for expanding down the road. This section alone could easily fill at least one article, when fully developed. COGDEN 19:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to take so long to respond.  I think that the Commentary and Commemoration stuff is the weakest also.  But as before, I am not in love with much of the background stuff either. My one thought about the C&C area is that it sort of ends the article on something of a positive note, which helps mitigate the dreadfulness of everything before it.  And on all of the things in the introduction meant as "background explanation" I think there has been so much speculation on reasons and causes that it ought to be, at least, referred to.  But I think it should be closer to the end -- for the hard core reader who wants to know much more than average. --Blue Tie 22:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also support branching the Commentary and Commemoration material into a distinct article.  But one solid paragraph relating modern contact between survivors/family and LDS church should remain.  WBardwin 22:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subarticle(s) 

message: For several months, we have worked on this article in relative harmony. Yes, there have been disagreements, but the name calling and impertinent comments were held to a minimum. I strongly suggest we cool down the rhetoric here. A talk page is supposed to be a place to try out ideas and to hash out differences. Value judgments about people's statements on this page are provocative and not very helpful. You have a perfect right to think anything you like, but are requested by Wikipedia to remain civil and refrain from attacks.
Provocation may be given on this page by some editors, but those who are truly interested in editing this article do not have to respond. We have lots of work to do on this article. There is major editing needed throughout to work on tense, grammar, fact checking, and cohesiveness. Articles written by a group always need coordination to keep the "story" flowing smoothly. This to me is our task here. Pointless discussions about opinion get us no where. I actually believe this may be the intention of the provocateurs who have joined in the fray (again) recently.
This is a sensitive subject for an article. Over time, this article has expanded, and move to a fact-based and documented entry. It is not perfect, but recent changes have been held to a fairly high standard based on reliable and recognized (academically) sources. The editors involved have diligently checked multiple books, government documents, and online church records. Where possible, we have replaced polemic or apologetic sources with more balanced ones. I respect the work done to this point and would work again with many of these folks on other articles. Although we probably have different cultural, educational and religious backgrounds and biases, this has not interfered in the work we have done recently.
So:
* I intend to continue editing in a collaborative mode.
* I choose to ignore discussions that take us away from editing for substance.
* I want to contribute where I am strongest and will respect other's strengths and talents.
* I choose to continue asking for comments on the talk page and not engaging in edit wars over minutia.
* I will not be run off by personal attacks of a few troglodytes.
* I choose to set limits on my behavior when it comes to responding in kind to those who attack me personally or my writing.
Yes, it is all about me. Wikipedia articles are something I enjoy writing, editing, and reading. I believe in the collaborative nature of humankind. I am not in this to take abuse or become involved in combat. I can't control how others respond to me or situations, but I can choose how I respond. Wikipedia has methods of dealing with disruptive editors. It may be slow, but it can and does work. There are those watching this article who know some of the players and will call us on boorish or brutish behavior. So on with the editing, there is lots to do. --Robbie Giles 13:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "You have a perfect right to think anything you like, but are requested by Wikipedia to remain civil and refrain from attacks" Odd that you would follow that statement with this: "this may be the intention of the provocateurs who have joined in the fray (again) recently". 
An agent provocateur (plural: agents provocateurs) is a person assigned to provoke unrest, violence, debate, or argument by or within a group while acting as a member of the group but covertly representing the interests of another. In general, agents provocateurs seek to secretly disrupt a group's activities from within the group.
I'm guessing that you are allowed to think anything you like, but also are permitted by Wikipedia to label other editors and make personal attacks. Feh. Duke53 | Talk 02:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No I am not free to behave as I have asked others not to. I am bound by the same (self-imposed) code of conduct. Only I can control how I choose to respond, and I do choose to follow the Wikipedia guidelines. But I actually prefer the French etymology of the word provocateur which means "one who provokes." I did not, in fact, use the term agent provocateur. --Robbie Giles 03:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reminder and request

message: The Stewart Van Vliet paragraph contains material that is not found in the Utah War article, and the damming allegation of a statement by BY to Van Vliet that Utah had declared war on the USA is highly suspect. The visit is historical, but is the declaration of war presented to Van Vliet truly supportable? This paragraph was added 31 August 2007 18:00 UTC by  and has remained essentially the same since. -- 159.182.1.4 19:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's supportable. I've edited it, and actually moved it down to a more appropriate location in the article. COGDEN 19:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stewart Van Vliet visit to SLC & BY declaration of war 

message: I did not participate in the discussion but the recent change Robbie did on the opening paragraph is good.  --Blue Tie 02:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the initial sentence too long and difficult to read.  I rearranged the information for clarity. — Val42 02:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening Paragraph