Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 5

message: Just noticed that in the current version that all references to the Utah War have been elimiated. I think that it provides important context, and is included in every book written on the topic. Shall we add in Utah War items such as buchanan's order, pratt's death and "the reformation" as context and setting from the mormon side? We have the beginnings of it from the fancher side, which still can be filled in more as well. -Visorstuff 17:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's way important. I hadn't nearly finished the draft when someone started reverting it. The article needs much filling in, I see it as a handy skeleton (uhm, maybe that metaphor is a bit too close to home for some given the topic but you know I what I mean). Gwen Gale 00:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Utah War?

message: Why are you not including cites? How is anything you are doing an improvement without cites? Are you doing this re-write from your personal memory?!? Are you hoping others will go back and do the research for you??Sqrjn 21:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop using sockpuppets. Please stop violating 3rr. Please start helping with specific matters of content. Please note all the standard cite requests it contains. Please note that I have repeatedly mentioned that in its finished form this article will likely require cites for almost every sentence, sometimes for specific words (a suggestion which you have at times criticized). Please note that I had the draft on another page, quite unfinished and without any citation work yet started, when you started reverting it without comment and all work here stopped. Lastly, please try to find a secondary source to support the use of your (apparently) preferred word for the treatment of the kids... kidnapped. Thanks. Gwen Gale 00:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Do either of those sources specifically characterize the handling of the kids as kidnapping? If so, let's insert the word into the article and support it with an unassailable citation. Gwen Gale 04:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cites 

message: I went back to when we started using this number - it was after a reference was provided by Tinosa about how many were killed in Archive 4. I went back and looked at the reference, and it is a Wikipedia mirror article about Mountain Meadows (citing an earlier version of the page . I can't find any other source for 140. Can someone provide one? If not, I've gone with citable claims in the introduction, with notes about who claimed what. I plan to pull page numbers later. -Visorstuff 22:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a couple of problems with showing 57 as the lower bound on the number killed in the massacre. (a) Brooks never says that 57 is her best estimate of the number killed. (As far as I can tell, that number doesn’t even appear in the introduction and represents a calculation made by the editor based some of the numbers that Brooks cited.)  Brooks cites a lot of different numbers (from Mitchell, Armstrong, Gibbs; Lee even provided three different estimates at various times), but my reading is that the only conclusion she draws is that the number 123 is greatly exaggerated. (b) We now know (thanks to research by descendants of the survivors) the names of 82 victims .  (The memorial listing the 82 names was dedicated in 1990, shortly before Brooks's paperback version containing the new introduction went to press, but Brooks seems to have been unaware of this research.)  Consequently, IMO any estimate smaller than 82 is simply not reasonable. BRMo 14:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 140

message: Generally good references are preferred over external links, and references that are linked generally should not be included in the list of external links therefore I am reviewing the EL on meeting the standards at WP:EL - see below and please review and correct me. --Trödel 22:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally agree with your findings. I also was thinking this section needs some pruning. I say go for it, and good work. Davemeistermoab 06:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I've dug through a few sources. It seems that after the massacre, the decision was made to take the children to the nearby Hamblin home, as he was in charge of local indian affairs, and Lee's superior as indian agent. Hamblin was gone at the time of the killing. Hamblin re-distributed the children under the direction of (Non LDS) Superintendent Fornay (Indian Affairs for Utah), that was Lee and Hamblin's superior. I've found a multiple sources for this, however, as Hamblin's testimony is online in this regard and easily available, I'll provide it below: (Q=attorney in Lee's trial; A=Hamblin)
"Q: What became of the children of those emigrants? How many children were brought there?
A: Two to my house, and several in Cedar City. I was acting subagent for Forney. I gathered the children up for him; seventeen in number, all I could learn of.
Q: Whom did you deliver them to?
A: Forney, Superintendent of Indian Affairs for Utah." 
Dr. Jacob Forney had the children stay with families in the area until a military escort (Carleton and Hamblin) could pick them up and took them to SLC. This is supported by Forney, Carelton, Klingen-Smith, Hamblin and Lee. I think the use of the word "kidnap" or "Kidnapping" should no longer be an issue now, as distribution of children was done under the direction of US federal government officials, not territorial officials.
As a side note, Carleton and the Tanner's both believed that Hamblin's estimate of 123 deaths was exaggerated  . Jerald and Sandra Tanner wrote:
:"From Major Carleton's statement of the number of skulls and other human bones which lie gathered up and buried, it is evident that Jacob Hamblin's statement of the number of skeletons which he collected and buried was exaggerated, or that there were many more people in the company than has been heretofore estimated. And some of the bones were found a mile or so from the old camp ground, at points to which the coyotes had dragged them." 
However, Carleton apparently believed that the number was close between 107 and 120. He wrote: 
:"I have since learned from the people who assisted in burying the bodies that there were 107 men, women and children found dead upon the ground. I am satisfied that all were not found."
Hamblin was trusted by Carleton and by Forney, and escorted the children to SLC, helped bury what he could, and kept track of the children as an official part of his duties for the US government while they were placed with families in the area, until he escorted them to Forney. -Visorstuff 01:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, scholarly support for characterizing the kids' treatment during the days and weeks immediately following the massacre as kidnapping, as far as I'm aware, has yet to appear on this talk page. Gwen Gale 06:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you clarify your statement above? Are you saying that there is no support that they were kidnapped, or that there is support they were kidnapped? The kids were immediately brought to the government authority. Sorry maybe its too early my time to read, I'm just unclear when reading it? -Visorstuff 15:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind, I'm indifferent to the word kidnapping being included in the article. However, IMO, but only by my OR (so to speak) there is support for it. Since the massacre was ordered by LDS leadership (at a minimum in Cedar City), any Mormons associated with the CC leadership who took custody of the kids weren't acting independently of the murderers, whatever federal titles they may have bureaucratically held. The children weren't transferred out of Mormon custody (in effect, away from the murderers' control) for two years (1859). Now so far as the article content and WP policy are concerned, the modern sense of the word kidnapping as applied to the linguistic and legal (not to mention isolated) environment of 1857 Utah is not 1:1. Moreover, the article is highly controversial and has a history of being locked because of fierce PoV warring. Hence, I'm not keen on seeing a word in the article which we don't normally see in published accounts of MMM unless someone can come up with a reasonable, published secondary source which uses the word in a description of what happened to the children after their innocent parents were slaughtered whilst under the impression their safety had been guaranteed by federal Indian agent John D Lee. Gwen Gale 19:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds like he was complicit and having a time for himself. You're spot on when you say it's a different world, especially in the communication and legal senses which themselves fold back and sway what people chose to do. I've read hundreds of pages on this by now, maybe two thirds of it so biased either as anti-Mormon screed or evasive, circular, mind numbing apologetics and I've yet to see the word kidnapping come up. Gwen Gale 23:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kidnapped, revisited again

message: I removed this link and it has been reintroduced. My main objection to it is that is not an accurate portrayal of some events - it confuses oath of vengeance with blood atonement. It introduces no unique or other text that is not sufficiently covered by this article or other better secondary sources - it is at best a tertiary source that provides little explanation of its analysis int eh form of footnotes, etc. Finally, it is an ugly site with too many ads and too narrow of writing. If this ad laden site wasn't from CourtTV I would remove it as spam, based on the prevalence of screen space taken up by ads. --Trödel 04:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Court TV is sometimes tabloidish and unreliable (this varies and seems to depend on the correspondent and/or sourcing they use for each story). When an article topic is thinly mentioned online (some crime topics, for example) I guess it's sometimes ok to offer a link to a Court TV treatment but there is so much online material available about MMM that, given the stark inaccuracies offered by that link, I think it's encyclopedic to refrain from listing it. Anyway I've removed it.Gwen Gale 06:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so the site is ugly, Gunnison was bush-wacked before the correct interpertation of 'oath of vengeance' and 'blood attoement' could be explained to him & it is somtimes tabloidish. Is there more?Tinosa 14:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO this is not a big thing, an external link. with so many references listed in the article, I'll put it back then. :) Gwen Gale 16:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Not sure what you mean by, "is there more." The standard is: "Neutral and accurate material [tabloid material-fails] that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article [no unique material-fails] due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. or Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. [no new interviews or other reviews that would be meaningful or relevant]." So it doesn't meet the criteria at all. Is there some content you think that is on the Court TV link that justifies it being included, if so I am open to be persuaded that it does meet the criteria. --Trödel 19:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: My experience has been (with sites like that) that they are good for tracking down the "indisputable" stuff - because they will give who said it etc. Then I reference the primary or secondary source directly. That way I avoid the difficult question :), but if it has unique information that should be added - it should be included, but maybe in the footnotes only rather than in the list of reference. --Trödel 21:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court TV link 

message: I found this link on utah.gov:
http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/pioneers_and_cowboys/mountainmeadowsmassacre.html
Nothing earthshatteringly new here. But this link may provide some use as a reference for certain places in the wikipedia article which I'll list below. Please advise if you have a better source, if not I'll add links to this article for the following unsourced statements:
Wikipedia: As the Fancher party approached Mountain Meadows, several meetings were held in Cedar City and nearby Parowan by local LDS leaders pondering how to implement Young's declaration of martial law
Utah.gov: Several meetings were held in Cedar City and Parowan to determine how the "War Orders" should be implemented.
Wikipedia article: "leadership in Ceder City reporedly broke down"
Utah.gov article: "In the meantime, things got completely out of hand. Orders and counterorders were misinterpreted, deliberately or otherwise." 
W:On September 7 the party was attacked by a group of Native American Paiutes and Mormon militiamen dressed as Native Americans.
Utah.gov: At dawn the following Monday, 7 September, the Fancher train was brought under siege by Indians and militiamen disguised as Indians.
w: The attack continued for five days, during which the besieged families had little or no access to fresh water or game food and their ammunition was depleted.
Utah.gov: By Friday, 11 September, low on water and ammunition, they were in a helpless condition.
w: whereby they could be escorted safely to Cedar City under Mormon protection in exchange for leaving all their livestock and supplies to the Native Americans.
Utah.gov: the emigrants were made an offer to leave all of their possessions to the Indians and be conducted safely back to Cedar City. 
w: leaving the remains to be scavenged and scattered by wildlife
Utah.gov: The remains of the victims were hurriedly thrown into shallow depressions and ravines and covered with whatever was available. These remains were subsequently scattered over the immediate area by storms and wild animals.
w: All of the Mormon participants in the massacre were then sworn to secrecy.
w:the involvement of various church officials in both the murders and concealing evidence in their aftermath is still questioned
Utah.gov: Appalled by what had been done, and in fear of possible repercussions, an effective cover-up plan was put into force. It blamed the entire episode on the Indians, and continued to be maintained for the next few years in the face of outside outrage and investigation.
Although the Utah.gov article does not explicitly say the Fancher party did not have a pass, it does imply it and MAY be usable for  the cite request for the same statement in the wikipedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davemeistermoab (talk • contribs) 19:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add it in for now, we can update later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Visorstuff (talk • contribs) 21:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Any information you have, from either the North or South side of the fense, is welcomed. In fact, as a Wicki MMM contributor you may feel obligated to contribute info. as I do.Tinosa 21:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utah.gov link as a possible source for several unsouced claims 

message: Yeah!!!!. Although I had to cheat to do it =-). I removed the numbers from Gale's paragraph as the source I found did not have numbers. Sorry Gayle, When a source is found with the numbers I fully support re-adding them
Davemeistermoab 21:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  :) Gwen Gale 08:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gwen, my apologies for bungling your name. I was in a hurry to finish when I wrote the above. But I guess its moot. We're back to unsouced statements 24 hours later =-) Davemeistermoab 06:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All Source Requested statements now have a source 

message: Gwen,
Do you have a source for this (claim that the Mountain Meadows caused the demise of the Paiutes). This is a rather bold claim to leave unsourced for as long as it has. I've never read this before. I've searched for several documents that porport to be the history of the Paiute tribe, few even mention Mountain Meadows. I've found artcles that blamed area settlers in general for the demise of the Paiute's (by displacement from their homes etc.) but not MMM specificiallyDavemeistermoab 03:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it somewhere a week or two ago and dropped it into the article yesterday, I think. Lazy me for not making a note of where. If it's not supported soon, yeah, it should go. Gwen Gale 07:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Demise of the Paiute Tribe

message: Great addition to the citations, Tinosa (although I'm missing where they demonstrate that the first proclamation was kept private?). Wondering if you can add in more detail on the "pass" based on your recent research? I was under the impression that the first proclamation was printed in the DNews, and later re-printed, but that doesn't neccessitate a change in the article, as those who travel through wouldn't have read the DNews anyway. What I'd like to see is where the party stayed and who they interacted with in SLC and what they found out from those people. More than likely they met with other non-Mormons in the city and were probably aware of what was going on from their interactions with others. The folks at teh tribune had a habit of meeting with all non-Mormon trains coming into the valley, and no doubt would have discussed the Mormon situation with them. Salt Lake was still a smaller city at this stage, and word travels fast. That said, the context of having a pass from the territorial governor is a unique thought and we should explore. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 18:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pass

message: Here is the content I reverted:
It is intersting but has several problems
# Direct copy from a FARMS journal
# FARMS can hardly be considred a NPOV source (apologetics)
# No sources for the FARMS article were included.
# As pasted text has a redundant mention of a marker for Lee, but no such photo is included
I do think that some of this material is useable; but as a whole it is not appropriate.
:The aftermath: investigations and trial
:After the massacre, local leaders attempted to portray the killings as solely the act of Indians. This effort began almost immediately, with John D. Lee's report to Brigham Young. It wasn't long, however, before charges started to surface that Indians were not the only participants, but that there were whites involved. Responding to the charges that whites were involved, Brigham Young urged Governor Cumming to investigate the matter fully. However, the governor maintained that if whites were involved, they would be pardoned under the general amnesty granted by the governor to the Mormons in June 1858. This amnesty was issued at the behest of U.S. President James Buchanan, and covered all hostile acts against the United States by any persons in the course of the Utah War.
:Most scholars recognize that there was a local cover-up of the massacre. What there is disagreement on is how involved higher Church leaders were in any cover-up. Some have concluded that Brigham Young, himself, was involved in a cover-up, but others argue that the evidence does not support such a conclusion. The best available evidence supports two levels of cover-up: (1) concerted denials of guilt by massacre participants, including attempts to shift the blame to their erstwhile Indian allies, and (2) attempts by Mormons not involved in the massacre to shield accused persons from capture or prosecution. The latter actions did not normally arise out of any approval for the massacre, and indeed were usually undertaken without knowledge of the guilt of the persons being shielded; rather they reflected a feeling of community solidarity versus the coercive power of an often-hostile government, and a pervasive mistrust of U.S. authorities and their willingness or ability to ensure that Mormon defendants would receive a fair trial. Accusations of any more substantial cover-up, either by the Mormon Church as an institution, or by its highest leaders, are not supported by the available evidence.
:Marker at grave site of John D. Lee, in Panguitch, Utah
:Marker at grave site of John D. Lee, in Panguitch, Utah
:Eventually, as more information came to light, some of the principal participants were excommunicated from the Church. One participant, John D. Lee, was found guilty of murder in federal court after twenty years and two trials. The first trial occurred in 1875, before the anti-Mormon judge Jacob Boreman. The prosecutor was an even more notorious anti-Mormon named R. N. Baskin. This official failed to properly try the case against Lee, leading very little evidence against him, and instead focused upon an attempt to prove Brigham Young's complicity in the massacre. This trial ended with a hung jury.
:Lee's second trial occurred the following year; the prosecutor was U.S. District Attorney Sumner Howard, and Boreman was again the presiding judge. This time around, the case was properly tried; the jury heard overwhelming evidence against Lee, who was duly convicted and sentenced to be executed for his crime. On March 23, 1877, Lee was executed at Mountain Meadows and buried in Panguitch, Utah. Though other Mormons were certainly as culpable as Lee (he did not act alone), he was the only one executed.
:The long hiatus between the massacre and Lee's trial is one of the factors which some feel supports the accusations of an institutional cover-up. However, the true reasons for this delay are quite different. As mentioned earlier, Governor Alfred Cumming believed that the massacre was covered by the Utah Amnesty, thus making any investigation pointless. This belief was shared by a number of eminent legal authorities, including some charged with law enforcement in Utah. The attempts by some politically minded judges, such as John Cradlebaugh, to direct the investigation and prosecution of crime in Utah and conduct "crusades" against the Mormon Church actually hindered rather than helped prosecutorial and investigative efforts.
:An additional claim sometimes put forward is that Lee was a "scapegoat" and that some kind of corrupt agreement existed between Church leaders and territorial authorities to not pursue anyone else. However, the record does not back this up. After Lee's execution, territorial authorities wanted to continue the investigations with a view to bringing more of the guilty parties to justice. The official correspondence shows that a reward was offered for the capture of Isaac C. Haight, William Stewart and John Higbee, all suspects in the planning and/or execution of the massacre, and that this reward remained on offer for at least seven years. Lee was not tried as a "scapegoat" but as an actual participant--evidently the leading participant--in the massacre, who had done more than any other person to bring it about, and who had actually killed five people.
:(For additional information, see Robert D. Crockett, "A Trial Lawyer Reviews Will Bagley's Blood Of The Prophets," The FARMS Review 15/2, 2003, 199-254.)
Davemeistermoab 07:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how much more discussion of LDS post-massacre spin would be helpful. Some, yeah, but again, it may need to be cited line by line. Gwen Gale 15:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Gwen, a little of this may be useful, but without sources on the statements it would be difficult to incorporate into the article in a way other than Crockett says, "blah bla blha." --Trödel 19:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert anonymous edit 

message: Does this discussion need a new mediator?  --Ideogram 20:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not aware of a major conflict at the moment. A Anon added information without explanation.  It has been appropriately reverted and the dicussion above asks that if anything is to be added that it be sourced.  Am i missing something that you feel is a serious conflict? --Storm Rider (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I just noticed the mediator who took the case you requested has not edited since Jan 2.  I will go ahead and close the case.  --Ideogram 21:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds ok to me. Gwen Gale 00:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New mediator required? 

message: I've placed this here pending clarification and discussion:
According to some accounts LDS Church officials offered prosecutors $1,500 to capture the accused and wanted the Utah Territorial Marshal, John Kay, deputized to help in their capture but federal officials refused any help from the Mormons and would not allow Church President Brigham Young "to go south to help with the investigation." Hancock, Laura, Deseret Morning News, Historian discusses 1857 massacre, February 17, 2007 In 1859, two years after the massacre, the Church released the Cedar City Stake Presidency and Bishopric and replaced them with men who were not involved in the Massacre. Historian discusses 1857 massacre, February 17, 2007 In the same year...
* Who were the accused? What were they accused of?
* The term "released" is legalistic. Saying they were replaced would be more clear. Gwen Gale 00:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aftermath