Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 13

message: Today (July 11) a citation was removed that showed the official date that Buchanan appointed Cummings as Territorial governor of Utah. The citation was to a U.S. Senate journal. As it stands now, there is not a source for the information about Cummings' appointment. Until a reliable source is put in showing an earlier date, I object to the removal of this citation. What was the rationale for the removal? I will check further in the senate records to find any earlier documents, but I am very confused as to why it was removed. 
I found another example where testimony of Mormons who made favorable statements about the Fanchers is no longer included in this article. (It was reduced on the 8th of July, and subsequently reduced again and moved to a footnote.) The reference to the statements of Indians has also been removed. The Mormon participants and bystanders are not the only reliable sources of information in this tragedy. By removing sourced, balanced material the article is damaged. Remember, we are not proving what happened, who is more to blame, or anything else. We are writing an article from as neutral a point of view as possible, using reliable sources.
This article is becoming less balanced with all the rapid little changes being made to it. I suggest we stop wholesale editing, choose one section and work on that. Then move to a next section. I am trying to put in a balance of sources, and feel I am wasting my time when it is removed without real comment. 
I also strongly suggest no sourced materials be removed without discussing it on the talk page first. It is discourteous. --Robbie Giles 05:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops! I put it back. Sorry for the discourtesy - it was inadvertent (BTW, thanks for the excellent talk page discussion/ pointers: this is the first article I've worked on - but I'm learning!) :^)  --Justmeherenow 07:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which poll has been cited to demonstrate this statement: "historians agree Paiute involvement was proportionately small."?   I see that there is a reference but it is not a reference that supports the statement. --Blue Tie 09:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for my laziness not to have reference even one of the dozen references I'd read that give the lions share of blame to the militia as opposed to the Paiutes - but I'll rectify. Thx! --Justmeherenow 09:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that the plan was concocted by the Mormons, but I do not think that the Paiutes were innocent babes.  They participated.  The article should not give them blame or credit for having conceived the plan but it should not whitewash their participation just because they don't like it mentioned.  They were there ... for DAYS firing on the group and multiple accounts testify of their participation in the actual massacre.  Shannon's forensic observations actually support the idea that they participated perhaps even more widely than reported. But that would be speculation. I also point out that adjectives will tend to be biased.  "Proportionally small" is an adjective phrase.  Better to describe the participation and let the reader decide how small or large. That is the heart of NPOV writing.  --Blue Tie 10:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As to the Cummings' appointment citation, sorry I didn't mention it here. I made anote in the edit summary. I removed it because the citation was for Cummings' nomination to the Senate in December 1857. Cummings had, however, received his letter of appointment in July 1857. Like another president we all know and love, James Buchanan mismanaged the whole affair, and didn't clue Congress into what was going on until way after the fact. He thought the whole expedition would have been over with by December, but the army and Cummings got stuck in Wyoming over the winter. COGDEN 02:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removals of sourced material

message: I believe that the editors currently working on this article are moving in the right direction. I pledge to continue working on this article in a spirit of cooperation and civility. This is a contentious subject. To have this level of cooperation is a blessing. I refuse to let one or even two or three discourteous editors derail this effort. So, I offer a challenge to all participants to assume that others are as capable as yourself, as interested as yourself, and as worthy of civility of yourself. Remember: On the internet we may not know you are a dog, but by discussion page comments we know when someone is being rude, condescending, and arrogant. So, will you take the pledge?  --Robbie Giles 04:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think everyone here has been civil, except perhaps me.  And in my case, I did not mean to be uncivil but frank.  However, it could be the same thing. Its a lack of patience.  But I will try harder. --Blue Tie 14:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  High road 

message: This article has a wealth of information about related topics. Before deleting any information, please make sure it is in the parent article first. For example, the information on the Utah War background deleted from this article may not be in the Utah War article in a sourced format. One suggestion might be to place it on your User or Talk page to include in the other article later. Just a suggestion for a way to use all this hard work. --Robbie Giles 14:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I do not think the good research should be lost. --Blue Tie 14:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal or splitting leftovers