Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 4

message: Copied to Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre/draft for collaborative editing
The Mountain Meadows Massacre is noted as a mass killing in 1857 of approximately 140 California-bound European-American settlers which took place at Mountain Meadows, a stopover on the Spanish Trail in southwestern Utah. The causes and circumstances remain highly controversial.
===Fancher party===
The European-American wagon train consisted of about forty families, mostly from Marion, Crawford, Carroll, and Johnson counties in Arkansas. In the spring of 1857 the party assembled at Beller’s Stand, south of Harrison, Arkansas. This group was initially referred to as both the Baker train and the Perkins train but, making its way west, was soon called the Fancher train (or party) after "Colonel" Alexander Fancher, who had become its main leader, having already made the journey to California twice before. By contemporary standards the Fancher party was prosperous and well-equipped for the journey and they were subsequently joined along the way by families and individuals from other states.
===Siege at Mountain Meadows===
They arrived in Utah Territory in July, traveling southwest and running low on some supplies. The Mormons they encountered, however, were wary and declined to trade with them. A popular Mormon leader had died a few months earlier in Arkansas under questionable circumstances and meanwhile, the United States Army was advancing troops towards Utah, which many Mormons perceived as a threat. Moreover, difficult economic conditions among the Mormon settlers may have further influenced a reluctance to sell food, which was already in short supply throughout the region. The Fancher party found water and fresh grazing for its livestock after reaching Mountain Meadows in early September. On September 7 the party was attacked by a group of Native Americans and according to some accounts, Mormons dressed as Native Americans. The Fancher party defended itself by encircling and tipping over their wagons, along with digging shallow trenches. The attack continued for five days, during which the besieged families had little or no access to fresh water and their ammunition was depleted. 
Comments please. Gwen Gale 17:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think starting a draft is a great idea. I have copied the proposed language to Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre/draft to make it easier to edit and allow this page to continue to have discussions about the edits. --Trödel 19:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Lol, I think you show zero interest in encyclopedic methodology and are simply reverting the draft to make editing difficult and further your own unscholarly PoV but whatever, have fun then!  Gwen Gale 00:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Begin a draft

message: They arrived in Utah Territory in July, traveling southwest and running low on some supplies. The Mormons they encountered, however, were wary and declined to trade with them. A popular Mormon leader had died a few months earlier in Arkansas under questionable circumstances and meanwhile, the United States Army was advancing troops towards Utah, which many Mormons perceived as a threat. Moreover, difficult economic conditions among the Mormon settlers may have further influenced a reluctance to sell food, which was already in short supply throughout the region. The Fancher party found water and fresh grazing for its livestock after reaching Mountain Meadows in early September. On September 7 the party was attacked by a group of Native Americans and according to some accounts, Mormons dressed as Native Americans. The Fancher party defended itself by encircling and tipping over their wagons, along with digging shallow trenches. The attack continued for five days, during which the besieged families had little or no access to fresh water and their ammunition was depleted. 
Comments please. Gwen Gale 17:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think starting a draft is a great idea. I have copied the proposed language to Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre/draft to make it easier to edit and allow this page to continue to have discussions about the edits. --Trödel 19:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Lol, I think you show zero interest in encyclopedic methodology and are simply reverting the draft to make editing difficult and further your own unscholarly PoV but whatever, have fun then!  Gwen Gale 00:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Siege at Mountain Meadows

message: I only now saw what someone has done to the draft...
The intro is too long, there is zero background or context given, the 19th century quotes make for a boggy narrative. There is no need to go on about BY, even if he did order it the evidence was burned 150 years ago and nobody has been able to lay that on him, other than some culpability for the general hysteria and maybe artful coverup work later on. Gwen Gale 13:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just a wholesale copying of some language from the original article. I restored your version - I would appreciate it if you continued to improve the language. --Trödel 14:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Trödel. Gwen Gale 15:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: omfg Brigham did it!

message: The following links have info concerning the Baker-Francher Train: origin. wealth. maps. travel info. ect.
May be interesting to some.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wallner/mmm11.htm
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wallner/mmm_trails.htm
Tinosa 18:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah but they're published secondary sources. WP policy does not prohibit citing verfiable sources with a PoV. Gwen Gale 06:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: reference

message: Opinions:
Davemeistermoab: All I've seen so far is conjecture. I say they probably were, that is what I would expect to happen in a situation like this. But until a verifiable sources can be found it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.
:Sqrjn: I don't know people dont bother to cite, they just throw things in. Footnotes Forever!
::Storm Rider (talk):  This is an encyclopedia in its intent.  Conjecture is a wonderful thing for tabloids and tracts, but it has no role to play in any article on Wikipedia.  If there is a reputable source that states it; it should then be included.  If not, it should be left off.  Storm Rider (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure the text I wrote was read carefully before the kneejerks started whacking chins. I cited the allegation, I did not write it as an event, I did source it. Gwen Gale 12:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with saying one person claimed that his son witnessed a rape. However, it didn't hold up as evidence in the court then, nor would it today. As a historian, it is irrelevant and hearsay to me either way. And my family desends from the father of the witness, (Hamblin) and incidentally, the convicted (Lee). -Visorstuff 00:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: An encyclopedia is not a courtroom. The allegation is part of the event's documented history. Gwen Gale 01:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: So cite the historical record, that there are anecdotal references (rumours) that Ruth and Rachel Dunlap were raped before they were murdered. Gwen Gale 12:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2. Does sufficient proof exist to merit an inclusion that some victims may have been raped? 

message: Background: Previous versions of the Mormon temple ceremony had an oath for people to pray for the vengeance of the killing of the founders of the church. Mormons are taught that it is taboo to discuss what happens in the temple outside the temple. Although it has not happened yet, previous revert wars in this article have involved removing the mention of this oath.
Opinions:
Davemeistermoab: Keep it. Though some mormons feel it would be sacrilegious to keep it, it does show the animosity that existed at the time, and helps put some context as to why the massacre occurred.
:Sqrjn: I put it in. I think it adds alot. Its from a primary source and addresses motive.
::Storm Rider (talk): The way it is done on WIKI is to quote a historian that attributes a specific influence (the oath in this instance) as a reason for the massacre.  If we are just adding conjecture, you could probably go back and begin listing the atrocities committed against the Mormon people before coming to the Utah valley.  I reject that reasoning just as I reject many other reasons.  The fact is that these people were murdered.  After that fact, stick to the interpretations of historians and reputable sources.  Storm Rider (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is clearly original research to juxtapose this comment with the article unless there is a reputable source that already mead the connection. --Trödel 00:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with Trodel - is wikipedia supposed to determine motive that other historians have not connected or is not in another adademic source? Stinks of original research. -01:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've seen some sources which assert that Lee and others justified their actions through the so-called vengeance oath, though I'm not sure about the documentation they drew upon. If it could be solidly sourced (say, from letters written during the era), by all means. Gwen Gale 01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree that quoting Bagley is acceptable, however, it should not be used to show that it was acceptable for Mormons to act in this way. The text clearly states that God would do the work, not man. -Visorstuff 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3. Is is appropriate to include the "vengeance oath" from the temple ceremonies? 

message: Opinions:
Sqrjn: This is as silly as kidnapped, but apparently an issue now. Massacre is a factually accurate description.
Davemeistermoab: Every source I've read agrees this was a massacre. My vote, keep it. However I take issue with "as silly as kidnap". I have seen no credible source use the word kidnap. I've done google searches etc. and come up with a goose egg.
Storm Rider (talk): I see no reason to delete the term massacre.  However, I see no reason to use the term 63 times in an article of this length.  If for no other reason in that it makes for poor writing.  Storm Rider (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 4. Is massacre POV and inflammatory? 

message: Which long quotes do people take offense with? Why?
Opinions:
Sqrjn: more not less. shortening quotes is more likely to show the bias of the editor than make to the article unbalanced. Solution is more material and links to the original sources.
Davemeistermoab: Some long quotes are OK. The article was getting ridiculous. Towards the end people were trying to paste in every quote they could find to paint a more rosy/dire picture of the article. If the article gets too long nobody will read more then the first 2 paragraphs.  This article should not try to explain every detail. Cover the basics and provide external links for those who desire more information.
Storm Rider (talk):  I personally don't take offense with quotes: long or short.  I do disagree with quotes that are redundant and only ding the same bell.  If a quote does not add something new, then remove it.  Redundancy is just poor writing.  Storm Rider (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I personally feel that reliance on long quotes show a lack of sources on a topic, and typically smell of a POV pushing, in this article they are fine, as long as they don't say the same thing an earlier section has. There is too much reduncancy in this aritcle as it is, and the long quotes are used to push ones personal view, rather than a balanced, multiple sourced statement. -Visorstuff 01:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Syntax, usage and meaning change over time and thus, too much reliance on 150 year old quotes can easily mislead readers (both by design and accident). Gwen Gale 02:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: <I>"Syntax, usage and meaning change over time and thus, too much reliance on 150 year old quotes can easily mislead readers (both by design and accident)".</I> Does that apply to <I>everything </I>written 150 years (<I>or more</I>) ago? I'm very interested on how and where you came up with this theory. Duke53 | Talk 03:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't say it was a theory. Anyway yeah, a 1960 dictionary might be ok for some etymological research but as a guide to current usage, it could get dodgy. Gwen Gale 12:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: <I>"I didn't say it was a theory".</I> No, no you didn't ... you stated it as fact, but didn't back it up at all. So, apparently it's just your <I>opinion</I>, with which you are willing to dismiss a source. Explain to us again how 'meaning' changes over time. Duke53 | Talk 13:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Learn then, by starting here. Gwen Gale 15:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 5. Long Quotes? 

message: Opinions:
Sqrjn: Trodel imposes his worldview through a lens he justifies as encyclopedic. Removing negative words like 'murder' 'massacre' 'kidnapped' is not only a discrace to the victims of a horrible crime, but factually inaccurate.
Davemeistermoab: Partially agree. I like the example someone used above about Hitler. If an article about Hitler is full of adjectives like "murder, evil, racist, hatefull" the article becomes a diatribe and people will gloss over the article. Everybody knows Hitler was evil, just as everybody knows the Mountain Meadows Massacre was evil. A well written article states the facts such that people know this was an evil act without having to be told. Certainly Massacre belongs in the article (as most historians call the event the mountain meadows massacre"). Murder has to be mentioned as that is the crime Lee was charged with. However, words like horrible should be minimized. If the article is written well enough the point will come across without them and be better for it.
Storm Rider (talk):  The conflict on this article is all about tone.  Trodel did not have a problem with massacre or murder.  It is obvious when you have an article that mentions massacre 63 times that no one had a problem with the term; the facts speak for themselves.  I reject original research, POV and polemical writing regardless of which side of an issue is doing it.  What I seek, and I demand, is articles that are well written about topics that inform and provide information sufficent for readers to grasp an understanding of an event.  Let judgement fall on the readers' shoulders; it has no place being on ours.  Storm Rider (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 6. encyclopedic tone? 

message: []
Opinions:
Sqrjn: This needs to be its own section under disputed facts. The description of the massacre also should recognize the possibility that the native americans were not involved. Maybe someone can find the original source of this article or the research abstract.
:I'm unaware of any historian who says they were not present? Could you point me to one? In the states, even in the 1800s, if you were present, you were an accessory to murder. At the same time, I don't think we should say they pulled the triggers, but rather they were there. The responsibilty of what happened (and I don't think anyone argues this) falls on the Mormon militia. -Visorstuff 01:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd that you guys are saying this, since the <B>intro</B> to the article (<I>in its present form</I>) states: <I>"Mormon militia <B>and some Paiutes</B> killed an entire wagon train of Arkansas farming families known as the Baker/Fancher party"</I>. Hard to mistake the intent of those words, isn't it? Duke53 | Talk 04:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Didn't bother going back to see who inserted them originally but here is when they were last reverted to their present form: revert. Duke53 | Talk 04:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  <I>If the name calling tickles your willie, by all means continue with it</i>. I wasn't <I>insinuating</I>, I was pointing out which side was characterizing in such a 'matter of fact' way. If you'd bother going back in the history of the article then you would see the same group of editors who continually reverted to the phrase 'some paiutes'</I> (from 'possibly', 'a few', etc.</I>) when other editors disputed it. Past edits must be taken into acount now if we are to get anywhere with this; their consistent LDS POV contributed to the dispute we are in now. Duke53 | Talk 06:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: During the ensuing coverup there were some efforts to blame it all on the Paiutes, tempting enough since they were there, more or less as "allies" to the Mormons. However, we have specific bits of evidence concerning individual Paiutes who were present. We also have witness accounts saying some Mormons disguised themselves as Paiutes. No need to bother with past editing tiffs though, stick to the sources, note controveries/conflicts between sources, and get on with it. Gwen Gale 15:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 7. Paiute Involvement 

message: This is sourced by several of the prominent authors as motive and context. In the past its been taken out for some of the reasons Trodel and Storm Rider seem to be arguing.
Opinions:
Sqrjn: It needs at least a paragraph, cite, and link. It should be addressed in the Reasons for Masscre section, before the Vengenace Oath.
Davemeistermoab: I'm iffy on this one. It is well known by historians that BY preached Blood Atonement fervently. However, if we are going to list the vengence oath, blood atonement; then some mitigating factors will also have to be thrown in (i.e. The paranoia over the removal of BY as govenor, Haun's Mill Massacre, Extermination Order, etc.). Otherwise we'll be back to POV where the article paints all mormons as nuts, and the revert wars will begin anew.
::There is circumstantial evidence (but I've never seen proof) that, again, John D. Lee, for one, did try to rationalize his supervision of a mass murder through Joseph Smith's borrowed notions about blood atonement. I'd avoid bringing it up since many murderers tend to rationalize without end, but wouldn't object if it was done in a neutral way with solid sourcing. Gwen Gale 15:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Visorstuff, from that perspective, I'm thinking anything I've read about blood atonement and vengeance oaths relating to John D Lee must have been codswallop. Though he did otherwise rationalize, straight up to the moment they shot him. Gwen Gale 19:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 8. Blood Atonement

message: The problems still remain: the use of unreliable sources, juxtaposing different information together to draw conclusions which create original research, and the insistence that non-neutral terminology be used. --Trödel 01:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Do any believe a staw poll vote would be good? WikieZach| talk 20:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I do not believe that one would be good. Duke53 | Talk 21:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? WikieZach| talk 21:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If there is disputed facts, a poll is the only way to see where everyone stands. WikieZach| talk 21:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would expect that if a poll is taken that we will be <I>'swarmed'</I> by many <I>'new'</I> editors who suddenly develop an interest in this article. Duke53 | Talk 21:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will ensure that only those who have participated in the talks would vote, if someone new comes along, email me and I will check into it. WikieZach| talk 21:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Encyclopedic verifiability cannot be measured or even estimated by polling unverified usernames. It would be a waste of time. Gwen Gale 01:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've already agreed to all that - including taking short 1-2 day wikibreaks from the article. So I agree. It would be appreciated if you could provide some guidance on original research and the use of neutral terms as you can see above I have been accused of not understanding these policies. --Trödel 00:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV, for an ex (used everywhere) On Abortion, a sentence reads as, "An Abortion kills a child" would be POV, while a 'neutral wording would be'... "an abortion procedure detroys an embreyo". Just use wording that is what happened. If someone got kidnapped, call it that. Original research means you can't cite a source as saying it's from me. WikieZach| talk 01:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Responding again  - to use the word kidnapped is to unnecessarily make the article polemic - if we describe it neutrally then some readers will say - wow that's kidnapping, or whatever - they can draw their own conclusion. By using a neutral term we make no implications about the intent of the people who were near the children at the time of the killing (which is unknown - remember that the group was separated during the march to the local town) - did they protect them from the attackers, did they know what was going to happen, etc. All Questions we can not know - thus we should just describe it (or imply any stance). --Trödel 03:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok then, cite both 19th and 20th century sources describing the treatment of the kids as kidnapping. Without support, use of the term is not only polemic, it's original research (forget that to my mind, in 2006, the whole tale is indeed morally equivalent to kidnapping). Gwen Gale 16:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolution 

message: Two points. One, If you can cite a reputable primary or secondary source I would be very hesitant about keeping it out. Why you include something is important. Introducing a rumor for the truth would be wrong. Introducing and citing a rumor, for what was being rumored is maybe ok.
:Two, semantics are very tricky. But the most precise and most accurate word should be used. Using a word repetively is a style point, not POV. Kidnapped is both historically and currently most accurate. Just like murder is more accurate than killing. Sqrjn 20:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts of Sqrjn

message: If you have any question you wished to be asked, please send me a message on my talk page. The poll will start tomorrow (25 hours) WikieZach| talk 22:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed content 

message: A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee.  Some participants name's have been left off; Visor's was the first I noticed and shouldd be added; please do so.  The request can be reviewed  here.  Storm Rider (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: I think it's ok to include references to the more widely known of these so long as they're clearly cited as being described by secondary sources as what they are... rumour, anecdote, hearsay and so on. The helpful thing about doing this is that lots of folks think some of this stuff is "fact" and the article could help clarify that. Gwen Gale 21:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to look that word up in a dictionary, for starters. Gwen Gale 08:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Tinosa, you're clearly knowledgeable on this subject.  You've mentioned some sources (Waite, Stenhouse) that I wasn't aware of.  I'm willing to be persuaded if the evidence shows that I was wrong.  But I'll suggest that this discussion will be more productive if it can be presented without the use of sarcasm. BRMo 07:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was northeast by the bye, not south. Gwen Gale 08:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rumour, anecdote, hearsay and so on

message: Please move this articlke to the sub category  Category:Massacres in the United States of America  from the current  Category:Massacres RaveenS 21:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As this is an administrative action, we should make the change (and it fits within the guidelines of editing a protected page). However, in accordance with Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Editing_protected_pages, need at least another comment from those involved in the dispute. As an admin, I can make the change if there are no objections within the next day. -Visorstuff 23:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you need another comment to do it right away, here is a comment to go forward with the change. Val42 23:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Per the "discuss" clause in the policy, I'll wait until tomorrow. It may or may not be more or less than 24 hours, but 18 hours in this case on such a heavily-watched page is likely sufficient for this type of administrative change. -Visorstuff 23:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category