Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 6

message: US presidential candidate Mitt Romney is a great great grandson of Parley P. Pratt (Associated Press, Romney Family Tree Has Polygamy Branch) who is mentioned in this article, and whose article links back to this one. Depending on how Romney's campaign goes, this article could become a canny firestorm in a few months. Gwen Gale 02:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: its an interesting tale, yet just how could it become a "canny firestorm?"...this incident happened 150 years ago, Romneys grandmother wasnt even born yet, just how do you propose it would affect his campaign and what does it have to do with him or his ability to hold office?...83.79.167.141 20:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a major hollywood release about the massacre coming out called "September Dawn."  This, combined with Romney's campaign will throw the whole thing in the spotlight again.  That is why it could become a canny firestorm.  ---SAM --67.166.96.116 07:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Nothing. Aside from Utah politics, it's no big deal. I was only hinting that when WP articles about controversial topics attract wide attention in popular culture, extreme PoV spinners (along with well-meaning but mistaken ones) show up to have a go. Gwen Gale 22:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Because it's a lot easier to blow an event that happened 150 years ago into something it was not then it is to try to prove mormons practice polygomy and child marriage today. --67.166.96.116 07:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ever been to Utah? :) Anyway I was only making a comment related to the dynamics of this wiki and how those could affect this article. Not much more to see here. Gwen Gale 13:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In the news

message: September 1, 1857.
I'm surprised that the diary of Dimick Huntington has not been introduced. According to Huntington, B. Young, met with the four southern Utah chiefs (September 1, 1857) telling them that if they help kill the Americans the Indians could have all the cattle on the California Trail South.(SEE Bagley. Chapter 6. PP 113-114).
Indian agent Garland Hurts's annual report excerpt. "Dirnie B.. Huntington, (interpreter for Brigham Young.) and Bishop West, of Ogden, came to the Snake village, and told the Indians that Brigham wanted them to run off the emigrants' cattle, and if they would do so they might have them as their own". See: Message of the President pages 96-98.Tinosa 16:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Tinosa. What do other sources say about it? Could it be backdated "hearsay"? Could be spot on but I'm worried about WP:OR is all. Gwen Gale 09:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Brooks, Chapter 3, pp140-142. See Bagley. Chapter 6. pp 113-114. See Denton. Chapter 11. p158. According to Brooks, the Journal of Church History describes an hour long meeting with the Chiefs on Sept. 1 but not the conversation. The Hamblin journal page for that day is torn out. Brooks speculates on the conversation. Bagley & Denton claim the journal of Huntington was found in 1999 which details the conversation. Tinosa 15:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it in then. I wasn't aware it has support. Gwen Gale 16:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: B. Young + lynchpin = MMM 

message: I notice that the new article, Fancher party Arkansas emigrant wagon train (Mountain Meadows massacre), includes some problematic material.  There is a quotation attributed to "Fancher family historian" (name?) that incorrectly attributes to Wilford Woodruff the story that Brigham Young ordered the memorial cairn to be torn down. (Woodruff's diary recorded Young's visit to the memorial and his statement regarding vengeance, but did not say the the cairn was destroyed. The source for the destruction story is a family "legend" reported by Brooks (p. 183), which had been passed down from her grandfather, Dudley Leavitt.)  
The new article also has a long quotation from Mark Twain that had been dropped from the MMM article. The quotation includes some factual inaccuracies (e.g., the massacre was on the 11th, not the 10th). Twain wrote many years after the massacre and was not an expert; he was relying on other secondary sources. I think the biggest problem, however, was that the old article had become a battleground in which quotations were being used for POV pushing. If the new article becomes a dumping ground for quotes and POV pushing that have been rejected for the main article, it will quickly become a candidate for articles for deletion.
The purpose of the new article is to provide some details on the Fancher party that are not needed for the main article.  The same standards should apply to the new article as for the main article. All material must be encyclopedic, verified by high quality sources, and reflect a neutral point of view and avoid original research. BRMo 17:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm there are many worries here. The article title is too long. Nothing is cited. I suggested Fancher party. Speedy and try again? Gwen Gale 17:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Because Mark Twain says the ambushed travelers held up a baby dressed in white instead of Lee's merely waving the palm of his hand to signal he'd be willing to negotiate the embattled emigrants' passage to safety? Who cares. Mark Twain's rhetoric wasn't sensationalistic. It was ironic in spots - ironic that religious people, who you'd expect to look out for others, get caught up in atrocity. But what a low threshhold for pithy commentary hereabouts! I'm learning that Wikipedia's all about compromise. But my sythesis of how wagon trains left from various places in Arkansas is a "raw text...a dump...blah blah"? I'm offended. --Justmeherenow 03:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article [[Fancher party Arkansas emigrant wagon train (Mountain Meadows massacre)]] 

message: It looks pretty clunky, imo. Most historical article don't do this correct. Can we standardize this and leave it out? Thanks --Tom 19:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go with consensus. The day of the week has been accepted by many editors for a long time and I think it should stay unless a consensus shows up here to rm it. Gwen Gale 20:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gwen, is there a specific reason for it? Thats what I was sort of getting at. Is that day of the week relevant to the event? Has this been discussed before? Sorry for not going back through all the talk pages. Anyways, this is a small blip on the wiki radar :) Cheers! --Tom 20:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of sources name the day of the week straight off (and no those aren't all WP mirrors :). I could speculate as to why but I'm happy to let others give their input before going on about it. Gwen Gale 20:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gwen, the first is a mirror of Wikipedia. The second site is Wikipedia. The third site uses "Friday" as the night of the movie, the forth uses "Friday" as the night of the dinner and actually reads "Please join us, as we remember all of those who died in the Mountain Meadows Massacre on September 11th, 1857." Providing examples/sources by using mutliple words in a google search is not very helpful and imo worse. --Tom 23:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey I agree with you there, I was only being a bit lazy cuz I don't care about it enough to spend time supporting it, is all. Anyway of course there are trash references to the word in that Google search. I was hoping you'd see the others but no worries and thanks for looking at the link anyway :) Gwen Gale 23:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyways, can some else please explain the significance of the day of the week this event took place, If so, lets source that and get that material into the article, others wise, lets move on, thanks --Tom 22:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I'm ok with any consensus on this. Gwen Gale 23:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: shadowbot! What is it?  Worm? Virus? Where did it come from? How do I get rid of it? Apparently it doesn't like the word Friday?  Anyone have more some information about the entity or the other?Tinosa 01:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Shadowbot is an anti-vandalism bot. It has its flaws. One of those flaws is that it sometimes behaves like a vandal. Welcome to Wikipedia. Gwen Gale 01:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you Lord! I was trying to say the exact same thing but instead I end up in a flame war with my new friend Gwen :) Seriously, I wasn't trying to be a prick, but when I saw the day of the week mentioned it looked weird and out of place and made me wonder if there was more to the story. I am still wondering and totally agree that if there is NO significance to that day of the week it should get nuked. Anyways, thank you alanyst for verbalizing what I obviously couldn't. Cheers and good night! --Tom 03:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, it may have some significance. It appears in the introduction of many accounts but it may only be a textual artifact of how this tale has been told over the past 150 years. Dunno. Don't have time to run it down now. Gwen Gale 03:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have yet to provide one other example where its used. --Tom 12:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please reread my posts on this then. Gwen Gale 12:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? You said above that "Friday" appears in the intro of many accounts. Can you point to where you provided them? Your google search turned up one, Wikipedia. Thanks,--Tom 13:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you asking me about this? I already said I'd go with the consensus on it and don't have time to support it further. Gwen Gale 13:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you told me to reread your posts. This is my last post. Please reply so you can have the last word and we can be finished. Cheers,--Tom 14:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How is mentioning the day of the week in the lead helpful?

message: The following statement was recently added to the article:
:On September 1, the Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Territory of Utah, Brigham Young, administered a meeting with the Indian Chiefs of the Southern Territory which included the area around Mountain Meadows. During the one hour meeting in Salt lake City, Young complained to the Chiefs that the Americans had come to kill both the Mormons and the Indians. He told the Chiefs that if they would fight the Americans, he would give them all the cattle on the Southern California Trail.
While I agree that a discussion of Young's meeting with the chiefs should be included in the article, in the interest of neutral point of view it is important to note that historians do not agree on the implications of this meeting. Bagley's view (which is the one largely reflected in the current paragraph) is that this meeting is the "smoking gun" proving that Young ordered the attack. Denton (though she also thinks Young is guilty), however, downplays the relevance of the meeting, correctly noting the chiefs would not have been able to travel 300 miles in 6 days to order an attack. Denton argues that the Paiutes did not participate in the massacre. Briggs and Crockett, in separate reviews of Bagley's book, also argue against Bagley's interpretation of the meeting. I suggest that we need to review and edit this paragraph to appropriately reflect the lack of agreement among historians on the significance of the meeting. BRMo 03:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed this doesn't prove Brigham specifically ordered MMM (though the LDS was clearly promising emigrant cattle to indians as a general bounty for attacking emirgants). It belongs in the article but I think the context BRMo notes above would be helpful. Gwen Gale 03:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The account doesn't make sense.  Why would Young need to bribe the Indians to fight if he had just told them the U.S. Army was coming to kill them?  Seems like protecting their families and land would have been enough for them to fight without having to be bribed, doesn't it?  It's illogical that this was the outcome of the meeting. --67.166.96.116 07:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brigham Young's meeting with chiefs 

message: The following sentence was recently added: "In 1861 a party led by Brigham Young discovered Carleton's memorial, tore down the cross, and scattered the cairn."
There has been much discussion of this incident on the archives of these talk pages. If the story is to be included, in the interests of NPOV it should also be noted that the story is based on oral tradition and that there are contradictory reports from contemporary diaries that report seeing the cairn several years after its alleged destruction. BRMo 03:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't see it had crept back in. I've rm'd it pending further discussion here. The tales's both contradicted and wholly unsupported by any other source independent of it. Gwen Gale 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had just finished reading Krakauer's book and added the incident without knowing it had been discussed here already. I don't know his source, so I won't quibble over the (re)deletion. -Kris Schnee 20:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: B.Y. "Vengance is mine and I have taken a little" from the diary of Wilford Woodruff. May 25,(1861). Brooks. Chapter 9. Tinosa 16:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destruction of memorial 

message: Threeafterthree has deleted a link to a web page that contains several documents. The comments were cryptic statements: "removed per wp:el" and "angelfire is not an approriate link." I've looked at WP:EL, and the material seems to meet the relevant criterion, "sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article," and does not appear to involve any of the characteristics of links to be avoided. During the article re-write, the external links were all reviewed for relevance and compliance with Wikipedia policy. Next to the link there is a comment (added during our review) saying that one of the articles may come from copyrighted material. (The others are so old that they clearly do not.) However, the quotation would appear to meet fair use criteria, since it is a relatively short excerpt (about a page) of a several hundred page book. Although the material isn't critical to the article, I think it's just as relevant as many of the other links to old accounts of the massacre.
If Threeafterthree wants to delete links that have been vetted by the consensus of editors here, I think he owes us a better explanation of his reasoning. BRMo 03:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi BRMo, My understanding is that angelfire.com is a "personal publishing communities" (according to their site) which is not appropriate as a reference or EL on Wikipedia. Similar to a geocites or myspace, anybody can put up anything and verification of material is impossible, please try to find the original source for the material you want added or linked to this article. Its all about improving the quality of the project and striding for the highest possible level of verifiability. How about citing the actual book, author and page, that way, anybody can go to the library and check it out for themselves? Anyways, I appreciate the chance to explain, cheers! --Tom 04:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your source for saying that "personal publishing communities" are not appropriate? WP:EL says that personal web pages shouldn't be linked, but a page reprinting old documents doesn't fit the definition of a personal web site. For that matter, how can we be sure that the documents on the other sites were transcribed correctly? Citing only paper seems like a pretty harsh remedy. I think you may be applying a stricter rule than is found in Wikipedia policies. BRMo 04:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Gwen Gale 10:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said ONLY cite paper. I said, rather than link to geocites or angelfire or whoever, cite the book,author and page. There are plently of "reliable" web sources that are held to a higher standard and can be properly fact checked it seems. ANYBODY can "create" content on these other sites which is nearly impossible to authenticate as factual. Just try to find another source on the Web or use the book reference as suggested. Is this really that problematic? It seems that we/you/I should shoot for the highest standard possible when it come to references. Have we learned anything from the Essay mess? Thanks! --Tom 13:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand why the article should withold information and source content from readers in the meantime. I think the link's helpful. Gwen Gale 16:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because angelfire.com is not appropriate. Do you know who put that material up? Please do not add it back. I will also try to get an admin invloved. If they say its ok, I'll even add it back. Is that fair? Thanks. Actually, I won't delete the links because I refuse to edit war any more. I have no horse in this race. Do you? --Tom 17:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only since you asked, I don't think your edit warring over this is helpful, nor do I like your threat to find an admin who agrees with you. Mind, I support Wikipedia policy. Gwen Gale 17:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the love of god! Do you have to twist everything?!? I wasn't threating you, geesh, I thought I would get another set of eyes. And to insinuate its somebody who will agree with me? Dealing with you Gwen is like bashing my head against a wall. It has to be me, it must be, really. --Tom 17:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Haha! No worries, it is :) Truth be told, I wish you'd get to know what's going on here a bit more before asserting something beyond 1 or 2 reverts. Thanks for being patient with me! Gwen Gale 18:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have applied to Wiki law school but I am still awaiting exceptance. You seriously need an advance degree around here :) --Tom 18:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Now I can tell you that wontedly, I think Angelfire links aren't ok but this one is a big docking exception IMHO because it gives access to a primary source that, so far as I know, can't be had online anywhere else for now. MMM is way, way controversial and rigorous citation and open access to the sources make the only path to what Wikipedia calls NPoV. Gwen Gale 19:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link 

message: At one time or another ParkerMMM and Tinosa have suggested mention of B/Y's (possible) cryptic remark about the memorial's enscription, et cetera; could they or someone propose how its mention could be appropriately (e/g "This-might-have-happened...") worded? --Justmeherenow 18:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This can be done. My only worry is there is but a single hearsay report to support this tale. Gwen Gale 18:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree - a source which is the historian's unsupported family legend should not be included. --Trödel 13:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re "Lord's" taking of vengeance

message: "A few who escaped the initial slaughter were quickly chased down and killed. Two teenaged girls, Rachel and Ruth Dunlap, managed to clamber down the side of a steep gully and hide among a clump of oak trees for several minutes. They were spotted by a Paiute chief from Parowan, who took them to Lee. 18 year old Ruth Dunlap reportedly fell to her knees and pleaded, "Spare me, and I will love you all my life!"[36] (Lee denied this). 50 years later, a Mormon woman who was a child at the time of the massacre recalled hearing LDS women in St. George[37] say both girls were raped before they were killed.[38]"
A portion of the Article I have trouble with.
I've examined the references. Maybe someone can enlighten me.Tinosa 19:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you having trouble with? Gwen Gale 19:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated above, the source is highly unreliable.  Whether or not it happened this way cannot be shown.  But the story no doubt passed through many people first and then was remembered an entire 50 years later by someone very far removed from those involved. --Gthing 20:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect I think you mis-read or misunderstood that passage. Gwen Gale 21:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "50 years later, a Mormon woman who was a child at the time of the massacre recalled hearing LDS women in St. George[37] say both girls were raped before they were killed.[38]"  It sounds to me like 50 years after the fact someone recalled overhearing someone say the girls were raped.  If I misunderstood it, it needs to be changed because I think that's how anyone would take it.  The sentence seems very clear, actually. --67.166.96.116 02:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr IP editor, what is your specific problem with the passage? Gwen Gale 04:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I keep forgetting to sign in.  I'm new to this whole thing.  Anyway, I think my problem with the passage is very clear.  The passage says some lady recalls someone saying the girls could be raped.  It sounds very likely that this could be truth when there is absolutely no evidence that it took place.   I could just as easily say I remember my great grandpa saying he heard someone who said the wagon train committed mass ritual suicide and it would be just as founded.  The passage should not be included in a scholarly article - it has no basis in fact, no evidence that it happened, and the lady who remembered it is highly unreliable considering she recalled it from 50 years later and there is no record of the actual source.  It was a rumor 50 years before the lady even remembered it.  It does not belong in the article.  Is that clear enough or should I spell it out further? --Gthing 15:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are your words from another subject: "This can be done. My only worry is there is but a single hearsay report to support this tale. Gwen Gale 18:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I said it could be done, d'in I, second the accusations of rape are widely noted (and please do ignore the mirror refs to Wikipedia thanks) and erm, third, I know some folks somehow strain to think that none out of a hundred men killing dozens of innocent women and kids (never mind plundering their shite) wouldn't think of raping a few teens but I guess that's another tale. Gwen Gale 17:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Widely Noted?"  Is it noted by any reliable source or just a bunch of anti-mormon websites and this one lady?  If there is reasonable evidence, I'm all for having it in the article, but the reasonable evidence should be noted instead of the 3rd-hand "witness."     I don't know what "d'in I" means or where you said it could be done.  I appreciate your help on this, I'm not trying to come across as belligerent, but I would hope that subjects reflecting poorly on mormons should be met with the same skepticism as that which reflects positively. --Gthing 21:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dunlap Girls 

message: The article should mention that Lee and others were excommunicated by the church for their involvement in the massacre, well before Lee was convicted by the U.S. government.  I will need help finding a good source for this, but here's a start:
http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/pioneers_and_cowboys/mountainmeadowsmassacre.html
"He was convicted, some say unjustly, and executed at the siege site on 23 March 1877 for his role in the affair. The Mormon Church earlier excommunicated Lee and a few others believed to have been responsible." --Gthing 20:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let us not forget that John D. Lee was reinstated (<I>posthumously, of course</i>) by the LDS church; there were even plans to erect a statue of him at one time  but they were changed because of complaints by some folks. Duke53 | Talk 04:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would add that with his last breaths Lee in so many words said he had been handed up by the LDS. Gwen Gale 04:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reprecussions on Lee and others 

message: Is the following acceptable per Wiki Standards?
MORMONISM UNVEILED; 
OR THE LIFE AND CONFESSIONS OF THE LATE MORMON BISHOP, JOHN D. LEE;
PREFACE 
http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/lee_pref.htm
Chapter XVIII
Pages 213-248
http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/lee_mm.htm
Chapter XIX
Pages 249-292
http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/lee_mm2.htm
The problem: Lee dictated his confession to his Attorney, William W. Bishop, who preserved the words of John D Lee. In like manner, Dudley Leavitt, verbalized his account of the Carin destruction to his three sons and "one preserved it these words, quoting his father": "I was with the group of elders...........We understood." Brooks. Chapter 9.Tinosa 04:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John D. Lee