Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 20

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

Mormon sanitzization

Why was this article allowed to be cleaned up and sanitized by mormons in the great edit war of 2007? Is it too much of a coincidence preceding willards' run for office? I would like a real answer to this and not just a delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.121.80 (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Already asked and answered. See the archives for this talk page, including most recently "Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre/Archive 19#Mormon Whitewashing?". You might also consider reviewing wp:AGF. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
To further clarify, 2007 was the 150th anniversary of the event, and there had been a concerted effort made by many parties to get the article to wp:GA/wp:FA status in time for that anniversary. Unfortunately that effort failed. Occam's razor indicates in this case that one should not ascribe undue weight to the impact on this article of Romney's political aspirations in the 2008 elections, especially in place of the significant anniversary and the peak in press/publications/events surrounding the anniversary. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Strident Mormon Teachings

The beginning sentence for this section makes a statement about Lee. There has been a request for a reference since 2011. If the reference is not given I will delete it this week. Does anyone have a problem with such an action. If so, how long should we wait for a reference to support such a statement? --StormRider 04:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No opposition from me. Do we really need 2 CN templates in the same paragraph? Wasn't the point made with the first one? But 3 years is more than enough time to fix a controversial paragraph.
However, the larger point is that this paragraph, IMO, doesn't add any value to the article. what it says is obvious to any level headed person who understands mob mentality and how things like massacres can happen from what were previously thought to be good people. To those that are not level headed, this isn't enough to get them to reconsider their agenda. Dave (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mountain Meadows massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The amount of hidden editorial comments in this article

seems a little much to me... I counted...there were at least 17 (more or less, depending on subsequent revisions, etc.) hidden comments. This practice of embedding so much hidden comment within the reading text would seem to be against the Wikipedia guidelines of MOS:DONTHIDE & MOS:COMMENT. I can't quite tell if it is all for spacing issues or what... So, I reverted the article to this version and am going through this hidden editorial comment-code to figure out if it is all indeed necessary. If anyone disagrees with my editing changes, please discuss the various issues here on the article talk page before reverting. Thank you, Shearonink (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so I went through the edit history & found the 20:33, 31 March 2009 edit that introduced the empty <!-- --> hidden comments and looked at diffs where the code was deleted and where the code was kept...and I don't understand why the code is within the article. These empty hidden comments seem extraneous to me so I have removed all but the needed editorial ones that contain instructions or pertinent comments. If another editor thinks this code should be restored, please explain on this talk page - thanks, Shearonink (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
AFAIK, they are just artifacts from an earlier era when there were multiple authors nit-picking over the wording of several details. This article has been fairly stable for the past 5 years, but back in the day this place was a war zone. Dave (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Thx for the reply. When I found the 2009 edit, there wasn't any particular reason given in the edit summary so I was thinking "artifact" as well... I thought the empty comments might have been for spacing or visual clarity when editing or whatever but there was no particular reason given by the editor in their edit summary or on the talk page at the time (yes I did look). I was trying to edit the page for content & looking at some possible POV/vandalism edits over the past several days - the empty hidden comments made it difficult for me to see what was actually appearing on the page, so I decided to delete them (and yeah re:editing battles on this particular subject...). Shearonink (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

An editor has repeatedly been adding multiple 'citation needed' maintenance templates to the lead section of this article. Per WP:LEADCITE it is not necessary for statements to have citations when the information and references appear within the main text. These changes need to be discussed on this talk page since the addition of these templates appears to be going against editorial consensus. Shearonink (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Mountain Meadows massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

revisionism, please prevent it.

It appears that people are trying to bury the lead of this article. This attack is a historical fact as is the fact that it was planned and executed by the Mormon residents of Utah. The word Mormon not appearing in the initial description combined with the naming of the Paiute Indians as being part of the attack makes it clear that some kind of revisionism is happening, or perhaps just bad editing.

FYI- Some of the attacking mormons disguised themselves as indians (Native Americans), hence the rumors that indians were involved.

Lets keep the lead clear on the fact that this was a Mormon attack. Don't allow anyone to "sanitize" this historical account. The Mormons own records after the fact indicate that it was there people who were totally responsible for this action. Jjk (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, this is false. Paiute involvement is an established fact, and is non-controversial. There were Paiutes present from the first day of the attack to the last. At the beginning of the attack, only one white man, John D. Lee, was present on the ground.
This is not to deny or downplay the fact that the Iron County militia were involved, particularly at the end. Nor that the attack was premeditated. Nor even that the massacre itself was committed largely by the Mormon members of the militia. But denial of Paiute involvement is historically fictitious.— Preceding unsigned comment added by uRmcgregor57 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


You do realize that all of that, and more, is summed up in the third paragraph of the lead. Because of that, I don't see the long-standing version of the lead (the result of much discussion and consensus-building) as suffering from whitewashing or revisionism. All reports indicate Paiutes were present and participated in the attack. There is no historical question in the minds of legitimate historians that Paiutes were present. There is also no dispute that the massacre was planned and directed by local Mormons. Again, the Mormon connection and involvement is in the lead already. You were bold, I reverted, now per WP:BRD we should discuss and gain consensus before you re-do the edit. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Being as how the info-box is the briefest of summaries of the event, where one is expected to read the article for more information, I would choose to list Utah territorial Militia as the attacking party, as the most accurate label. For one, stating Mormons did it is true, but generalized and unnecessarily inflammatory. Mormon civilians were not involved (otherwise there would be thousands of attackers, not dozens). Similar examples would be Christians are raping and kidnapping girls to make them sex slaves or Catholics rape young boys. All of these statements are true, but generalized, inflammatory and would not be deemed appropriate statements in a credible encyclopedia.Dave (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's particularly inflammatory. The fact that it was performed by Mormons is the most well-known aspect of this incident, and the primary thing it's notable for. It obviously belongs in the first few sentences. --Aquillion (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits by Anon104

I recently reverted several edits by an anonymous user that removed several statements sourced to reliable sources and introduced imo both OR and POV. One of the reasons given for removing some of the sourced material is that it came from LDS authors, which should never be a sufficient reason by itself for removal of text. If the sources can be shown to fail WP:RS, then they should be removed. The editor also frequently mentions that Hinckley exonerated the Paiutes at the 1990 memorial services, but I can't at the moment find any transcript or source that backs up this claim. The removal of Fancher and the "interesting to note" comment seem a bit OR to me. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that a phrase such as "It is interesting to note that" is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article, and at a minimum needs to be re-worded. As to who was the leader of the train I've given up. Reading the various historical associations, there appears to be a rivalry. The one thing I'm sure of is the name of the party as the "Baker-Fancher" train is a relatively modern invention. However, it appears that descendants of each are certain that their guy was the real leader of the train and the other guy was a follower. So I'm guessing the reason we most often read about the "Baker-Fancher train" is a compromise of sorts. The other two points are longstanding controversial statements in the article. I agree with the deletion of Blood Atonement here, as there is an entire section dedicated to that subject farther down. I personally think we should remove the mention of Paiutes in the lead, but don't feel strongly enough about it to edit war. Near as I can tell the Paiutes that were present were coerced into being there as the "premeditated scapegoats", as such keeping them in the lead does serve to deflect at least a bit of the blame. But they were there, so it's not entirely wrong to mention them in the lead either. Just my $.02. Dave (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "premeditated scapegoats" are. While it's popular to view the massacre as the always-intended outcome of a plot, it's probably more realistic to see it as the culmination of a series of tragic blunders. It's fairly clear that the perpetrators wanted to use the Paiutes as their cat's paw. It's less clear that the initial intention was to wipe out the train entirely; rather it seems to have been their intention to punish the emigrants for annoying or provoking behaviour in Cedar City. It's also a little bit disconcerting that there seems to be a lot of focus on the question of blame. Surely what happened and why is more important than who gets the finger pointed at them. Rmcgregor57 (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Poisoning the well

Under the heading 'Historical theories explaining the massacre' we find the following text:

"According to author Sally Denton, the involvement of Young and other LDS Church leaders is further complicated by the LDS Church's reluctance to assume responsibility for the massacre, which, Denton argues, is because it would risk 'calling into question Brigham Young's divinity and the Mormon belief that they are God's chosen people.'[44]"

This is polemical, and an exercise in poisoning the well. Mormons do not believe Brigham Young to be "divine." Ms Denton is setting up a straw man. Actually "the LDS Church" doesn't "assume responsibility for the massacre" because the Church wasn't responsible. Mormons yes; the Church, no. The current state of the evidence exonerates Young from any complicity. Brigham didn't do it. And that is entirely sufficient reason to explain why the Church is "reluctant" to say that he did.

The peroration of Ms Denton's NYT article, from which the above excerpt is quoted, is instructive. "Believing they were doing God's work in ridding the world of 'infidels,'" she writes, "evangelical Mormon zealots committed one of the greatest civilian atrocities on American soil." This accusation compares well with the old anti-Semitic "Blood libel." The notion that "ridding the world of 'infidels'" is "God's work" is not now and never has been a Mormon teaching.

I respectfully suggest that the paragraph in question be edited. Rmcgregor57 (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mountain Meadows massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Mountain Meadows Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Change title to Mountain Meadows Massacre

Suggest the title of this article be changed from Mountain Meadows massacre to Mountain Meadows Massacre. Please see American Revolutionary War, American Civil War, and Boston Massacre. Suggest titles of other Mountain Meadows Massacre articles also be changed. Jerry Stockton (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

It was at one time titled that. There was a debate about this many year ago. I don't remember what arguments the MMm crowd used verses the MMM. Either way there will be redirects from one to the other, and I have no opinion either way.Dave (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
A few days ago I looked through the archives but did not find anything about MMm vs MMM. I changed the text to show MMM as I believe that to be correct, but would still like to see the title show MMM.Jerry Stockton (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
It was moved in 2005. See [1] and [2]. The reason cited was per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). It sounds like they were making the argument that MMM is not a proper name. I'm not sure I agree with that, I've never heard it called anything else. But I have no strong feelings either way personally.Dave (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that Dave. Yeah, a simple page move (wasn't discussed on article talk so nothing in the archives). It seems to me that MMM is the actual name of the event. It was a massacre that occurred at Mountain Meadows but it is the Mountain Meadows Massacre, a singular event the same way WP has Wounded Knee Massacre, American Indian Wars, Red River Rebellion, etc. Shearonink (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Shearonink, and thank you Dave. So what needs to be done to get the title shown as Mountain Meadows Massacre? Jerry Stockton (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

You know Wikipedia, there's an overly complicated procedure for everything. ;) The long answer is the procedure is at WP:Move. The shorter answer is that because both the current and proposed titles exist as wikipedia articles, it's likely an admin is required to use their magic buttons to delete one and move the other. (For page moves where the proposed title doesn't exist, you can do it yourself by following the instructions above). I'm an admin, but we're only supposed to push that magic delete button either if we're sure it's non controversial, or after the result of a discussion. Being as how we've already started a discussion, and at least 12 years ago someone thought there was a reason to use the present title, I say lets keep this discussion open for a few days to see if someone has a valid reason for keeping the title at "massacre". Or you can find an admin who is sure it isn't controversial ;). FYI, if anyone is concerned that this talk page discussion isn't enough (for me it is, the people who care about the article will see it) and want to alert the Wikipedia community at large, the way to do that is to put this snipit on the talk page, with the relevant info {{subst:Requested move|NewName |reason= Why}}. Dave (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

P.S. As the editor who made that change in 2005 is still around, I've invited them to reply to this thread. Dave (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It appears that this might be the reason MMm is shown that way, but please note "unless the title is a proper name." WP:NCCAPS "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name. For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence." Mountain Meadows Massacre is a proper name. Please see other examples: Boston Tea Party, American Revolution, American Revolutionary War, American Civil War, Boston Massacre, Saint Valentine's Day Massacre, Black Hawk War, Fox Wars, Wounded Knee Massacre, American Indian Wars, and Red River Rebellion. Jerry Stockton (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
We are taught early on that we capitalise a "proper noun" but defining a proper noun is a tricky thing - and indeed nouns transition into (and probably out of) that status. This particular noun phrase seems to exist as both a proper noun and a common noun, which is quite reasonable. Since the more common usage seems to be as a proper noun I have no problem with it being moved appropriately. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC).
Thanks all. As there seems to be no objections, I'll delete the redirect and move. Sorry this took a while I got called away for work and am just now getting on top of things. Dave (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The title for this talk page and the title for the article page have both been changed from MMM to MMm. I maintain that MMM is a proper name just as the following are proper names: the Boston Massacre, Saint Valentine's Day Massacre, Wounded Knee Massacre, Boston Tea Party, American Revolution, American Revolutionary War, American Civil War, Black Hawk War, Fox Wars, American Indian Wars, and the United States are all proper names. There is an editorial consensus here for the name Mountain Meadows Massacre. Suggest reverting back to MMM. I would do it myself but that is above my paygrade. Jerry Stockton (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Not wanting to engage in a Wheel war, I was hoping the admin who moved the page (most recently) would join the discussion as to why. However, it appears no discussion is happening, on their talk page is just a "whoops" comment. I'm traveling now, if nobody else moves the page before I can get to it, I'll revert back to MMM once I'm back to the land of stable internet connections. Dave (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm back. I'm still OK with moving the pages from MMm to MMM, but would like some more discussion while I'm doing it. For example, at Category:Massacres in the United States it appears there is no consensus at all. Most of the pages in that category do not have proper name capitalization. It seems to me, perhaps the difference is that while once the context of conversation is established to be about gun violence, many sources shorten Columbine High School massacre to just "Columbine". I think even when the context of religious violence is clear, I still almost always hear the full name of "Mountain Meadows Massacre". Is that the key as to what defines a proper noun? Gosh, 4th grade English was so long ago ;). Dave (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Role of Apostle George A. Smith

The article reads:  Mormon apostle George A. Smith, of Parowan, traveled throughout southern Utah, instructing the settlers to stockpile grain.
   I am a descendant of Smith.  Family tradition, supported by many extracts from his own diary, holds that Elder Smith was a firebrand.  He did a lot more in those sermons than urge the stockpiling of grain, which was fairly serious by itself.  It hints at putting people on notice they might be moving to a "war footing."  He preached fiery warnings that the Mormons had to be ready to stand against the "wicked," meaning any non-Mormons and especially the government and approaching Army.  Juanita Brooks spells this out in her book on the massacre.  Elder Smith helped agitate the minds of the southern Utah Mormons to the point where something like the massacre became much more likely.  Anybody motivated to check this and add it to the article?  There's a good historical record, starting with Brooks, Mountain Meadows Massacre, 1960.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.37.95.22 (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Time to prune the lead again

This article has long suffered from people trying to cram too much information into the lead. IMHO, it's time to prune the lead again. From WP:LEAD here is what I would like to change

  • Per that guideline the lead should be 3-4 paragraphs, it's currently at 7.
  • The lead is supposed to be a summary of the most important details contained in the article. Currently the lead has a multi-sentence direct quote from Brigham young (which is not summary, and it's repeated in the body anyways) and a couple of facts that are not contained in the body (simple fix, move that sentence to the body)
  • Related to the above, the lead does not normally require citations, as in theory where the fact is explained in more detail in the body is cited. There are exceptions, such as a highly controversial statements, which apply to one or two sentences that would need to be in the lead. But there are sentences flagged as citation needed, when the citations are below.
  • The lead is getting so big it repeats itself (the fact that Native American were made the scapegoat is now mentioned int two places in the lead

I'll try to fire up the pruning machine in the coming days. Feel free to detail anything that I cut that should probably have remained. Dave (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, round one of cutting the fat from the lead went well. However, there are still two details mentioned twice in the lead, that there was a kill order to prevent survivors from identifying the culprits, and that children were spared. The problem is, both mentions are intertwined with other content and I'm struggling to simply this without cutting relevant details. If I cut too much feel free to revert. Dave (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mountain_Meadows_Massacre&diff=696708356&oldid=693825026

Large panorama of the area in 2009. [citation needed]

The person who deleted the photo posted this: "How do we KNOW this was taken in 2009, or that this is the area in question?"

We know that is where it is and it was in 2009, because I was there and I took the photo. The site is well marked. I am a frequent contributor to Wikipedia. There is no reason for me to falsify this information. I also posted the photo on my website http://americanindian.net/utah2009/mtmeadows/index.html during that time period to confirm the date. I am a published author, and retired television and radio reporter. I have written history books on American Indians (or native Americans for people who prefer that term), and am a citizen of the Cherokee Nation. I have added over 300 other photos to Wikipedia.

Here are other photos I took while at the site, which I did not add to Wikipedia or release for common use. They show some of the official markers at the site.: http://americanindian.net/utah2009/mtmeadows/photo21.html - - http://americanindian.net/utah2009/mtmeadows/photo3.html - - http://americanindian.net/utah2009/mtmeadows/photo9.html - - http://americanindian.net/utah2009/mtmeadows/photo10.html - - http://americanindian.net/utah2009/mtmeadows/photo13.html - - http://americanindian.net/utah2009/mtmeadows/photo15.html

Google Map showing the site: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mountain+Meadows+Massacre+Site/@37.475186,-113.6419519,17z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x80ca76ecb7ed7ef9:0xc27da0c85051040e!8m2!3d37.4755096!4d-113.6435988

Here is a screen shot from Google maps showing the highway sign pointing to the road I traveled down in 2009 in order to get to the site where I took the photos. http://travelswithphil.com/MtMeadowsSign.jpg

How do you know any of the other photos are correct either? Phil Konstantin (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC) Phil Konstantin

Additional note: On the attached link to google maps, if you look at the satellite view, you will see a short road (FR4018), which ends in a trail with a hook to the north. That is where this photo was taken. At the top of the Google map page, you will see a house with 3 silver topped outbuildings. Those are the building see at the end of the panorama I posted. Zooming out on the Google map, you will see this is all just east of where Google marks the main Mountain Massacre marker. This proves the photo was taken overlooking the site of the incident. LINK https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mountain+Meadows+Massacre+Site/@37.4785019,-113.6309933,454m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80ca76ecb7ed7ef9:0xc27da0c85051040e!8m2!3d37.4755096!4d-113.6435988

Philkon, I think you're taking this a little too personally. I agree there was no reason to accuse the photo caption of being misleading or the photo of being inauthentic. However, If the article had virtually no pictures I would vote to keep. However, of the pictures that are currently in the article, this one takes up the most space, but adds the least value to the aritcle. Furthermore, near as I can tall the subject in the picture is in no way related to the MMM. As such I support that photo being removed. Of the photos you link above, IMHO 8008080984 and 8008080999 are the most appopriate for this article and I would support their inclusion. I'd say 8008080998 is the most apporpriate as it shows the 1990 monument, but it shows children playing on, and arguably being disrespectful to, the monument. Dave (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Dave, I responded the way I did because of the way the person who deleted it stated their reason for deleting it. I think the photo is appropriate because it shows almost all of the area where the event took place. The movements immediately before, during and after the battle were not confined to a small space, or the spot where the marker is. If you want me to edit out the American Indian child included in the photo, I could do that if others agreed with your assessment. I do not wish to release my other photos into the public domain at this time. Phil Konstantin (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

References...

I confess...the Harvard style and especially the Harvnb style of referencing are not my favorites. I did, however, just take a look at the article and tried to fix what I could. But there are still some errors - *plus* the article has a mix of Harvnb and other cite templates. The referencing as a whole is kind of a mess. If anyone with an affinity for the Harvnb style would either fix the Harvnb problems or convert all the refs to "cite templates" or just somehow fix everything so we don't have these referencing errors that would be awesome. I give up. Shearonink (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

If memory serves me correctly, when I first started watching and editing this article there were about 3-4 of us regulars who worked on it, plus 2 or 3 "seagull" agenda pushers who would poop on everything everybody else did, without actually contributing to the article themselves. Some new guy came along (who was a regular for about 6 months and disappeared) and was a huge fan of Harvard citations. None of the rest of us cared one way or the other, so we used Harvard citations. I would say in hindsight that was a mistake. At the time, it didn't matter. Since then, the {{cite}} templates have matured significantly. Today they are the dominant citation style on Wikipedia, except for a few niche article sets. I have no objection to converting the article over to cite templates. Dave (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
The major problems I have with the Harvs are 1)they are not supported as an automatic cite template, 2) they are a terribly confusing for new editors (and even older ones like me) to work with and 3) they are a real pain in the ___ to try to tease out the possible problems (like those 4 CITEREF errors we have in the article right now?...I worked on them for a good long while the other day and finally gave up). I wish there were a program that I could run on the article that would automatically convert all the Harvard refs to the Cite templates...
Anyway, I agree with you Dave. I'll take one bit at a time and work on converting the refs to the Cite templates referencing-style. Heh, it's going to take me ages to get it all done though... Shearonink (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I haven't edited this page, but Harvard-style references (or "shortened footnote" as they are also called) have an advantage over citation templates. It's much easier to indicate the exact page number for each citation with the Harvard refs. It also makes it easier to include multiple references in one footnote. If you do switch over to citation templates, please don't lose the page numbers of the original citations. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Rachel Helps (BYU) Thanks for the reminder but I have to say...did I indicate that I was going to delete page #s from the Harvnb refs when I converted them? There are specific parameters in the Cite-templates for the individual page #s or for page-ranges, it seems like those would work... This article at present has a mish-mash of different reference-styles, many of the Harvnb's weren't functioning since implementation (and some still aren't functioning) - I think it makes sense for the article to bring its references more in agreement with each other and make sure they are all functioning as they should be. Shearonink (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Shearonink I completely get why you'd want to change the citation style. It's just that in order to include a page number, you have to create a new citation for each page number cited (rather than using a named citation) or use Template:rp, which some people hate. It's a lot of work for you to change the citation style, so I just wanted you to be aware of your options, which it sounds like you are. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I suspect the person who first advocated for, and convinced the rest of the editors to use, Harvard citations used the exact arguments Rachel used. And I agree with Rachel those templates have merits. However, I'd still vote to change to the cite templates. By far more editors are familiar with them, and because they are used so much more widely in Wikipedia, the templates have evolved to include more features and options than are available with the Harvard templates. Dave (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
The thing for me is that the vast majority of editors don't know how to work with Harvard cites and that can cause a lot of ongoing grief - the syntax can be tricky to master and navigate and clean-up is SO much fun lol. Yeah, as anyone can tell right now I am working on converting the article - there is a massive amount of detritus at the moment. I'm working on it folks... Shearonink (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Panorama photo

Does anyone else think that the size of the photo overwhelms the text? Does this image add to readers' understanding of the subject? I think including/not-including this image and the size of the image - if it's retained - needs to be discussed. Shearonink (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


I can reduce the size of the photo, if the consensus is that it is too large. Phil Konstantin (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the photo - and the size alone is not my only concern. In my opinion, the issues that editors have had with the photo haven't been completely resolved so I think we need to discuss various aspects of the panorama photo:
  • Does the photo and its present size serve the article
  • Does the photo's placement serve the article - could it possibly be placed somewhere else within the article
  • Does the photo help the reader understand the subject matter better
I do think that in its present size, placement and caption, the photo is not serving the subject well.
1) The size overwhelms the surrounding text and the image is the biggest image in the entire article. The photo should at least be reduced in size, something similar to the panoramic photo at Remembrances of the Mountain Meadows massacre. The area of the photo that has the top of the head of the blonde woman and the First Nation girl should be removed - those two persons add nothing to the reader's understanding of the article's subject.
2) The placement is problematic as well - why is a 21st Century photograph placed within the "Conspiracy and siege" section? I could see a reduced size of the photo possibly being moved to the Remembrances section to show what the area looks like now/in the 21st Century.
3)The Mountain Meadow area has physically changed since the Baker-Fancher party was massacred there - the water table has dropped and the Meadow itself - as an actual meadow - does not even realy exist anymore, the physical surroundings are not the same. For the time being, the caption should at least be changed to say something like "Modern photograph looking eastward/westward over the present Mountain Meadow area. The physical surroundings have changed since the 1850s - see Mountain Meadow, Utah"
I have to say....the version of the article that I am most familiar with did not have the Panorama photo (the photo was placed in the article in 2009, removed by another editor in December 2015 and then restored in October 2018). Do I think the panorama photo adds to the understanding of the subject? Honestly no, I do not, but I am willing to discuss it with other interested editors and come to a consensus. If we can't come to a consensus on this talkpage then I'll open up an RfC to get some input from the larger community. Shearonink (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I stated above that of all the images on this article, IMHO this one takes up the most space, but adds the least value. I stand by that. I agree that it sounds logical that a picture of the place where the event happened _should_ add value. But in this case, I would support at a minimum cropping/resizing the image to take up less space, as it just doesn't seem to add as much as the pictures of the people involved, given it consumes the width of the article and then some. Dave (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Was hoping Phil would amble along into more of this discussion by now, but there's time for folks to weigh in...no hurry/no worries. Shearonink (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to Phil Konstantin working with changing the size today. I do agree with Dave - the panorama photo needed to be smaller in relation to the surrounding text. Let's let this latest version sit and see how it all works together for a while... Shearonink (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I have reduced the photo in size, and cut out the people. If the consensus is that being able to see where a historical event happened is not useful, I have no objections to it being removed. Relocating it within the page is fine with me too. Phil Konstantin (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Phil Konstantin Thanks for reducing the size of the photo. The current size and placement of the panorama photo makes much more sense to me. I did take a look at the code for the panorama which was File:MountainMeadowsByPhilKonstantin.jpg and now is File:MountainMeadows-Reduced2-ByPhilKonstantin.jpg. I confess, Commons is not my strong suit but it might be useful to link the different versions together on the same page, similar to what one can see at the File:Cemetery, Military Monument-3 cropped.jpg/File:Cemetery, Military Monument-3 cropped.jpg Commons page. That way if readers click through to the photo's Commons page and then they want to possible see the entire panorama photo in a manipulative format/see it in more detail, they can do so. Shearonink (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I am unaware of how to link two photos to the same article without making them visible. The original larger version is still available in Commons. Phil Konstantin (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

A section that had been acting as a header & introduction for the following subsections has been removed three times within a short amount of time by two different accounts - one an IP and one a registered editor. Historical theories explaining the massacre is not unsourced. The text of the disputed section is as follows:

Historians have ascribed the massacre to a number of factors, including strident Mormon teachings in the years prior to the massacre, war hysteria, and alleged involvement of Brigham Young.[bolding mine]

The text references the following three subsections:

Strident Mormon teachings - which has 23 references
War hysteria - 4 references
Brigham Young - 8 references

By the way, the removal of this introductory section has also messed-up the numbering of the now-stranded subsections...they certainly do not have much to do with "Media coverage about the event" and are more in line with Historical theories explaining the massacre. But, ok, let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Weapons

Quoting article: "Weapons - Guns, Bowie knives"

Please note that witnesses and a few of the perpetrators stated most of the women were beaten to death with iron rods. See BLOOD OF THE PROPHETS for one example. Desertphile (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The claim that iron rods were used in the murders is not found in Blood of the Prophets. Cites to actual pages numbers etc from reliable sources are needed so if you know the "iron rods" claim to be a cited fact then please provide complete information. I just did a search of Blood of the Prophets and there is no mention of the women specifically being beaten to death with iron rods - they were clubbed to death with guns (Page 147), many were shot (Page 152), females and children had blunt-force trauma (Page 152) and most of the bodies had evidence of death by gunfire. Some sources claim that some or many of the murder victims had their throats cut but forensic evidence found after one of the mass graves was unearthed in 1999 do not completely bear that assertion out. Shearonink (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
A fairly-complete copy of Blood of the Prophets is available here at Google Books. Shearonink (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Changes

Hello, a user who does not appear to have ever edited Wikipedia before just tried to delete all of my work on this page without giving a reason. I am willing to discuss changes I made and why you think specific ones should be removed, but deleting all of my work for no reason does not make any sense at all. If there were specific changes you thought were a mistake on my part, please tell me. 169.234.216.238 (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Also I want to add that user MoabDave requested that I remove redundancies in my previous version of the page, and he said that the edit was otherwise correct. I removed the three specific redundancies he asked me to remove, so I don’t know why this new user is coming in and trying to delete the edit that MoabDave said was otherwise correct. 169.234.216.238 (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I wrote a good portion of the lead as it now stands. I'm willing to concede I'm not the best writer, and am more than willing to let others refine or even re-write. However, you should know, you're stepping into a minefield by offering to re-write it. Although it's been a good 5-10 years of peace, this article was a war zone back in the day. Several people were blocked, and I think one or two banned over this article in the 2008-2012 time frame. Most of what you read now was the result of compromise after a lot of bickering. I'm not saying that to defend the lead in its current state, just to let you know why people are defensive of major changes.
I'll give you two examples, and you can confirm both in the talk page archives if you wish. One of the more controversial things was how to cover the mention of Paiute Indians in the lead. There was a battle between those that thought Paiutes should not be mentioned at all in the lead, only in the body of the article. The thinking was their mention in the lead served as a form of "shifting the blame from the Mormons". Then there was another camp that argued that they were present, and therefore should be mentioned. The compromise is precisely why the phrase "Eventually fear spread among the militia's leaders that some emigrants had caught sight of white men and had likely discovered the identity of their attackers" appears in the lead today. It was to try to make clear that while Paiutes were present, the blame primarily rests with white people.
Another example is that lead is careful to first state the attackers were the Nauvoo Legion and to then explain the Nauvoo Legion was made up of local Mormon settlers. This also was deliberate after months of back and forth. One camp demanded that the article first state the attackers were Mormons. I at first was on this side, but the other camp converted me. Their argument was Mormon civilians were not involved; if Mormon civilians obeyed an order to attack there would have been thousands of attackers, not dozens. The vast majority of Mormons in the area did not even know this had happened until later. That was enough to convince me the attacking force was more accurately described as the Nauvoo Legion, a militia made up of local Mormon settlers.
There were several more like this but it would take some prodding of my memory to come up with them. I would say if you think the lead was poorly written, go ahead and re-write it. But for the point made by the anonymous IP editor, it would be wise to first post the proposed re-write here to ensure no peace treaties is violated ;). Good luck. Dave (talk) 06:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I think that User:Moabdave did a great job of summarizing what you're getting yourself into and some of the issues that have been brought up in the past. I only occasionally edit this page, but I've been following changes to the article for over a decade. Much of the current lead was created following these two 2011 discussions: [Involvement of Paiute Indians] & [New article lead], and there have only been minor refinements since that time. A major issue with the lead section prior to 2011 is that it was too detailed and had a number of tangents–in many ways it was an article in and of itself, rather than just a lead. The massacre was an appalling event and there has always been the temptation to add every shocking detail to the lead (often more than once), rather than leave the details for the article. I also concur with Moabdave and say some things are probably good changes, but I do take issue with a couple things.
In the first sentence you call the militia the "Utah Territorial Militia," but in the next sentence you call it the "Mormon militia." Someone could easily believe these are different militias, as not all readers would know the territorial militia was made up of Mormons (unless they also read the militia article). This is where the current lead is better, because it specifically states the militia was composed of Utah's Mormon settlers.
Also, to unequivocally state the assault was unprovoked will likely get you into trouble with some editors. There is good evidence that relations between Mormons and the emigrants were not the best–even if it was only a small number of emigrants who may have said some threatening things. (This of course was not justification for the massacre, but could be seen by some as provoking behavior.)
Most importantly, the attacks and main massacre event are brought up in the proposed lead too often. Twice in the first paragraph and then again in the third paragraph, each time with increasing detail. No need to be that repetitive.
This is what I would propose:
Current Text 169.234.216.238's proposed changes User:Beneathtimp's proposed edits
The Mountain Meadows Massacre was a series of attacks on the Baker–Fancher emigrant wagon train at Mountain Meadows in southern Utah. The attacks began on September 7 and culminated on September 11, 1857, resulting in the mass slaughter of most in the emigrant party by members of the Utah Territorial Militia from the Iron County district, together with some Southern Paiute Native Americans. The Mountain Meadows Massacre was a series of attacks on the Baker–Fancher emigrant wagon train and subsequent mass murder, perpetrated by members of the Utah Territorial Militia (officially the Nauvoo Legion) at Mountain Meadows in southern Utah. It began on September 7, 1857 when the Mormon militia and Southern Paiute Native American allies opened an unprovoked assault on the wagon train. The attacks culminated on September 11 with the mass slaughter of roughly 120 members of the emigrant party, who were convinced to hand over their weapons in truce and then systematically executed.

The Mountain Meadows Massacre was a series of attacks which resulted in the mass murder of 120 members of the Baker–Fancher emigrant wagon train. The massacre occurred September 7–11, 1857 at Mountain Meadows in southern Utah, and was perpetrated by Mormon settlers belonging to the Utah Territorial Militia (officially called the Nauvoo Legion), together with some Southern Paiute Native Americans.

The wagon train, mostly families from Arkansas, was bound for California on a route that passed through the Utah Territory, during a time of conflict later known as the Utah War. After arriving in Salt Lake City, the Baker–Fancher party made their way south, eventually stopping to rest at Mountain Meadows. While the emigrants were camped at the meadow, nearby militia leaders, including Isaac C. Haight and John D. Lee, made plans to attack the wagon train. No Changes The wagon train, mostly families from Arkansas, was bound for California on a route that passed through the Utah Territory, during a time of conflict later known as the Utah War. After arriving in Salt Lake City, the Baker–Fancher party made their way south along the Mormon Road, eventually stopping to rest at Mountain Meadows. While the emigrants were camped at the meadow, nearby militia leaders, including Isaac C. Haight and John D. Lee, made plans to attack the wagon train.
The militia, officially called the Nauvoo Legion, was composed of Utah's Mormon settlers. Wanting to give the impression of tribal hostilities, their plan was to arm some Southern Paiutes and persuade the Native Americans to join with a larger party of militiamen disguised as Native Americans in an attack. During the militia's first assault on the wagon train, the emigrants fought back, and a five-day siege ensued. Eventually fear spread among the militia's leaders that some emigrants had caught sight of white men and had likely discovered the identity of their attackers. As a result, militia commander William H. Dame ordered his forces to kill the emigrants. By this time, the emigrants were running low on water and provisions, and allowed some members of the militia—who approached under a white flag—to enter their camp. The militia members assured the emigrants they were protected and escorted them from their hasty fortification. After walking a distance from the camp, the militiamen, with the help of auxiliary forces hiding nearby, attacked the emigrants. The perpetrators killed all the adults and older children (totaling about 120 men, women, and children). Seventeen children, all younger than seven, were spared. The leaders of the militia, wanting to give the impression of tribal hostilities, planned to arm some Southern Paiutes and persuade them to join with a larger party of militiamen disguised as Native Americans in an attack. During the militia's first assault on the wagon train, the emigrants fought back, and a five-day siege ensued. Eventually fear spread among the militia's leaders that some emigrants had caught sight of white men and had likely discovered the identity of their attackers. As a result, militia commander William H. Dame ordered his forces to kill the emigrants. By this time, the emigrants were running low on water and provisions, and allowed some members of the militia—who approached under a white flag—to enter their camp. The militia members assured the emigrants they were protected and escorted them from their hasty fortification. After walking a distance from the camp, the militiamen, with the help of auxiliary forces hiding nearby, attacked the emigrants. The perpetrators killed all the adults and older children in the group, sparing only seventeen young children under the age of seven. The leaders of the militia, wanting to give the impression of tribal hostilities, persuaded some Southern Paiutes to join with a larger party of militiamen disguised as Native Americans in an attack. During the militia's first assault on the wagon train, the emigrants fought back, and a five-day siege ensued. Eventually fear spread among the militia's leaders that some emigrants had caught sight of white men and had likely discovered the identity of their attackers. As a result, militia commander William H. Dame ordered his forces to kill the emigrants. By this time, the emigrants were running low on water and provisions, and allowed some members of the militia—who approached under a white flag—to enter their camp. The militia members assured the emigrants they were protected, and after handing over their weapons, the emigrants were escorted from their hasty fortification. After walking a distance from the camp, the militiamen, with the help of auxiliary forces hiding nearby, attacked the emigrants. The perpetrators killed all the adults and older children in the group, sparing only seventeen young children under the age of seven.
Following the massacre, the perpetrators hastily buried the victims, ultimately leaving the bodies vulnerable to wild animals and the climate. Local families took in the surviving children, and many of the victims' possessions were auctioned off. Investigations, after interruption by the American Civil War, resulted in nine indictments during 1874. Of the men indicted, only John D. Lee was tried in a court of law. After two trials in the Utah Territory, Lee was convicted by a jury, sentenced to death, and executed by Utah firing squad on March 23, 1877. No Changes No Changes
Today, historians attribute the massacre to a combination of factors, including war hysteria about a possible invasion of Mormon territory and Mormon teachings against outsiders, which were part of the Mormon Reformation period. Scholars debate whether senior Mormon leadership, including Brigham Young, directly instigated the massacre or if responsibility lay only with the local leaders in southern Utah. No Changes No Changes
--Beneathtimp (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me the point of both 169.234.216.238 and Beneathtimp's proposed changes is to move the first mention of the word "Mormon" from the 3rd paragraph from the 1st. It was written like that at one time. I don't remember the when or why it was moved, and frankly I don't care. While I agree it should be clear it was a Mormon militia, not the church as a whole that did this, I don't see why the "M word" was buried until the 3rd paragraph. I support this change.Dave (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Beneathtimp: I think that you did an excellent job with your proposed edit, thank you for writing it. It's written very clearly, it addresses many of the things that I had wanted to address in my original edit, and it communicates the important facts in a balanced way. In agreement with Moabdave, I definitely support this proposed edit too. 169.234.216.238 (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


Just a quick question: Since it sounds like everyone so far agrees with all of the changes that Beneathtimp proposed and nobody has commented on this recently, would now be a good time for Beneathtimp to go ahead and add those proposed changes? After all, they can always be changed or reverted later if someone has a problem with them. 169.234.216.238 (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, you've given it 24 hours on a working day, and nobody screamed no, so go for it. Dave (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Agree – I think the proposed changes are a net improvement. Go for it, Beneathtimp! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 11:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, changes made. Let's see if it survives during the usual increase in readers on September 11.--Beneathtimp (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh yeah, forgot about that;). The last couple of times an article I've worked on and watch has been featured on the main page, it hasn't gone that bad. But I've had some horror stories. Hoping for the best. Dave (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

So many Harvard cite warnings...

Ok. I am going to be working on cleaning up the many many MANY Harvard cite warnings in this article over this next week. If you have no idea what I am talking about I suggest you go to User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors, read up about what that ref tool does, install it as instructed there and you'll see what I mean. 24 errors. TWENTY-FOUR. Shearonink (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

And, I just have to say, when Harvard cites go bad it's a mess, trying to figure out exactly what has gone wrong... Shearonink (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Those Harvard cite warnings...continued...

Ok. This is just an FYI on the reason why I am editorially hiding SO many cites right now... The Harvard refs are a mess. Either refs have been deleted and then editors don't remove them from the Bibliography or sources have been added in the past even though they haven't been accessed...I do not know. I am basically parking all these cites *for now* inside the article until I can make sure they are not needed. This event has been a long-haul to get statements verified from reliable sources and I do not want to delete anything until I am certain the article doesn't need that source for some fact. I will remove any of the "hidden" cites sometime in the near future, but not until after I source-check the entire Bibliography. The end. Shearonink (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

FIXED all them bad bad BAAAD cites. Removed all of the completely unused&hidden cites, after I made sure they weren't just somehow orphaned in some edit that happened along the way...turned out that the majority had been added in one fell swoop back in 2008 and had apparently never been cited in the article. Done. Shearonink (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HeartGlow30797 (talk · contribs) 05:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Timeline

  • Started reviewing around midnight for an hour. Will return to this soon! Please make recommended changes while I am away. Thank you, Heart (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Notes from reviewer

  • I touched up the commas and dashes. Heart (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Also could you clarify this sentence for me?: In 1873, the massacre was a prominent feature of a history by T. B. H. Stenhouse, The Rocky Mountain Saints. I have read it multiple times and I am confused on what you are saying. Heart (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
The author devoted an entire chapter of the book to the Massacre, Chapter XLIII (43), pages 424-458. That seems prominent to me. Shearonink (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
He also mentioned it on the book's title page, as seen here: https://books.google.com/books?id=XbcUAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false. Shearonink (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I just adjusted that sentence to hopefully be more clear. Shearonink (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Confused on the plurality of the first sentence. The Mountain Meadows Massacre was a series of attacks, the singularity of "massacre" dictates it should be "was," but the following plurality of "series of attacks" suggests it should be "were". I have reread it a bunch of times, and I think "was" is the correct usage, but I recommend cleaning it up. Heart (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Cleaning it up? The usage is not incorrect. The overall event itself is singular though it consists of various individual sub-events and such usage occurs in over 5000 other Wikipedia articles, mostly in their lead sentences. Shearonink (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Noting that the lede has no citations, but might not be needed due to WP:LEDECITE. Heart (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The group was relatively wealthy, and planned to restock its supplies in Salt Lake City, as did most wagon trains at the time. The party reached Salt Lake City with about 120 members seems like a substantial claim that might need a citation. Heart (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
The actual number is unknown, so I removed it. Shearonink (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • In paragraph two of Interactions with Mormon settlers, you say The Baker–Fancher party were refused stocks. However, grammatically you established that the "Baker–Fancher party" was a singular noun as established in the previous section. I recommend changing it to "were" throughout the article (mainly only a problem in the first section). Heart (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I adjusted that were to the singular was. There is an otherwise consistent referral to the party as being a singular unit elsewhere in the article ("the Baker–Fancher party was from Arkansas", "The Baker–Fancher party defended itself", etc.) Shearonink (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason for the "the" in the second paragraph in Interactions with Mormon settlers? They had traveled the 165 miles (266 km) south from Salt Lake City, does this portion signify any significance? Heart (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
It's not incorrect usage. It is not significant other than that was the distance the party had traveled, the distance from Salt Lake City to where Kanosh Utah now is. Shearonink (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
    • On second review, do you mean the whole of the Old Spanish Trail? Heart (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
No, the Old Spanish Trail was over 700 miles long and connected New Mexico with Los Angeles. It was a hellacious trade route and very difficult. Shearonink (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • ...rumors spread about misdeeds, the third paragraph of Interactions with Mormon settlers: Whose misdeeds? The groups? Perhaps clarify this. Heart (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
The quote at that ref makes it clear - "If you were to inquire of the people who lived hereabouts, and lived in the country at that time, you would find, ... that some of this Arkansas company ...boasted of having to helped to kill Hyrum and Joseph Smith and the Mormons in Missouri, and that they never meant to leave the Territory until similar scenes were enacted here." but I did adjust it to make it crystal-clear. Shearonink (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Noting all photos with fair use rationale, one original photo, and some with unknown sources. Heart (talk) 06:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Note on 1b that that the word "said" could be replaced in the paragraphs per WP:WTW. Heart (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand what this comment means re 1b... "the word 'said' could be replaced". If the statements are referring to quoted statements or witnesses statements of events, either in newspaper articles or in official US Gov/Army reports or in court hearings...the word 'said' is correct. If it is a matter of stylistic preference that some other word perhaps should be used instead of 'said' that preference would not seem to be part of the GA criteria. Keeping in mind WTW, these statements are not words that introduce bias like puffery or unsupported attributions or editorializing, they are all part of the historical record. The word 'said' is used 3 times in the main text, once in a caption, and 4 times in references & notes. That usage does not seem boringly repetitious in an article with prose size of 4693 words and references in text of 18 kB. I'm willing to discuss and change if need be but I am somewhat puzzled over this possible "1b" issue... Shearonink (talk) 04:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I think I see what you meant, take a look at my latest edit here. Lee & others said Higbee gave the order, Higbee almost claims later that he was barely there...presented the information according to sources, etc. Shearonink (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is all well! It’s not a big deal or anything, just some fine touches. Heart (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Assessing sources and continuing reading the article. So far, no outright deprecated or unreliable sources. Heart (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • While reading, I notice some sentences that could be more concise without the words such as "battle-weary" or "probably." Heart (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps, but to me this seems beyond the reach of the Good article criteria. Word choices, phrase choices are just that, editors' choices and are within editorial discretion. Shearonink (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • In citation two, do you have a reason for the semicolon? Heart (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
It was a typo. Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of "Killings and aftermath of the massacre" seems a bit choppy. I suggest rewriting it and combining a few sentences. Heart (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • In paragraph five of "Investigations and prosecutions," is there a reason why you say "along with two others" just to list them in parentheses afterwords? Could you not just list their names without the "along with two others?" Heart (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
A lot of different people have edited this article over the years, not sure I personally worded it that way but it's been adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The second to last paragraph in "Investigations and prosecutions," do you think Supreme Court Justice needs to be capitalized. Also, do you think the dash is needed in the word "re-use?" Heart (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
In this case the person in question is a former justice...I adjusted the word order per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Titles of people. Shearonink (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes the dash is needed. "Re-use" is not incorrect. Both forms, either re-use or reuse, are acceptable but to my eyes, if there is no dash meaning would be unclear and seems like it could be pronounced "royce". Shearonink (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

  • Pinging the nominator. . Heart (talk) 07:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this on. FYI I will be taking the weekend off of WP but will return early nest week to catch up on your further comments in this review. Shearonink (talk) 08:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
HeartGlow30797 - Looking forward to more Notes and working together to improve this article to GA status. Shearonink (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
HeartGlow30797 - I dealt with all the "page numbers needed"-maintenance templates so those are all fixed and they were removed. Shearonink (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Please note that if you find my editing in conflict with the article, please ping me and we can hash it out, I mostly just fix the grammatical issues. Heart (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I will continue this review on Thursday! Look forward to seeing progress! Heart (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • HeartGlow30797 - I appreciate you doing this GA Review so much but wanted to make a separate comment here. I don't think this is an issue that is explicitly spelled-out in the GA Reviewer instructions though it is mentioned at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles in its About the process section with "Reviewers may not review articles that they have edited significantly." The grammatical corrections you've made have been fine (you caught some that I missed so thank you) but you also did multiple "Touch up" edits where you changed phrases or altered word order, etc... The edits you have made to the article so far are not yet a significant contribution but in my opinion the number and type are starting to somewhat edge into that territory. How much you edit an article while you are in the process of reviewing it is just something to keep in mind on this Review or on any other GA Reviews you do in the future. This is not all some kind of a deal-breaker but I just wanted you to know my thoughts as we continue to work through the process together. Shearonink (talk) 04:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you, I detailed this issue above, but thank you for reminding me, I do not intend to edit the article in any major ways. I sometimes get very annoyed by grammatical stuff. Things I am unsure about I leave up to the reviewer, I will try to refrain from changing words though! Thank you, looking forward to continuing this tomorrow! Heart (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • HeartGlow30797 - I've gone in and done some general clean-up, adjusted some refs & some info. Let me know what you think. Shearonink (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • HeartGlow30797 - Did some further editing, still finding content that needs to be adjusted. Latest was to the number of those killed...was it 120? 140? Well, no one really knows. So cited that info etc. Shearonink (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
    Hello, sorry I'm busy, but I will get to this soon! Heart (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 13:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Links

Prose

Lede

  • MOS:LEDE usually recommends a max lede of four paragraphs. Any reason we can't condense this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Adjusted the lead but it is so hard to condense...take a look and tell me what you think. Shearonink (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Adjusted - should be clearer now. Shearonink (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The wagons were drawn up into a circle and a trench dug into the center for the women & children to seek cover in. This is mentioned "down thread" but have adjusted and I think it is easier to understand now. Shearonink (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah...deleted. Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

General

  • The group was relatively wealthy, and planned to restock its supplies in Salt Lake City, as did most wagon trains at the time. - uncited Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, it's true but trying to find a specific cite that supports that atm is beyond my brain at the moment. I'll try to circle back within the next few days and get a cite. Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Mormon apostle George A. Smith - can we reword to avoid link together like this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted one of the links but I think it is important to mention how far up the chain of command George A Smith was. Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Parowan, Utah, traveled throughout southern Utah - do we need to say Utah this much? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Nope, you're right, adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Sigh. That was a loooooooong negotiation between myself and the person who took the image. I think it's the only photo WP has of the area as it appears now., I think it's important to give readers a sense of what this place looks like, not just linotypes from 19th century newspapers and so on. I seem to remember the photog originally posted it with an unassociated person present and this present image has the person removed? Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Found the discussions in the talk page archives, see February 2019/Archive 20 and December 2018 Archive 20. I misremembered the discussion as being loooooong, it actually wasn't, but the point being that there was an editorial consensus established about the size and placement of the photo. The photo did used to be bigger and originally had extraneous modern people in it. Shearonink (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Further investigations were cut short by the American Civil War in 1861,[34] but proceeded in 1871 when prosecutors obtained the affidavit of militia member Philip Klingensmith. Klingensmith had been a bishop and blacksmith from Cedar City; by the 1870s, however, he had left the church and moved to Nevada.[35]
  • Lee was arrested on November 7, 1874.[36] Dame, Philip Klingensmith, Ellott Willden, and George Adair, Jr. were indicted and arrested while warrants were obtained to pursue the arrests of four others (Haight, Higbee, William C. Stewart, and Samuel Jukes) who had gone into hiding. Klingensmith escaped prosecution by agreeing to testify.[37]
  • Brigham Young removed some participants including Haight and Lee from the LDS Church in 1870. The U.S. posted bounties of $500 ($10233[38] in present-day funds) each for the capture of Haight, Higbee, and Stewart, while prosecutors chose not to pursue their cases against Dame, Willden and Adair.

- I think we could probably merge some of these paragraphs, they are quite short. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Merged. Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The U.S. posted bounties of $500 ($10233[38] in present-day funds) each for the capture of Haight, Higbee, and Stewart, while prosecutors chose not to pursue their cases against Dame, Willden and Adair. - uncited Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Cited and corrected. It was actually $5,000. Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • National newspapers covered the Lee trials closely from 1874 to 1876, and his execution in 1877 was widely covered. - uncited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I'll have to circle back to this...I mean, Mark Twain wrote about it in one of his books and Lee's trial got a lot of "press" in the contemporary media (newspapers) but getting this cited...will get back to it. Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Historians have ascribed the massacre to a number of factors, including strident Mormon teachings in the years prior to the massacre, war hysteria, and alleged involvement of Brigham Young. - feels out of place as a single sentence, and is uncited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
This is an artifact resulting from the way the article was originally set-up. The entire next three sections cite the statement and I haven't been able to figure out how to make it more clear. Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Nothing personal but the help page for bundling? Yikes, kind of obtuse...I'm working on it, want to keep them all, hate to lose any of the info these cites provide, especially since I don't have access to some of the specialized sources some past editors have had. Will update here when I get the coding & structure solved. Please let me work on it myself, I'll ask for help if I get completely stumped. I've done nesting/bundling before but not lately... Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Review meta comments

Recent edits...

Starting with this edit and continuing through this edit, contributions have apparently introduced multiple referencing errors into the article, mostly errors in the Harvard cites. Since one is an IP and the other is very new, the two editors who added text and references probably do not or cannot have the common.js installed to be able to even see these errors so they can be fixed. All that is to say...PLEASE be patient with me as I tease out the errors. Your contributions are not being disregarded here but they have to work within the expected Wikipedia parameters. Also, the Harvard cites can be very tricky to figure out the various issues, so, again, PLEASE be patient as I go along within the editing timeline and figure out what went wrong and how to fix it. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Bdl18 I was able to go back and adjust what you wrote & adjust the referencing style somewhat so now the references aren't broken. 50.49.125.214, I'll work on your contributions tomorrow. The refs that are presently within the article seem to be working at the moment. Shearonink (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I've restored much of the content that was caught up in my mass revert. No further ref issues came up. Thanks for your patience, folks. Shearonink (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
A few years back there was a debate on weather this article should keep using Harvard citations or convert to the more traditional Wikipedia citation templates. You've been the primary maintainer of this article since then, what are your thoughts? I kind of gathered it would be nice to do, but too much work. Is that correct, or am I missing something? Dave (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
It's a mix at present. Cites to Bagley, Brooks and other works repeatedly cited using various pages are with Harvard refs, the rest are the more-common cite web/cite book/etc. In my opinion Harvard cites are not easy to build and difficult for newer editors to work with but once these refs are in place they do make it easier to cite multiple pages from the same source. I agree...too much work to completely overhaul everything to agree cite-wise style with each other and it's not really necessary to do. Shearonink (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not going to edit the article, as it appears you are still actively working on it and I don't want to tread on your turf. However, when you get around to smoothing things out, this statement in the lead "Some of the surviving children were able to point out clothing and jewelry belonging to their dead mothers and sisters as subsequently being worn by Mormon women and the journalist J.H. Beadle said that jewelry taken from Mountain Meadows was seen in Salt Lake City.Bagley (2002), pp. 174-175" at a minimum has malformed syntax. But I would argue it's more appropriate in the body than in the lead. Dave (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Valid point about it belonging more in the body than the lead. I've adjusted that content & think it reads better now. Shearonink (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
And hoo-boy was that syntax malformed! Got that fixed too. Shearonink (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Quote about the three ways historians interact with the massacre (revisionism)

See below, from pages 29 and 30 of "The Evolution of History: Changing Narratives of the Mountain Meadows Massacre in Utah's Public School Curricula" by Casey W. Olsen (2013):

Culpability is an important component in any narrative of the Mountain Meadows Massacre because it is the hinge on which basic differences in accounts of the massacre traditionally have swung. Walker and colleagues (2008), who conducted an exhaustive review of primary and secondary source documents on the massacre, offered the following observation:

Broadly speaking, since historians and others began to tell the story of the massacre, they have followed three main approaches. The first two are poles apart. One approach portrays the perpetrators [White Mormons] as good people and the victims [Arkansas emigrants] as evil ones who committed outrages during their travel through central and southern Utah. Some descendants of the perpetrators and several Mormon historians have adopted this approach because it seems, on the surface, to excuse or soften what happened. The second approach looks at the innocence of the emigrants and the evil of their killers, who at best are described as followers of a misguided religion. Some relatives of the emigrant families, church critics, and many non-Mormons have found this position attractive….


[Each of these approaches] overlooks how complex human beings can be—good and evil, after all, are widely shared human traits. Nor do these approaches recognize how diverse the two groups were. Moreover, each of the two polarized explanations breaks down logically. Nothing that the emigrants purportedly did comes close to justifying their murder. Their wagon company was made up mostly of young families traveling through the territory in pursuit of their dreams. The leading men and women among them had been substantial citizens in their Arkansas communities and promised to make their mark in California. Likewise, most of the killers led exemplary lives before and after the massacre...

This passage paraphrased is what the citations in question are verifying. From Walker (2008), which Olsen helps contextualize. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

A couple of things...
I don't have access to the sources that you obviously have access to. IF they are completely available to the public somewhere online (even JSTOR or something similar), those URLs would sure come in handy since I cannot sit down and read the entire passage you have now posted above.
And I guess I don't understand your point. You are taking the conclusions of Walker, which Olsen wrote about in his PhD thesis re: the Massacre in Mormon schoolbooks,
"overlooks how complex human beings can be—good and evil, after all, are widely shared human traits.
this almost seems to be inferring that the emigrants/Baker-Fancher party could have possibly been somehow culpable in their eventual situation? when Olsen then states...
"Nor do these approaches recognize how diverse the two groups were.
the inferred meaning, broadly construed, is that good people and evil people were in both the wagon train and among their attackers. What is the point of stating *that*. There were maybe evil people among the wagon train party? Is that relevant? And, speaking particularly, what is the proof...does Olsen or Walker/Turley et al write about that?
and Olsen then goes on to state that
"Likewise, most of the killers led exemplary lives before and after the massacre"
(except for the fact that the killers disowned what they did and that they put complete blame on the Paiutes in the area and that they blamed the people they killed and that they took and kept or sold all of the wagon train's horses and cattle who survived and kept or sold all of the murdered people's belongings).
As you have now written it, the paragraph under discussion almost seems to imply in Wikipedia's voice that all sorts of historians and all sorts of authors have weighed in on the Massacre in such a fashion (good and evil existing on both sides, etc.) Yes, Turley/Walker/Leonard's Massacre at Mountain Meadows was a best-seller. Yes, perhaps Olsen's thesis contextualizes their conclusions. But, if your intention is to bring into this article about the event the fact that attitudes about the Massacre have changed within the Church and they have changed within the associated Utah Public Schools' instructions, then perhaps, a section on those issues - how authorized instruction on the Massacre, how published materials on the Massacre have evolved throughout the years - might be more appropriate. I think some of these matters are already discussed within the article elsewhere but I am running out of time tonight and won't be back here for a few days to possibly continue any further discussion. Shearonink (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
If you'd like, we can write, "Historians such as Turley, Walker, Leonard..." instead. Doesn't matter to me, happy to make it attributed.
I cannot sit down and read the entire passage you have now posted above I find it interesting that you have said you cannot read my 283 word quoted passage which directly refutes your claim that my paragraph was unverified, but then you go on to write a 436 word comment in reply. Please, read the comments of those you reply to before replying.
For example, here are several ways you appear to have misunderstood:
this almost seems to be inferring that the emigrants/Baker-Fancher party could have possibly been somehow culpable in their eventual situation -- No, it is describing the viewpoints of historians from different perspectives. One perspective has this opinion, but it is not Walker's, it is not Olsen's, and it is not an idea that is anywhere here placed in Wiki-voice.
Olsen then goes on to state that "Likewise, most of the killers led exemplary lives before and after the massacre" Olsen doesn't state this. Walker et al did as a hypothetical describing an argument that they have seen in the secondary literature. Olsen is quoting Walker et al. Please read more carefully. I have never intended or attempted to include any of these quotations in the article, for the record. And so your analysis of them in this way is not entirely relevant. The only relevant question is "are these sentences verifiable?" not "Do I like these sentences or agree with their source material 100%?" Wikipedia is not "the home for ideas that everybody agrees with." It is "the home for ideas that are verifiable as coming from reliable academics and other trustworthy sources." That's it.
Nor do these approaches recognize how diverse the two groups were. the inferred meaning, broadly construed, is that good people and evil people were in both the wagon train and among their attackers I don't see that inference at all. I think it describes that a diversity of opinions among those in each group re: Mormonism, and many other issues. No group that large should be painted with a single brush. It doesn't mean much of anything else to my eye.
if your intention is to bring into this article about the event the fact that attitudes about the Massacre have changed within the Church and they have changed within the associated Utah Public Schools' instructions, then perhaps, a section on those issues - how authorized instruction on the Massacre, how published materials on the Massacre have evolved throughout the years - might be more appropriate
If you would like to incorporate such research into this section, be my guest. I am incorporating the most widely respected independent sources I have found on the subject. As neither you nor I own this article, our opinions matter quite a bit less than the WP:PAGs. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
@FyzixFighter: [3]"Olsen is talking about utah public school curricula in this part; rmving statement not supported by citation - in this case the citation would be a single primary source, and so extrapolating to "many Mormon textbooks" is OR -- I actually have added citations for both the Olsen dissertation (a secondary source) and the textbook (a less reliable secondary source, but primary for what it itself said. The citation is not "a single primary source" and indeed you have left the secondary source still intact on the page. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I left in the Olsen secondary source because it is possible that it is a reliable secondary source. PhD dissertations are a grey area per WP:SCHOLARSHIP and have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis - I haven't had time yet to see if it has been cited in the literature, supervised by recognized specialists in the field, or reviewed by independent parties. Olsen makes a distinction between LDS Church curricula and Utah public school curricula, therefore, imo, the sentence conflated the two. Olsen, on page 109, is discussing Utah public school curricula, which is why I modified the first sentence. I removed the penultimate sentence because it was presenting a unsourced claim about "many Mormon textbooks" for which the Berrett reference would be a primary and potentially cherrypicked source and which I could not verify as a claim made in the Olsen source. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
It's about Utah public school curricula which used textbooks authored by officials in high standing and administrative roles in the Mormon church. There is also some overlap, of course, with textbooks used within religious studies given that this is the history of the religion itself. With regards to whether or not the claim you removed is verified in the Olsen source, it is: on pages 170-172. See below:

Using the earlier works of Mormon authors (Penrose, 1889; J. F. Smith, 1922; Roberts, 1930) as his sources, Berrett reported that some of the Mormons in southern Utah were “resentful and suspicious” (p. 484) of the Baker-Fancher wagon train, which purportedly included Missourians who had persecuted Mormons in the past. But the greater problem stemmed from the emigrants’ alleged abuse and poisoning of several Paiute Indians...

[(describing Berrett's argument)] Although the Mormons typically helped resolve disputes between emigrants and Indians, they refrained in this instance because of the Missourians’ taunts against them.

In this narrative, Mormons and Indians are first presented as victims of the emigrants’ abuse. When Paiutes consequently became violent and uncontrollable and attacked the wagon train, Mormons were merely bystanders.

As to questions of whether Olsen is an RS:
1. Olsen's thesis advisor is an expert in Social Studies pedagogy, especially wrt critical review of history [4].
2. His committee also included Philip L Barlow, who is a recognized scholar of Mormon history (e.g. [5]). He was the first endowed chair of the subject at a secular university from 2007-2018, but also the assoc director of the Maxwell Institute at BYU [6]. Committee members independently review the work of a dissertation.
3. Aside from this review by his committee, it also was independently reviewed when submitted for presentation at the Western Social Studies Association annual conference in 2011: [7].
3. This dissertation has itself been cited by other scholarly works from various other universities on this subject: [8] [9]. And also referenced in lesson plans published by the quasi-public entity Utah Education Network (public private partnership which supplies infrastructure for Utah public schools e.g. online library): [10].
All of these are elements of quality control. Perhaps not as good as an authoritative review by a world leader in the field, but useful for these purposes. Especially when bolstered by many other citations from such noted experts (as Walker et al). — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Cool! Thanks for finding that supporting information that supports the reliability of the Olson reference.
The sentence that I modified originally said "...many official Mormon (or Mormon-authored) textbooks available in Utah Public Schools...". Whether or not the author is, was, or would be after authoring the book a Church leader does not make it an "official Mormon textbook". That descriptor is more in-line with what Olson calls LDS Church curricula - that is why I modified that sentence.
The sentence, which was referenced to the Berrett source, that I removed makes the claim that "Many Mormon textbooks explicitly placed blame on the Baker-Francher party themselves." This is the claim that I do not see being made in Olson and for which Berrett would be a primary source - the claim is about an analysis of Berrett, not a claim made in Berrett. Olson provides the analysis of Berrett, but I do not agree that Olson supports the claim that many Mormon textbooks explicitly placed blame on the Baker-Fancher party. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Would you agree with a modified sentence: Some Mormon-authored textbooks place a part of the blame on the Baker-Fancher party? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Again, no because I don't see that supported in the as yet mentioned secondary sources. Olson talks about where the various sources place culpability, but doesn't include the B-F party in any of the categories. I think such a statement is extrapolation from one or two sources and depends on how you read the primary source, which gets into OR/SYNTH territory. I think we're also getting into UNDUE territory. Why is this sentence, or the various variations you have proposed, important or necessary? Where is the mention in secondary sources so that we can evaluate weight? --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Olsen mentions it in his secondary source as analysis of Berrett. But yes that's fine, not a very important sentence. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no beef with any sentence in this section; however, to me most of this addition is stating the obvious, that it's a controversial event that has been spun in various ways by historians of different biases over the years. To me the sentence in this section that really adds something new to the article is this one: Prior to 1985, many textbooks available in Utah Public Schools blamed the Paiute people as primarily responsible for the massacre,[71] or placed equal blame on the Paiute and Mormon settlers (if they mentioned the massacre at all). As this paragraph evolves, IMHO this is the direction it should follow. Dave (talk) 04:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that this is the main interesting point of expansion. I'm sorry the rest seemed obvious! When reading this article, I was perpelexed why it didn't elaborate on this area, and found a lot of content in RS textbooks and theses. I felt it was not great that we just ignored these facts or glossed over them. I think a lot of Wikipedia seems obvious if we're well read in the area :P — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
The more I think about this, the one thing that disturbs me with this section is justifying the massacre because of alleged misbehavior of the victims, which one of those theories does. It's really just a form of Victim blaming. So how do we deal with that in a Wikipedia article? Yes, victim blaming was a common way to explain the massacre until recently, and so I guess it's ok for Wikipedia to report that it happened. Still, it's a bit of fingernails on the chalkboard to read that without a statement condemning it. Not sure how it can be addressed and remain NPOV, and perhaps that's why I've tried to avoid that issue altogether in my editing. But I'll ask the question, is it appropriate to leave the victim blaming in the article without challenge?Dave (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding name of LDS Church

Nowhere in the article is the full name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints mentioned or wikilinked, though the LDS initialism is. When I tried to add it it was removed by User:Shearonink. I was directed to discuss this on the talk page.

Per MOS:LDS, "The first reference for any Latter Day Saints movement church (in the sense of "organization and congregation", not "building") should use the full name of that church rather than a shortened version such as "LDS Church" or "FLDS Church". The first reference should also contain a wikilink to that church's article." Because of this in the manual of style I have restored my revision to the article. I will also include a wikilink to the broader category of Mormonism for context as many readers may not know about the various branches of the Latter Day Saint movement. Pastelitodepapa (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

{{u|Pastelitodepapa)) The changed wording seemed...well..wordy & cumbersome to me, the original was much more succinct.
The previous:
  • As the party was traveling west there were rumors about the party's behavior towards Mormons, war hysteria towards outsiders was rampant as a result of a military expedition dispatched by President Buchanan, and Territorial Governor Brigham Young's declaration of martial law in response.
The change that was then reverted:
Anyway, regardless of my wanting the wording to be succinct, perhaps we can tease out a compromise, so, a couple of considerations...
Perhaps this next wording would take into account the MOS concerns as well as readability:
As the party was traveling west there were rumors about the party's behavior towards members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. War hysteria towards outsiders was rampant as a result of a military expedition dispatched by President Buchanan and Territorial Governor Brigham Young's declaration of martial law in response.
I deleted the reference to the Utah settlers since the Baker-Fancher party had originally started out from Arkansas (which Utah settlers had a special animus towards since the then-recent killing of Parley Pratt by Hector McLean - May 1957) and traveled through some other states before reaching Utah. Reference 14 is an interview with Brigham Young and contains an allusion to the rumored boasting statements supposedly made by members of the party:
"If you were to inquire of the people who lived hereabouts, and lived in the country at that time, you would find, ... that some of this Arkansas company ...boasted of having to helped to kill Hyrum and Joseph Smith and the Mormons in Missouri, and that they never meant to leave the Territory until similar scenes were enacted here.
So it wasn't just the supposed behavior in Utah (like the alleged poisoning of the spring in Corn Creek) and towards any LDS members who had settled there, there were also the wild rumors that people in the party had actually said in public that they killed Joseph and Hyrum Smith (1844 in Illinois) and "others in Missouri" (apparently referencing the deaths of Mormons during the 1838 Mormon War). Anyway, take a look at the change I proposed above and see if we can come to a consensus. Shearonink (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Those options sound good, thank you, and I appreciate the desire to be concise (WP:TLDR). Unfortunately, however the additional phrase of "(LDS Church)" is not extraneous and will need to be included per MOS:ACRO1STUSE which states, "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. maximum transmission unit (MTU) if it is used later in the article." The initialism for Latter-day Saint (LDS) is used throughout this article and needs to be defined explicitly the first time the full church's name comes up (though I do agree adding the parenthetical phrase as well as the full name of the LDS church are both wordy). Pastelitodepapa (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
What I'd like to figure out is a good way of connecting "Mormon" to the institution. That "LDS" represents "Latter Day Saints" is kinda straight forward. But how to we work the colloquial "Mormon" into the mix?
Oh, and is "Mormon" a derogatory epithet? It wasn't when I was in the church but that's been a while. Padillah (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, Brigham Young did use the term himself... Shearonink (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
That pendulum has swung back and forth at least twice since I've been following Utah politics (and indirectly Mormon politics along with it). The church proudly used the term Mormon until the early 00s. During that time the church hired a PR firm to draft a more mainstream Christian image makeover and among the changes was downplaying the name Mormon. Other changes made during this era included a new word mark that used a larger font size on the words Jesus Christ than the other words, and a new masthead that replaced the long used Angel Moroni with the Christus statue. While those changes remain until present, just a few years later they reversed course on the Mormon nickname and launched a "Meet the Mormons" PR blitz. Since Russell M. Nelson's ascension, they seem to be downplaying the name again. I'm torn on this. I understand the desire of any organization to be called by a desired name, and to try to shed a nickname they no longer welcome. However, on the other hand, Wikipedia caters to a general audience, including the majority of the world that has not followed this history, and only knows the group as Mormons. Dave (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mountain_Meadows_Massacre/Archive_20&oldid=1167313849"