Talk:September Dawn

message: Removed "supposed" from describing the massacre since everyone agrees it actually happened.  BTW, I would sure like to see what Mormon extremism Cain is claiming is prevalent today, but I guess thats a discussion for somewhere else.  EDIT:  Okay I changed the last sentence after reading the NY Times article.  It sounded like he thought Mormon extremism was prevalent today, but he just meant religious extremism in general. --67.166.96.116 07:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently undid another revision from a relatively new user which lopped-off an entire sentence, one that has been reword and revised several times already -- to that point where it should be representative of the consensus.  There has repeated vandalism and attempts to modify this section to criticize the stated motivation and methods of the writer/director and to disparage, without any documentation or justification, the historical research behind it.  A sentence was recently added to the end of this section to accomodate what is perceived to be the motivation behind these attacks.  Also several links are provided to Mormon-owned and Mormon-controlled sources such as BYU, FARMS (Mormon apologist research group at BYU), Deseret News, and KSL-TV.  Those items should provide the balance of a faith-based analysis approach to this event that these users seem to be pushing. There is an entirely separate page on the Mountain Meadows itself where both sides of the issue are thoroughly presented without rehashing here. Kbrewster 17:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance

message: This film has absolutely nothing to do with Mitt Romney.  It was written and completely filmed long before Mitt Romney even declared his intentions to run.  Please, no more references to Mitt Romney's campaign. -Kbrewster 14:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, the timing of the release of the film was to coincide with the sesquicentennial of the massacre, not political timing which happened to lie in its path.Tiktok4321 (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mitt Romney is Mormon. Someone made a bad movie about Mormons. These facts are totally unrelated and as such I propose we delete the Mitt Romney section as irrelevant. WesUGAdawg (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The content is sourced, verifiable, neutrally written, without asserting the movie had anything to do with the election, there is no reason to take it out. I agree, however, that it's a crummy, shallow and even misleading movie on many levels. I recall looking forward to seeing it, then reading the reviews and when I at last did see it, I couldn't make it all the through and skipped to the ending. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I grant you that the material is sourced, however it is noted that it is merely speculation by Novak and Ebert. I do not believe that the speculation of 2 men makes it noteworthy enough for inclusion in the article. I believe that its continued inclusion in the article should be a matter for discussion. WesUGAdawg (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mitt Romney

message: The Church recently released this:
http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=17bef28172543110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=9ae411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD
It should be listed in the links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.98.4 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 22 June 2007
:No, it shouldn't; the article at that link describes the MMM but makes no mention of the film (not even in passing). Material found on this article should be directly related to the film itself, and information that is about the broader topic of the actual MMM event should be be included on that article, not here. -- 159.182.1.4 22:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  It is most likely written to counter the view of the movie. Madd the sane 02:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be, but we should cite a press account that describes it that way. Otherwise would be impermissible original synthesis. Cool Hand Luke 02:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The closest I could find to a statement like that one in about 30 min of google searching was this link: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0824/p02s01-ussc.html ...but they were talking about the Ensign article, not this related press release. -- 71.35.46.20 20:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LDS Church link

message: The articles in the Guardian and the Boston Herald are reliable citations supporting the statement that the film is controversial, that it argues Brigham Young 'shared direct responsibility for the attack,' and that the church maintains 'The weight of historical evidence shows that Brigham Young did not authorize the massacre'. Removing them makes the article worse. I assume repeatedly removing the references section was just a mistake. Tom Harrison Talk 17:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of citations and references section 

message: Many users have attempted to correct typing errors, but this user continues to re-insert errors. Let others contribute to the betterment of this community site.
John Peterson 09:38, 4 July 2007
:The edits I have reverted were not mere corrections of "typing errors". I've tried hard to explain my changes in the edit summaries and here on the talk page, which is more than I can say for some editors. Quoting "[t]he" is not an error when the original quotation says "The". See discussion above for the edits I have changed. If I correct your bad grammar or word usage or misleading uncited statements, that is your problem and not anyone else's. –SESmith 09:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sesmith, it appears your contributions within the Wiki may suggest a subjective and vested interest in shining a certain "light" on any and all topics related to LDS/Mormonism.  Have you considered your level of impartiality? --LeroyWilkins 10:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I have. I am not a Latter Day Saint, if that is what you are implying. If you have specific concerns about my edits, I'd be glad to discuss them. I think if you look into it and do some research (which you clearly haven't), you will find that I have been far from a "Mormon apologist" on WP. My main goal is to achieve accuracy and WP:NPOV. I stand by my comments above as the reason for reverting the edits in question for this specific article. Otherwise I don't appreciate the insinuations. Perhaps you yourself should question your own impartiality before you baselessly accuse others of bias. –SESmith 10:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: SESmith is an excellent editor. Please be civil; user appears to be using our policies and manual of style. Cool Hand Luke 02:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated edits being made by Sesmith

message: Would the person/people that keep deleting Anti-Mormonism from the 'See also' section of the article please explain why they keep doing this? There has been no explanation provided in the edit summary, nor discussion of this on the talk page (at least until now). The article mentions the term anti-mormon(ism) several times, but does not link to it in the article body because those mentions are in quotations, and you shouldn't link in quotes, so instead the term appears in 'See also'. The article also infers the term in several places, so there doesn't seem to be any good reason not to include it. If there is a legitimate reason that it should not appear, then please provide that, otherwise the continued removal looks like vandalism. -- 159.182.1.4 16:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, but whomever is doing this without explanation is engaged in anti-mormonism. — Val42 05:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Roger Ebert review is a good third-party reference that shows anti-Mormonism is a related topic. I agree. I strongly suspect some promoters are editing this article. Cool Hand Luke 17:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen a good review of this movie, except for the ones quoted by the promoters of the movie.  Even the Ogden Standard-Examiner (which is considered liberal) didn't have much good to say about it.  The greatest praise that he had for the movie was that they did get the period costumes correct.  And in a related article published in the same issue of that paper, they interviewed two Weber State University history professors, one thought that Brigham Young ordered the massacre and the other said that the overwhelming majority of historians think that he didn't.  I can dig them up if anyone would think that this would help, but I think that the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News reviews would be considered more prominent. — Val42 22:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the most significant material has come from the damming reviews and commentary from outside the Jello Belt, predominantly by people not affiliated with the LDS Church. That being said, my favorite quote appears to have probably come from a Latter Day Saint, found in a user comment at metacritic.com which described the film as "[t]heological porn for evangelical Christians who have been taught to regard the Mormon church as a cult. The movie lacks both substance and style." That really seems to nutshell the rest of the movie reviews and also answer Ebert's question (from his review) about the audience for the film; it's just unfortunate that the statement can't make it into the article itself since it came from an anonymous blog-like posting. Anyone know of a similar statement that can be quoted in the article? -- 159.182.1.4 20:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Almost all of the wikilinks added to the "See also" section have the corresponding wording in the article inside direct quotes. It is WP house style to not add wikilinks within quotes, so these specific wikilinks were moved to the See also section instead. Islamic extremism in particular makes its appearance where the article describes how the movie "equates the institution of the Mormon church with Islamic extremism at every opportunity". This is not a single example, as the scriptwriter states that she finds the coincidental date of the massacre - September 11 - to be "very odd" and "strange," but that "people can draw their own conclusions" about the date. Several of the cited references (which are generally highly critical of the movie) also describe how the movie attempts to put the historic MMM event in parallel to modern day extremism. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Mormonism in See also 

message: I deleted the word "pseudo-historical" from the discussion because it shows clear bias against the movie.  It is simply untenable to defend the "pseudo-historicity" of the movie just based on the fact that it portraids Brigham Young as the leader of the massacre, while the rest of it has never been questioned by any historian or party involved in it.  
As for the role of then president Brigham Young, it has to be said that he new about the likelihood of the massacre beforehand (that has never been contested) and a possible outcome of the events at hand is that either he authorized it or he condoned it.  According to Will Bagley: "In his diary, John D. Lee recorded how Young told him in May 1861 that the “company that was used up at the Mountain Meadowes were the Fathers, Mothe[rs], Bros., Sisters & connections” of the men who had murdered Mormon prophets. Taking the lives of the women and children troubled Young, Lee wrote, but, Young had told him, “under the circumstances [it] could not be avoided.”"  It has to be mentioned that Lee was Brigham Young's adopted son.
The movie does interpret based on research made by historian (and Mormom) Will Bagley, but even if no direct evidenced linking Brigham Young with the actual massacre actually existed; as any good lawyer knows, circunstancial evidence alone (when relevant and plentifull) can convict a murderer.  In any case, the interpretation of historian Will Bagley, far from been pseudo historical is a valid, an even likely, interpretation of the facts. To say that a historical theory is pseudo historical just because it points to a new understanding of the facts at hand will be equivalent to say that any new theory in particle physics is doomed to failure since we already know how matter works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.135.244.57 (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of Wikipedia articles is not to convict someone based upon circumstantial evidence. Wikipedia states the facts without leading readers to a conclusion. It should not spin the data. This isn't a courtroom. And Bagley, by the way, doesn't represent the church in his opinion. His interpretation of events does not reflect the opinions of other "Mormon" historians - Bagley actually changed one crucial quote from a clearly legible source in order to support his claim (he changed a phrase "raise grain" to "raise allies"). You also do not mention that Lee's book was published by his lawyer after Lee's execution, and that it is not known how much was added or changed by that individual in order to make the book more sensational. Bochica (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the "pseudo-historical version" and the role of President Brigham in the massacre. 

message: :The following personal commentary has been moved here, where it fits better, from it's previous location at Talk:September Dawn/Comments, and has been placed in the approximately the correct chronological order. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: From Talk:September Dawn/Comments

message: Hello! I am User:Monkeytheboy. Upon reading this article, I've noticed a few things that are very unencyclopedic. (Which have also been reflected in this talk page). Although your additions to factual references are always appreciated, your OPINIONS on what is factual and what is not, cannot be placed in an encylopedia unless these can be backed up by reliable sources. If you believe your point of view is correct and would like some help on writing it in an encyclopedic manner, please refer to WP:POV. 
I will remove any references to anti-mormonism because any encyclopedic article has to only describe what something is (such as a film) and perhaps its critical reception. However, interpretations of what a movie's premises are or the interpretation of its meanins are not encyclopedic material. If you would like to write an opinion on something and have it featured in wikipedia, you can do so by writing an essay. More information can be found at WP:ESSAY. I WILL NOT remove the critical reception the movie received since this factual information is encyclopedic. The redundancy however is unnecessary. 
Finally I would like to point out that I AM NOT anti-mormon. In belonging to a small religious group myself, plus being a minority in my country of USA, I can understand what it is like to be prejudiced against both ethnically and religiously. Please do not misconstrue my edits as anti-mormonists because not only will that be false, but the mere statements will deeply hurt my feelings as a person. 
I just believe there is a time and place to defend ones beliefs and wikipedia is not the place to put opinions and defend your personal point of views.
Thank you.
Monkeytheboy (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Mormonism/POV in Reception 

message: Is it just me or does anyone else find it highly inappropriate to link to that article from this one?  I understand there is a theme of intolerance being carried, but it's a stretch.
Indja (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The see also list includes many terms used in dirct quotes, that would be linked on if not within a quote. WP house style is to not link in quotes, so those links instead go in the see also section. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: However, per WP:Seealso, this section is supposed to be a brief section of links to related articles. I highly doubt I'd find any additional information that relates to the movie September Dawn that article in most of these links. I agree that the Seealso section in this article is excessive, bordering on ridiculous. The linked policy implies that if an article were properly written, this section wouldn't even need to exist. In this case it's being used as POV pushing by implying a connection with some of the topics listed. Dave (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All gone. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The complete deletion of the whole see also section was excessive. At minimum Anti-Mormonism, Mormonism and violence, and Portrayals of Mormons in popular media are all directly related subjects. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joseph Goebbels, etc? 

message: As others have pointed any several times before, the reception section is not NPOV compliant and it does not appear that this has been sufficiently addressed. First, the first part of the section reads like it was written by a apologist for the Mormon church. The Mountain Meadows Massacre is still very controversial event in Mormon history and exactly role Mormons like Brigham Young may have played in it is very controversial. But this section comes across as if the filmmakers interpretation of the events is clearly wrong when in reality the truth of what really happened is still heavily debated. Some others issue with the section include:
* There are too many negative quotes then is really needed for the section. The fact that many critics did not like the film is well established early on so having that many quotes just comes across to me as if there is an attempt to push a pro-Mormon agenda.
* None of the negative quotes indicate in the section who wrote them. You shouldn't have to go down to the notes section to find out who rote each quote.
* All the quotes are focused on the alleged anti-Mormonism and alleged religious intolerance of the film. There is little or no mention of the other problems with the film many of the critics had. Having skimmed through some of the reviews on link to from Rotten Tomatoes, I can say that historical issues and alleged religious intolerance are not the only issues critics had with the film though the reception section seems to make it seem that way.
--Cab88 (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with the previous assesment and am ready to thresh this article down to just the bare basics. This would include a complete scrapping of the Mitt Romney nonsense. All I am waiting for is the admins who frequent this page to greenlight it. This article needs someone to be bold and fix the problems. I am ready to do that but fear that my edits will reverted due to the fact that any article with LDS ties draws such quick knee jerk reactions from so many editors. WesUGAdawg (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

text: A few quotes have been added to the reception section supporting the film. That is fine with me but it seems odd that it was the ONLY contribution from that URL. The question is WHY would someone's only contribution be to mention repeatedly how contoversial this movie is? If it is to try and make this a biased POV article then I will just trim it back to next to nothing, but for now I don't see any reason why cited quotes that don't come off as a tirade need to be deleted. WesUGAdawg (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Weight may be the worry in keeping them. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuing NPOV issues with Reception section.