Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 14

message: ¶ 2 of the current introduction reads:
Investigations—which began immediately, although impeded by perpetrators' having been sworn to secrecy and the distraction of the U.S. Civil War—resulted eventually in nine indictments being issued in 1874. Despite others' involvement, only John D. Lee was tried and convicted. Lee was executed by firing squad at the location of the massacre in 1877.
I suggest the first sentence be trimmed to read:
Investigations, interrupted by which began immediately, although impeded by perpetrators' having been sworn to secrecy and the distraction of the U.S. Civil War, resulted eventually in nine indictments being issued in 1874.
It is debatable that the investigations began immediately. Hurt left the territory soon after learning the first details and no further investigations were done until the U.S. was forced to investigate by relatives of the victims and "outraged" newspaper editors. --Robbie Giles 14:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not find the edit terrible, but I should explain my thinking in the original wording.  I was thinking about investigations commissioned early on by BY.  These were almost immediate. Then too, the investigations a couple of years later in 1859 also followed.  This was "pretty fast" for those days and given the travel difficulties. So, I do not think that immediate is such a bad word, but perhaps it could be modified. --Blue Tie 16:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: I started a new subsection at the end of Section 3. The first paragraph is there and I have at least two others to add. I will add the refs as I add the text. This may not be the most appropriate place, but leave it here until we see where it best fits. --Robbie Giles 04:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paiute participation

message: I've been observing the interaction among editors of this article on the talk page here, and think all of you who have lately been participating here deserve high praise for your conduct.  For such a touchy subject and range of opinions and perspectives, you have done an outstanding job of keeping discussion level-headed and finding ways to work together.  The article isn't perfect, to be sure, but with this kind of collaboration it's going in a very promising direction.  I think Robbiegiles, COGDEN, Justmeherenow, Blue Tie, Trust Truth, WBardwin, and Storm Rider particularly deserve applause.  Kudos to all! alanyst /talk/ 04:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alanyst, thanks for including me in the list, but I have mostly been watching the action.  They are doing a good job, aren't they?  The article's improving all the time.  WBardwin 06:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applause 

message: I have removed two citations and the corresponding inline refs for Garland Hurt. Both are found in the existing Thompson ref, which is available electronically online. The ref section is quite large, and I am reviewing to see if all refs are used, and if there are dups. Anyone who objects may UNDO my changes, or I can if it is believed I deleted the better ref. --Robbie Giles 12:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good idea. Actually, we've hit a strange technical limit where the last few citation templates aren't being expanded. This appears to be a bug (or maybe an intentional safeguard) in Wikimedia software that limits the number of templates that can exist in a single page. I've hit this limit before in a highly-templated list, and I don't think there's anything we can do about it except work around it. COGDEN 17:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Update: The issue is with Wikipedia:Template limits, and I've been able to work around the issue, so that we're within the limits. COGDEN 21:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate citations

message: The article is not ready for Prime Time yet, but it may be time to ask for independent reviewers to do a read through and give reactions. I have gotten way to close to the subject to be able to view it dispassionately. Do we want to ask for review? --Robbie Giles 12:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. --Justmeherenow 14:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. If this were a software application, I'd say we're entering the alpha-testing phase. COGDEN 17:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a couple days since the article's been tagged for peer review. But I was impatient and asked Gwen Gale for comment. --Justmeherenow 12:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have withdrawn my commentary. Best to all. Gwen Gale 00:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an interesting commentary with some thought to it. --Blue Tie 00:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: § My own 2 cents is one way to counter a reasonable perception of bloating would be (while ignoring his barbs...) to still adopt Blue Tie's outline - basically pushing accretions of stuff to a scholarship section better placed further down in the article for readers ta read, skip or skim? (Whether the stuff would be 2ndarily sourced or primarily sourced but in "buttressment" thereof) --Justmeherenow 12:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to ask for reviewers 

message: This edit by COGDEN is one that I somewhat agree with.  Even though I think the footnotes are a bit out of hand (and this does not help) big footnotes bother me far far less than cruft in the article itself! --Blue Tie 22:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A positive edit!

message: The current lead paragraphs are about the best that they have ever been.  I exclude my recent edits in that praise because I think that they can be improved on.  One concern:  I am not sure that "leaders" directed Lee.  I am not even sure that he was clearly directed by anyone, though I believe he claimed to have been directed.  Anyway, that aspect may be not quite correct. --Blue Tie 14:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, Wikipedia! as, the lead's good 'cos somebody came along and clearly & succinctly voiced something representative of the breadth of our subject's material. (While material from out of our self-selected assemblage of Wikipedians' jam sessions shows promise, it's always nice when some adept hand grabs a baton or sits down at the studio console to highlight and distill some of the more sublime stuff from out of it; yet, of course - just as in Young's Utah! lol - even back benchers guide the enterprise along to the degree they buy into or can be inspired by the direction they are being led?) --Justmeherenow 17:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The current lead

message: I have completed some edits on the section on the sandbox page for this section. I have then put the proposed two paragraphs at the end of the first section without any of the editing history here, to aid in reading for comprehension.
Feedback and your edits on this section are appreciated. Please note any place(s) where the story of the emigrants needs explanations or pruning. --Robbie Giles 02:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: <span style="color:darkgreen;">'''§Ark'''''(ansans):''</span> edit section