Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

Untitled

Material archived from the Mountain Meadows massacre Talk page. (February 2009 - August 2010 approximate)

Edited to be more even handed.

Edited the article to more accurately reflect the cloud of uncertainty that accompanies the attempts at approaching the historical facts of this event. Made reference to a more recent, and detailed scholarly work covering this event. 71.86.145.83 (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Royal

No, you can't just remove the referenced parts that you don't like. You quoted Walker in the new paragraph that you added but you didn't have Walker rebut the parts of the story that are well-referenced in other sources. As you say, there's a cloud of uncertainty and we have no way of knowing whether Walker is any less mist-ified. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want to interject some of Walker et al's recent research, use it in a way that adjusts the article such that the experts are shown to disagree on certain points. Don't slice out the parts that you think have been disproved; add the new viewpoint and its supporting proof. Binksternet (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The recent book M at MM by Walker et al assembles quite a bit of new info on the subject of this article. Many of the ill-fated Ark-to-Cali travelers were Methodis and I hope to attend an interfaith discussion involving one the book's co-authors (who are Mormon), Turley, in a couple of days at a Methodist seminary. So, anybody, post my talkpage if you'd like me to ask a question of him for you, provided I'm able to attend. Thx. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Verify, verify, verify

You can't provide a cite showing what one or two persons believe and state categorically that it is what an entire group 'believes' ; that source doesn't quite work in this instance. Show a reliable source showing that that was the belief of all mormons, or leave that passage out. Duke53 | Talk 23:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

War hysteria

For the record, the pair of citations that Duke53 put in scare quotes and noted as being the testimony of "one or two persons" were (1) Morrill, Laban (September 1876), "Laban Morrill Testimony—witness for the prosecution", in Linder, Douglas, Mountain Meadows Massacre Trials (John D. Lee Trials) 1875–1876, University of Missouri-Kansas School of Law, 2006, and to (2) Hamblin, Jacob (September 1876), "Testimony of Jacob Hamblin", in Linder, Douglas, Mountain Meadows Massacre Trials (John D. Lee Trials) 1875–1876, University of Missouri-Kansas School of Law, 2006. I think to delete these sources from the article, rather than to fix whatever phrasing you objected to, Duke53, amounts to vandalism. But to foreswear this thought and assume good faith instead...let's first fill in the context of Duke53's cryptic statement just above and explain that s/he apparently disagrees with broad statements of the type "Mormons were fearful of being run out of Utah in 1857" and the like. I randomly flipped through Walker--Turner--Leonard's preface, and on p. xiii I see that they write,

The period from 1830 to 1860 has been called "The Turbelent Era," and indeed it was for many Mormons.<footnote> These men and women experienced violence in Missouri and Illinois, and when a U.S. army marched toward Utah Territory in 1857 -- the year of the massacre -- they believed they were about to become victims again.

That such accomplished historians make this generalization to me shows it likely to be, well, generally true. Still I'm still sure such sentiments could not have been entirely universal. In any case, Duke53, could your disagreement with such generilazations be overcome through our resorting to more careful of phrasing? Ie saying many felt such hysteria or trepidation rather than falsely stating that all did? ↜Just me, here, now … 04:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

1) If you add something to an article it is up to you to verify it, it is not up to me to fix it for you.
2) Be careful of using weasel words. Also be careful of using original research.
3) If you come up with a verifiable source that says 'many, 'most' or 'all' feel free to use it.
The 'fact' tag was up for a very long time with no editor coming up with a source ... to call that deletion vandalism is pure bs. If you truly believe that I vandalized this article, then by all means feel free to take that accusation to the next level ... I'd welcome it. Duke53 | Talk 08:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Duke53, my initial impression was that your stubborn squinting at the pair of sources you deleted was an example of a Wikipedian's resorting to Wikirulesmanship, the encyclopedia's historical accuracy be damned, but I've repented of that and now believe that such back and forth actually improves Wikipedia by encouraging a careful examination of the sources. In any case, regarding the actual meat of the issue of apparent contention: I trust you are now aware that Mssrs. Morrill and Hamblin were first-person obervers of the tenor of the beliefs in 1857 among the Iron County, Utah Territory settlers, with these two gentlemen having given sworn testimony to the same nineteen years later -- which is backed up by skads of contemporaneous sources and ackowledged by all the prestigious historians who have covered the massacre...including, of course, W/T/L in 2008. ↜Just me, here, now … 10:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
As a compromise, let's say that historians have said local Mormons believed the coming U.S. Army threatened the Mormons' continued existence in Utah, our citing W/T/L as an example of such historians and Hamblin and Morrill as examples of such local settlers. And if you are able to source an opinion that contradicts this professional analysis of reliable sources, we can include the contradictory source you'll have found as a minority opinion, as well. Agreed? ↜Just me, here, now … 11:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Duke53 said, "The 'fact' tag was up for a very long time with no editor coming up with a source ... to call that deletion vandalism is pure bs."
Your removing the sentence when there was no footnote attached was quite alright but any continued removal after pertinent citations are attached of course would be WP:OR and turning of Wikipedia into a repository of crankishness, unless you'd be able to impeach these sources by competing ones. ↜Just me, here, now …

"With respect to the Mormon perspective..."

I took out this sentence and its supporting URL: "With respect to the Mormon perspective, although many Latter-day Saints view the Nauvoo Legion’s exploits during 1857–58 with pride, this positive view is often muted by acute awareness that the Mormon military organization that successfully harassed the Utah Expedition during the fall of 1857 had also committed atrocities such as Mountain Meadows. http://www.dialoguejournal.com/excerpts/4001.pdf "

This sentence was positioned as a bit of modern thought tagged at the end of a paragraph but arriving in the middle of a chronological description of the chain of events. Its presence there was jarring.

If the sentence is thought important enough to return to a more appropriate place in the article, can we at least trim off the initial clause? Not needed... More importantly, the reference is to a chatty, personal account of an author's progress toward writing a book. Instead, can a reference book be found? Perhaps even by MacKinnon, the author?

The bit by MacKinnon is related more to the Utah War than to MMM specifically, though MMM is mentioned as a factor. Here's his full quote:

I think MacKinnon's conclusion makes the quote more appropriate to the article about Utah War. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed it again from a new spot. It didn't seem to fit in the Remembrances section. Duke53, it seems that you are casting around for a good place to put this author's quote about the Utah War and Nauvoo Legion. I have a few problems with that: If the article really needed that bit it would be obvious where to put it, and the way it's presented it doesn't really talk to Mountain Meadow Massacre. Something tailored to this article would talk more about how the negative feelings of MMM stopped Mormons from fully embracing their Nauvoo Legion history. A major (but easily corrected) problem is that the quote isn't QUOTED; it's not bound by quotation marks and MacKinnon isn't given obvious credit. I wouldn't bother with correcting the quote problem as the author is more focused on the Utah War than MMM. This bit doesn't belong. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this 'jarring' here also, under remembrances? No. Apparently this author seems to use the same license as other cited sources in this article (in a pro-lds publication) to describe what mormons 'feel'. His work specifically mentions the Mountain Meadows Massacre so it is appropriate for this article.
It would be wonderful for the lds church to discover or manufacture a legitimate 'reason' for this 'militia' to have massacred a troop of innocent people, but I'm not sure that that goal can be attained. The lds church covered up and lied about (to some extent even to this day) the circumstances concerning this despicable event. It is history, and no amount of posturing can change it. Denial by lds members is no longer a possibility, so whitewashing it is the next best option available. If a source can be used for one part of an article, you will simply have to accept it being used elsewhere in that same article.
If this section is deleted again then I feel that we may have to go Wikipedia wide to determine whether it belongs here or not; swarming and / or tag-teaming by various editors is not going to work at WP any longer. The mormon axe will not be ground here, or in any other lds oriented articles ... fortunately for us all this is not the 'Book of latter-day Wikipedians' yet.Duke53 | Talk 01:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
You are wa-a-a-ay off base with that Mormon axe-to-grind comment. I'm no supporter of the LDS church--I'm an atheist! What I am aiming at here is readability and clarity, and your simple reversion didn't even address the easy-to-fix problems that I identified in my previous entry. It's not even quoted yet, MacKinnon isn't given credit for this straight plagiarization (!) and the URL is naked out there without being formatted between ref tags etc. Please learn to edit in the Wikipedia style.
Furthermore, I don't see how this quote is either pro- or anti-Mormon. It's a soul-searching moment by a Mormon author who feels that he is speaking for generations of Mormons, expressing a complex feeling that many will relate to and you're bringing it here to do what? Figure out what point you're trying to make and then make it boldly, using this quote as a cornerstone if appropriate. Just because a cite mentions "Mountain Meadow" doesn't mean that it must be included here. Binksternet (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with a lot of what Binksternet says immediately above, but just want to correct the record here. Preeminent Utah War scholar Bill McKinnon is Presbyterian. ↜Just me, here, now … 04:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Awesome re: MacKinnon's religion. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
It's great to see the old gang gathering again; Bytebear is apparently comfortable deleting without comment ... either here or with an edit summary.
Reading comprehension is so underated these days; did I say that anyone editing this section was lds? Nope. I just mentioned editing with a pro-lds stance.
The remembrance section of this article is a perfect place for this cite ... and the same article is used as a source for another section of this article. My point (which is rather obvious) is that this author is conveying, after careful research, the feelings of some, if not many, mormons: they look back with pride at their church's militia's actions in 1857. It wasn't / isn't / never will be the official stance of the lds church, but it's his opinion that church members feel this way. We are being forced to accept a generalization of how mormons 'felt' they were about to 'be destroyed as a people' previously in this article (because of some testimony of two lds members), which I feel is a stretch. You can't have it both ways ... either we accept that premise and this one, or we accept neither. No changing of the rules in the middle of the game. If you can cite a reputable source that says that mormons aren't proud of the militia's actions, please add it, but deleting this section is just wrong. NPOV must be preserved and this is a step in that direction. It clearly shows how some mormons look back on the massacre. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 05:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand Duke53's sentiment. My engaging in bit of reductio hitlerium: It's akin to an article about an atrocity by the Nazi S.S.'s mention of the belief among the Nazi leadership that the Jews threatened the Aryan people "as a people." (So hmm...heck! I'll go ahead and figure out some way to word the "as a people" sentence, under contention in the MMM article, to at least say it was 1857 LDS leaders preparing the locals for the coming conflagration.) ↜Just me, here, now … 18:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC) (Incidentally, Morrill and Hamblin of course were Mormon leaders: Morrill, a stake high councillor; Hamblin, the Mormons' missionary/lead liaison to Native tribes.) ↜Just me, here, now … 20:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Gee Duke, you are told by several posters that your paragraph is inappropriate, and you just choose to try to slip it in somewhere else. It reminds me of the time when you added the garmet image to about 30 different articles even if they had the slightest connection with the image. Yes, your vandalism is legendary. Bytebear (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Gee Byte, if you feel that this is vandalism why don't you report it as such and take the appropriate action against me? The real problem is that I won't drink the lds koolaid and allow WP to become another tract for the mormon church; NPOV must be adhered to, no matter what our pro-lds editors may want. Duke53 | Talk 20:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
You must feel that your edits don't require a comment either on the talk page or in an edit summary ... why don't you have to follow the rules? Oh, and please point out to me the 'thirty (30)' articles where the garment picture was added, that would be interesting to see; or is that just a bit more exaggeration / lying from a pro-lds editor? ("about 30" different articles should mean 25 - 35 articles, right ?) Please refrain from making any more baseless personal attacks. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 20:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
p.s. It is always nice to see Godwin's law show up in another discussion concerning an lds article; that never gets old. Duke53 | Talk 20:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have thought better of it, but at the moment I made it, a parallel between 30s/40s German nationalism and the complete massacre of a train of Arkansas mostly-Methodists by some members of a peculiar, new-formed kingdom of Millennialists I guess seemed apropos. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Trimming external links

I'm trimming a bunch of stuff from external links. Referring to WP:EL, I understand that any link can be removed that doesn't supply further detailed information beyond what would be present here in this article if it were to reach featured status. Mark Twain's description of Goshute indians has nothing to do with MMM so it's out. I'm keeping links that have photographs, maps and diagrams not present here. Some of these sources that I'm taking out are quite interesting and I'm sure they could be used as references, but as external links they are redundant. Binksternet (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Trimming the same links again. Nothing has changed, these links are still not needed. A recent reversion edit summary read links provide additional details not contained in this WP article but my response is, just like above, that additional details supplied by the links I removed are not so detailed that they don't give information beyond what would be present in this article if it were expanded and refined to reach Featured Article status. In particular, one of the links is already in the references section twice, with two different URLs giving voice to Brevet Major Carleton.
These links are out. Binksternet (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Binksternet said, "I understand that any link can be removed that doesn't supply further detailed information beyond what would be present here in this article if it were to reach featured status."

Although Brigham Young had been preparing his people for war against the United States, he soon negotiated a peaceful end to what became known as "Buchanan's Blunder." Alfred Cumming, the new governor, assumed his office in the spring of 1858. With the reestablishment of an uneasy peace, it became essential not only to the perpetrators of the crime but also to the church hierarchy to maintain a veil of secrecy over the massacre.

I believe that details such those in the above quote -- selected at random from the Christianity Today article -- provide background details of the type that would be expected in a Wikipedia Featured Article. Any other editors wish to provide their thoughts on this? ↜Just me, here, now … 21:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My thinking would be that until such a level of coverage is obtained here, for us to keep such links as this as a service to Wikipedia readers researching this tragedy/atrocity. ↜Just me, here, now … 21:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why we should lean on the External link crutch when what we should be doing is adding the appropriate amount of detail to the article and supporting such additions with the former external links that are worthy of use as references. I stand by my position of leaving the external link 'farm' weeded like it is, and I encourage editors to use worthy sources as supporting documents for parts of this article that are already written as well as not yet written. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Binksternet, I appreciate your concerns about the crutch of linking to such scholarly sources and a well-balanced collection of analyses as you deleted; however, I still believe that until such time as the article takes advantage of these sources, many of them should be retained in a "References" section. I'll re-add them there. Are there any other knowledgeable or iterested editors who have become acquainted with these links and who would wish to comment on their inclusion? ↜Just me, here, now … 22:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
That mormonstudies.net article by Payne was copyedited by who? Payne's own website has a version dated one week ago that corrects some misspellings which cropped up in the 2007 one, such as possessive Abrahams => Abraham's and descendants => descendant's. You might want to use the more recent article as it appears more carefully prepared.
What makes me rage at the concept of "External links" is that the presence of that heading in an article attracts too many tangential and wingnut links. I'm a deletionist in that I believe the encyclopedia as a whole needs to shed a reputation for clunky, jarring prose thrown together at random along with a not-infrequent dose of vandalism. Ideally, I would like to see all facts supported by appropriate references, and all links be scholarly works that offer material such as copyrighted images or A/V media that can't be included here. Any external link that can be quoted should be quoted and so should become a reference. Very simple. This article is not a business creating a product that needs to get out the door and make money now even though it has some imperfections... We here can afford to hold back on the External links until they can be farmed for their best bits and those bits included here. What's the rush that we need to do it badly until we can do it right? Binksternet (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Discussions get pretty fiery hereabouts. Understatement. And contributed prose very rarely completely satisfying all comers: "all" meaning the small posse of unreconcileable factions who show up to edit around here. Still I think it would be great for somebody -- somebody with the least axe to grind as possible -- to come and spiff the article up. Somebody sort of akin to the author of the Christianity Today piece? Somebody like -- yourself? ↜Just me, here, now … 23:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
What's funny is that I see myself as the editor having the very least axe to grind. I'm not Mormon, nobody in my family was ever killed by Mormons; I'm not Christian, I'm not personally challenged by anything related to Mormonism or Christianity. My goal for this article is neutrality. So... your current workaround of having a References, General section is very weak; it has no practical difference for the reader than the previous clutter that was External links. Because of that, I have the same deletionist aim regarding the new construction within References. Binksternet (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
What I mean to say is it is great when somebody who is as neutral as possible -- maybe someone who is not Mo, not "Mo-no-mo(re)," or otherwise anti-Mo' (such as yo'-self) -- contributes to the article. And while I believe such things as critiques and the snipping off of imperfections can be constructive, I think that actual contributions of text and of better sources can even be more so. ↜Just me, here, now … 05:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
That's great. Duke53 thinks I'm in lockstep with the Mormon Cabal and you call me anti-Mo. Perfect. Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggested a hope, Binksternet, that as neutral party (who's not Mo, former Mormon, nor anti- ) you might act as a referee somewhat hereabouts. And yet out of that you somehow got it I'd called you a good-for-nothing Mormon hater? If you read my words as sarcasm when I mean 'em straight, the only explanation is I suck at conveying subtleties of tone. For which dim-wittedness I apologize. (← REAL APOLOGY. NOT SARCASM. THANK YOU. <smiles>) ↜Just me, here, now … 18:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, okay, I see you meant that parenthetical aside to cover the three positions you listed, not just the final one. Thanks for clarifying. Binksternet (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• "Duke53 thinks I'm in lockstep with the Mormon Cabal ... ". Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Do you bother reading this stuff, or are you too caught up in just posting it ? I simply made a comment about a pro-lds deletion. Duke53 | Talk 17:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
(Eg per what I wrote just above): Somebody has removed Turley's Ensign magazine piece (...which reference, incidentally is notable in its own right as the first instance of an LDS official source acknowledging some of the more egregious MMM aspects...) with the edit summary deletion rationale that it is by an apologist and is poorly sourced. <sighs> (...Etc.!) ↜Just me, here, now … 14:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Some deletionists are in the majority at the moment who claim that general references are sub par per Wiki standards and should be removed prior to their being used in specific citations. Refs under discussion are below:
↜Just me, here, now … 14:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Links that have no freaking business here as "External links" or as vague "References, General":
  • Yet a third cite of Brevet Major Carleton. He's in twice already!
  • The history of Paiutes--nothing relevant.
  • Mark Twain's report on the Goshute tribe--nothing relevant.
  • Angelfire webpage with self-published article of unknown repute, listed here as Background articles
Links that should only be cited as references, not used as wallpaper here:
  • The Mormon Prophet and His Harem (1867) by C.V. Waite. Cite as reference or leave it out.
  • Richard Turley's article on LDS.org. Cite as reference or leave it out.
  • A 2007 post by John G. Turner at ChristianityToday.com. Cite as reference or leave it out.
  • Seth Payne's Election and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows. Cite as reference or leave it out. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Note that the angelfire link you mention is a cache of the following official LDS statements or historical treatments.
↜Just me, here, now … 01:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Who put that site together? From its beginning to its abandonment in place, it hasn't had anybody step up and take responsibility for it. How faithful are the repros? How are we to know what level of copy error the website contains? Binksternet (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is ever a work in progress and until pertinent sources are placed only in cited references they often find useful placement as general references, plain and simple. Sometimes providing carefully chosen links to places where there are indexes of related articles or topics or providing links to where source documents are posted can be useful. While a case could be made to avoid duplications where any are already included in the notes, we shouldn't simply dump them all prior to their best's use in precise citations. Eg consider the article's meager treatment of the Paiutes. How much of the following is reflected in the article now? (i.) That area Paiutes' oral history indicates their but minimal participation? Yet (ii.) a primary raison d'etre for it being a massacre in the first place was for it to appear to have been the work of angry Natives that their Mormon friends could no longer hold back, blah-blah? But, in any case (iii.), recent authors Walker, Turley and Leonard mention an expert on Paiute culture who thinks the tribe would have been extremely unlikely to participate in lengthy, pitched battles of the MMM's type? Historical information about the Paiutes is of importance for those thinking about or researching the massacre. ↜Just me, here, now … 00:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this article is a work in progress but we don't have to pile the lumber in front of the viewer until such a time as we form the lumber into the proper structure. I don't disagree that Paiute information would be good here but that link has nothing worth keeping--it wouldn't even serve as a reference for the kind of text you envision. The Goshute article, too. And for cryin' out loud, let's let the Brevet Major sit down and take a breather! He's cited twice with two URLs already; the reader who is curious can find him easily. We don't need him as an External link or as a Reference, General, the presence of which I'm still against as it simply circumvents the rules that have been discussed, hammered out and laid down regarding external links. Binksternet (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

<==I support Trasel's recent edits which together have wholly taken down the list of links under discussion. A lot of words have been expended here but all we really needed to cite was Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

......Well IMHO

[,,,]There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.----WP:NOTLINK

is less than the deletionist manifesto implied. ↜Just me, here, now … 17:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC) For the record, Binksternet supports User:Trasel, whose (we must assume) very careful examination of a published article by Richard E. Turley, Jr. reveals it to be but "[...]a poorly sourced on-line "reference" written by [an] apologists [...that is] blatantly biased and distorts historic fact." ↜Just me, here, now … 18:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
There's no need for ad hominem attacks here. We are debating content, not people. I support the results of Trasel's series of edits, not the edit summaries. Binksternet (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, Binksternet, thanks for disassociating yourself from Trasel's ad hominem attacks on established scholars who happen to be LDS. (Super incidentally I myself am not LDS, either.) ↜Just me, here, now … 19:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC) BTW the otherwise I'm sure more careful editor Trasel missed this article's use of what s/he believes to be but a poorly sourced "reference" here: "In September 2007, the LDS Church published an article in its official publications marking 150 years since the tragedy occurred." [Footnote: Richard E. Turley Jr., "Writing 'Massacre at Mountain Meadows'"]. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Young had somethin to do with it?

I would like to know how much Brigham Young had to do with the massacre. I mean he was the governor of The Utah Terrotory, and we know that nothing took place in The Utah Territoty with out Young having a say or knowing about it. It seams that Young knew about it and was the one who ok it. I like to know more about Young’s involvement in the massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.172.5 (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


Young knew nothing about it until much later. the one who planned and carried out the attack lied to young. Missouri denied the Mormons of their Constitutional Rights. Boggs knew the facts that the non-Mormons had attacked the Mormons first. Boggs signed "Executive Order 44" to utterly destroy the Mormons. The people who planned the attack had physical and mental scares from Missouri. One had scares on his body from being whipped, one was shot four time at Haun's mill, others had their home burned, property taken, friends and family died being thrown out in the dead of winter. The memories of Misouri Lilburn Boggs, Rev. Isaac McCoy and others who led attacks on Mormons in the mid 1830's planted the seeds of the Massacre. the desire for revenge; the Government sending agents that came to Utah, who came and antagonized the Mormons,the Government cutting off communication with Utah and sending 2500+ troops to controll a non-existant rebellion, Parley P. Pratt being murdered in Arkansas, the person who killed him bragged about what he had done and was never charged. If the cutting off of communication and the sending of the troops to Utah had not happened, and President Buchanan had send a neutral party to Utah to invesigate the charges he had received by those who came to antagonize the Mormons. Young would not have declared Marshal Law, the Mormons would have traded with the Fancher/Bakers and the Massacre would have not happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.174.169 (talk) 06:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Missing Point

Has anyone considered that the "Mormon" people took all they could and simply started handing their Butts back to them for it? They are for the most part a peacable people. But, anyone put in the same position would have put self preservation first and formost. It would appear to the reader that for the first time since their beginngs they simply fought back rather than standing there being an easy target for their enemies. So Human of them... What I have a difficult time coming to terms with is that after some 150 yrs people who had nothing to do any of this are not only digging up,but reliving as past that none of them can do anything about. Things happen just as they do for a reason. The events that happened at Mountain Meadows really happened. They took their place in the history books. Anyone can read for themselves what is know to have happened. I don't think that the reader is going to have any problem filling in the blanks (if any)for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.226.152 (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Modification to Context: During Utah War

I rewrote two sentences giving the context in the introduction because the original text conveyed inaccurate information. The original text said that the party was travelling before the Utah War. This conveys a false impression. In reality September 1857 is considered part of the Utah War period and at this time the situation was extremely tense. The original text also gives the reason for the U.S. Army attack as to "restore the authority of the federal government" as though the Mormons would have known that. In fact, noone knew what the orders of the army were at that time except Buchanan and the military commanders. Many newspapers in the east were openly calling for the extermination of the Mormons--an important factor in the psychology of territory and one which is notably not mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Chamberlain (talk • contribs) 23:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Murder/Execute at Mountain Meadows

Hello there. Just curious as to why you reverted my change of the word "execute" to "murder" here - is there a source to support the use of the word murder? Just asking as I'd consider the word murder in any context (other than, say, an actual murder trial) to be pretty pov. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Execute, in my opinion, implies an arrest, a trial, a sentencing, and the carrying out of the judicial sentence. In this case, sadly, none of these occurred. The victims were deceived into thinking the Mormon settlers were rescuing them from a native attack, then the adults were killed one by one. Even without an arrest, I'm afraid, this was simply murder through mob action -- motivated by fear and a desire for revenge and justified by one or more Mormon leaders. I'll transfer this to the MMM talk page so others can express their opinions. Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
To me, execution implies "implementing a planned killing" not just "killing as a punishment for a tried crime". That would be in-line with other uses of the word execute. Other examples I can think of where "execution" is used where no trial occurred would be the military's on-the-spot executions for desertion, mutiny, and under some circumstances civilians. As such, either murder, killing, or execution could be and are used interchangebly in this article, to avoid repetition of the same word over and over. If anything, this argument is about which word should be used on the first mention of act. If that is the argument, I disagree that murder is a POV word and don't think it matters which. Murder sounds stronger to my ears, but logically, all 3 are proper words to describe the act.Dave (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to be a thesaurus or anything, but the following would be better than execute: annihilation, assassination, butcher/butchering, blot out, bump off, destruction, dispatching, criminal(killing), eradication, hit, homicide, liquidation, manslaughter, massacre, offing, rub out, shooting, slaying, taking out, the business, the works. My preference is for "the liquidation" or "the works". It avoids that issue of repetition.... 149.76.160.30 (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation required in the lead

Howdy, It looks like we've got a mini-edit war brewing [1] over the need to cite that J.D. Lee was executed at the massacre site.

Just a reminder that the applicable policy is WP:LEAD.

My take on that policy is that, as the lead section is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, citations are not usually required in the lead. Generally the only details cited in the lead are controversial statements likely to be disputed and any derogatory claims about a living person; everything else can be cited upon mention in the body of the article. That J.D. Lee was executed is about the only detail of the massacre that everybody agrees happened. As such, I am of the opinion that no citation is required here.Dave (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows massacre/References

I moved Mountain Meadows massacre/References to Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre/References. Article space does not support subpages, thus the list appears as a regular article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Reading Young's mind

I have twice removed [2], [3]a bald statement that "Young was appalled" by the massacre. The writer of the book referenced did not have direct access to Young's internal mental state when he learned of the massacre. so it is unverifiable to claim that "Young was appalled." The farthest that it is encyclopedic to go in this direction is to reference something like "Young wrote (or said) to X that he was appalled" with a reference to who the witness is. That is as true of this article as of any other article. We describe writings or statements, not internal mental states. If some reference states that "Young was appalled" that is not good enough, unless the writer of the reference can be verified to be a time travelling mind reader. Rather it calls into question whether that reference is a reliable source. Stick to verifiable historical facts, and keep the article encyclopedic rather than polemic or apologetic.The page in question is excluded from the online Google book scan of the work. What does the author, Arrington, actually state as the basis for the claimed mental state of Young? If Young immediately gave a sermon in which he stated he was appalled, a newspaper account of that statement would be encyclopedic. If he wrote an editorial in the Deseret News as soon as he heard of the massacre in which he stated he was appalled, that would be relevant. Apparently neither of those two things took place. The writing or documented speech is what has a place in the article. We cannot automatically make the leap and assume that if someone said he was appalled, or if an official church historian decades later said that Young was appalled in 1857, that he was in fact appalled. Edison (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't particularly care for this style of writing, but I am also not familiar with the reference text. However, when a statement is referenced it is not appropriate to change it unless the reference does not support the statement made. Is this a quote from BY's diary or a recording of a statement made to other leaders? If it is, and the reference is meets the Wikipedia standards for a reliable source, then it should be left alone. Arrington is a rather reputable source. We need to identify what the reference states rather than blindly edit/change the reference. --StormRider 13:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we are saying different things. We both support referenced statements from reputable sources. When a statement is referenced, it should not be changed. That is why I reverted you; you were changing a referenced statement. I have no problems if you qualified the statement that X states YZ; in this instance, in particular, it would be helpful. As I stated above, I don't appreciate the writing style of the sentence in question and your proposed change would improve it. I just don't have the text and cannot verify what was actually said. --StormRider 23:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Arrington in fact could not have known what Young's feelings were, only what he said or wrote. People sometimes feign surprise and dismay when bad things happen. It simply is unverifiable what some historical figure thought or felt. Articles should only document what they said, did, or wrote. This is especially true when many books over the last 150 years have debated whether Young had some foreknowledge or responsibility for the events. An encyclopedia article would be better if it stuck to referenced accounts of what Young said and wrote about the massacre, at what time after he learned of it, and what actions he took (and when) to bring the perpetrators to justice. Accounts by church historians such as Arrington initially blamed the Fancher party for dubious words and deeds committed against the Mormans, so exculpatary claims about Young's thoughts are contrary to the neutral point of view requirement. Similarly, in an article about sex abuse in the Catholic Church, we should not say some church official was "shocked and surprised" to hear that pedophile priests were allowed to continue in the priesthood. In the article about of the My Lai Massacre we should just document what the officials said and what actions they took afterwards, and not what the mental state of General William Westmoreland, General Creighton Abrams, Colonel Oran Henderson or, or Major Colin Powell were when they were told hundreds of women and children had been shot at point blank range by US soldiers. Ultimately only one soldier was imprisoned, for a few months for the massacre and coverup. In each case the thoughts and mental states of participants in historical events or persons who later learned of the events are unverifiable, and should not be included in articles, even if someone writes a book and states what the person thought or felt, especially when the person's knowledge or responsibility have nbeen argued by scholars. If the commentator is a renowned scholar, then in some cases we might be able to say something like "Historian xxxArrington said in his book yyyy that Young was appalled when he learned of the killings," since Arrington's writing is verifiable. This is more credible if the historian spent time with the historical figure around the time of the incident, like a Lyndon Johnson biographer or a Nixon biographer writing about their impression of how the Vietnam war affected Johnson or how Watergate affected Nixon. Edison (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have read a lot of different books on the history of the united states, and the fact of the matter is you can only believe have of what you read. back in that time,there was no way to really confirm what really happen. we may never know , the truth of it all. I think in that period of time people had a lot of fear, and hatred , for others ,and that caused a lot of problems for a young America. Remember what happen in Ma. ,and Ill. There was a lot of hatred for Mormons ,and Killing that went on,unpunished,for there crimes.Mormons was treaded like Native Americans ,kill and get away with it.some of the State sen., stated it. Their Wifes ,and family members was rapt at ,gun point ,and houses burned , farms burned , cows killed or ran off. I thing there is still a lot of hatred in peoples hearts. I pray that we can all get a long with each other, and learn to forgive one,and another. for hatred , is the base of evil.∅∅∅∅∅ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.14.75 (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Who is "Mr. Robinson"?

I removed the two references to "a son of Mr. Robinson" as being one of the victims of the alleged poisoning at Corn Creek, since there's no other reference to this man. A quick web search turned up contemporary documents mentioning a "Mr. Robinson of Fillmore" and I'm guessing he might be the Richard Smith Robinson alleged to have been one of the militiamen who carried out the massacre, but without further research, I can't resolve this.11 Arlington (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Young involvement

Krakauer's book (which is not cited in this article at all, and I am not saying it should be) suggests that Young more or less ordered the attack. The section in this article on his involvment, however, does not come close to suggesting that anyone has this view. I know very little about the incident, and maybe Krakauer's view is distinctly in the minority. But if it's not, it seems to me the section should more clearly state that some believe that Young countenanced, authorized, or even ordered the attack. MDuchek (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, but remember some historians think that Young had very little to do with the massacre at all, and some think he had everything to do with it. Is it really a benefit to the article to include their opinions? An example of this might be: "Some historians suggest that Young ordered the massacre, while others disagree". Does this improve the article? I know opinions are used quite a bit in this article, so I am not saying that just because they are opinions we shouldn't use them, just why bother with it if there is really not a general consensus. There really isn't much evidence to support either view, just the letter from Young telling them not to interfere with the emigrants, along with a few recorded inflammatory speeches, Lee's account, and then there are the late second and third hand accounts, and most of these clash with each other, just like many of the opinions --Mangoman88 (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mountain_Meadows_Massacre/Archive_18&oldid=1092048185"