Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Untitled

Material archived from the Mountain Meadows massacre Talk page. (Jul 10 – Jul 14, 2007 approximate)

Something off the cuff--

--about proper encyclopedic coverage of whatever mass executions of innocents: the things happening now-- A generation ago, in my youth, there was the Red Guard on the left or, say, Pinochet/ Argentine juntas on the right. In ethnic rampages, Muslims families were massacred in Cyprus; a childhood friend was Armenian-American so I'd hear about executions of Armenian Christians by the Turks. Or maybe we should go back a piece? I've heard in the Boer War, Brits massacred Afrikaaner civilian militia and their families without much gumption about it. So, in an encyclopedia article, how do we cover whatever the regime's justifying rhetoric? For example, in the final case I mentioned, I dunno: stuff about "King" and "Country" or something and the ill-deserving lot of stubborn farmers who'd resist the Em-pah? If so, how does our coverage avoid sounding "anti-" whatever: "anti-" Franco, "anti-" Soviet/ Red Chinese, "anti-" Turk, "Anti-" Greek Cypriot, "Anti-" British? --Justmeherenow 03:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep adding to the list: Native Tasmanians, Aboriginal Australians, thousands of Native Americans tribes (north and south), on and on. The Zulu. The Spanish Inquisition. The organized murder of Protestants in France and the Low Countries. The purge of Catholics and then Protestants and then Catholics in Tudor England. The persecution of Christian and Christian "heretics" between CE 150 and 600 or so. And then in the more modern era, we get to Ireland, Cambodia, Iraq, North Korea, and terrorists. The history of the human race is filled with atrocity, reprisal and death - and no culture/religion/political theory is exempt. But we are all still human, and the reasons that "we" kill "them" need to be examined and discussed, and if possible, understood. How else are we ever going to understand ourselves enough to break the pattern? Anti? Why not be anti-death, anti-violence, anti-atrocity, rather than being anti-(people)? Our articles here should present the atrocity, present the viewpoints, and decry the loss and pain, as far as factually possible. My two cents........... WBardwin 04:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As chroniclers, it is my hope that we present a balanced synopsis of the events, participants, and aftermath. We cite sources deemed to be reliable. Academically, Brooks and Quinn are two reputable historians who have published works on the subject. (In Quinn's case, it is only a part of his book.)

• To say Brooks was the penultimate historian who wrote the best book ever on the MMM is a value judgment by the editor. To say she is a noted historian who wrote a critically acclaimed book on the subject is more accurate and less overblown. We can back this statement up with numerous scholarly articles which verify her book as reliable - on the talk page.
• We can say Quinn's book, written after his excommunication from the LDS, contains criticism of the church. This, however, neglects his status as a noted historian.

We should carefully choose words to give a full and accurate description. Period. Brooks is not suspect because she is Mormon any more than Quinn is as an excommunicated person. Their works can stand on the merits of both as historians of good repute.

When we cite polemic (Gibbs) or apologetic (Turley) works we do so in a manner that shows possible bias. e.g. Gibbs states blah blah. He was familiar with participants from his earlier life while a member of the church. We don't say apostate or excommunicated in the recital. Save that for his article. e.g. Turley bases his assertions on previously unpublished information available to him as LDS church historian and archivist. I do not state he is biased, I give a context for the reader to make that value judgment. Hopefully, editors do it in a manner (oh no! not fair and balanced!) that is not inflammatory or derisive. One example of unbalanced reporting would be to place the info on Gibbs in a footnote and on Turley in the article. One background is more prominent than the other. Better to place equal emphasis on all background statements.

Everyone (civilized, sane, non-megalomaniac types) is anti-murder. That does not make them anti-Mormon if they read this article. We place it in context, use sources, and trust the reader to take from the article what they choose. If they choose to vilify one party or another, we cannot control that. We can be very judicious in the words we use to present the information.

--Robbie Giles 05:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I clicked on the (2nd Anglo-)Boer War and see that 24,000 Boer children-under-16 died in concentration camps, about half of all Afrikaaner children.

Then - surfed to

Take up the White Man's burden--

Send forth the best ye breed--

Go bind your sons to exile

To serve your captives' need;

- (of which Wikipedia says

Six months after "The White Man's Burden" was published, [Kipling] wrote "The Old Issue", a stinging criticism of the Second Boer War, and an attack on the unlimited, despotic power of kings. The Norton Anthology of English Literature argues it is no satire, but in line with Kipling's strong imperialism and a belief of a "Divine Burden to reign God's Empire on Earth", that other, less Christian nations would otherwise take.)

So: should Wikipedia's Boer War article say Britishers believed they shouldered a "divine burden to reign God's empire on Earth" blah blah? --Justmeherenow 15:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what to do with this thread? Is this just commentary or is there a recommendation for the article? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

OK (sorry for my over-subtlety): Does the Pulpit preachings section make for inbalance in a way through its seeming to shade Mormonism so much in a pretty negative light? It can be assumed that Mormons of this Rebellion had some rationale for their cause, just as has/had any other warring nation-state, along with whatever philosophical/theological and so forth justifications to take up arms - so more of such specifics maybe belong in the articles devoted to such subjects? --Justmeherenow 17:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily negative, it's just the way things were at the time. I think Mormon teachings at the time were very understandable in light of the crazy persecutions they had suffered, the insane condition of American politics at the time, and their belief that the world was imploding around them and that they were on the cusp of the Millennium in which God's vengeance would finally be meted out against the wicked. Those teachings might seem odd to us today, but that's only because we live in a different age with different sensibilities and fears. I think the best way to avoid a negative cast is to make sure there is enough factual background so the reader can at least very roughly understand the historical context. COGDEN 19:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent)Justme is right. The the Pulpit preachings section does imbalance it. Also the Pratt murder. And the rest is too detailed and long. (There are also too many wikilinks -- it almost looks like that program that goes through and wikilinks just about every other word was at work). I do not care about the negativity issue so much as the fact that the info about the pulpit preaching is tangential and theoretical as a factor. It is presented here as though it is an undisputed fact that preachings from the pulpit led to these murders. (Incidentally, I do not think the teachings are necessarily weird in this "modern" day and age as COGDEN says -- I think that they are still widespread). I just do not think that these teachings were a major element of the cause of this massacre. If these preachings led to the massacres, there would have been many massacres over and over in years before and after. Moslems teach the same sorts of things over their pulpits and in fact there have been repeated massacres and murders in their societies over and over and the connection can be made more clearly. (But even then it might not be background or historical context). But with the Mormons there were not repeated massacres. The people who committed the crime has never done anything like this before or after. Something different happened here. MMM shows a special unique situation applies here. What were those special factors that led to this unique incident?

Presence of a War Factor is #1, including the notion of threats from California

Tensions (whether based upon real, imagined or mistaken offenses) between the Mormons and the wagon train seem to be a factor. What were the reasons that the pre-massacre meeting gave for plan? That these people were offensive enemies.

Isolation of Southern Communities is probably also involved, but a bit too complex to describe well. The Haslam ride is probably almost sufficient in itself to indicate this.

These are the main issues that other sources may AGREE upon. They are a consensus view. Other things are speculative, theoretical, tangential, less substantiated matters. The article lumps in every theory as a fact and calls it background and context. COGDEN apparently has some sort of hobby interest in this detailed stuff that he or she thinks is "historical context" but it has unbalanced the presentation and made the introduction overwhelming before getting to the meat of the article. I cannot detect that anyone else feels the same, but I will not cease to complain while I comment here. The article has been done a disservice by the horrendous background dissertation/thesis material often with rather obscure references that argue a general principle from a specific instance -- logical fallacy. I am amazed that this defect is not as obvious as a second nose on someone's face. Oh well. --Blue Tie 10:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

We're not looking for a consensus here: we're looking to represent all notable points of view. And in the background section, all we need is historical context: we'll leave the "history of analysis by historians" section for later. The background section should contain all the facts about what was happening prior to the massacre, for which there is a connection to the massacre recognized by a significant constituency.

When we get to the "history of analysis by historians" section, I would add some factors to your list, which are included in multiple scholarly works:

A culture of theological violence prior to the massacre, including Mormon teachings on retribution against the United States for martyring the prophets.

Mormon theocracy (which is also the direct cause of the War Factor), including teachings on obedience to Priesthood authorities and the mechanism by which local authorities felt legally empowered to enforce God's law upon those "worthy of death".

The Greed Factor (Sally Denton's theory, and the theory of some early commentators).

The Danite Factor (no longer taken seriously by academics, but probably still notable).

As to proper use of citations, if you think a source does not support a statement, please rephrase the statement or (preferably) add an additional source that will fill the gap. COGDEN 04:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Supposedly, we are looking for consensus. That's said to be a cardinal rule on wikipedia.

I do not agree that every possible fact about what was happening prior that might have had a connection should be included. Did you add the possible heavy metal contamination of food and water that might have led to poor judgment? I do not believe that every theory should be presented as "background". It should be presented as "theories" later in the article. We've gone over this before. No point in discussing it more. You are insistent that every possible angle be presented BEFORE the subject actually gets discussed. Its weird, but that's your view. To me its horrible editing, terribly distracting and dishonest in that it presents theories as though they were facts. To you it is wonderful construction, necessary in its place and helps tells the true story so the reader will understand better. I do not see how we could be further apart on this. What amazes me is not that there is disagreement, but rather that the defects in your approach, which are so obvious, seem to be at the heart of what you want to achieve. Like a plastic surgeon who wants to leave bad scars and a misshapen face -- and thinks its beautiful. I do not understand it. I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but no other source would discuss the various theories of cause and effect before discussing the incident.--Blue Tie 03:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Territorial militia

I would like to add back in the descriptor of Nauvoo Legion as it was the legal name according to historical sources. There are several archived comments that strongly state the Nauvoo Legion was not involved. It is not correct to leave this out, even if district militia members were acting on their own. They were

1. In the militia (according to military titles used by participants - see Brooks)
2. In on the attack and massacre (by their own admission and in diary accounts)
3. Making decisions about the actions taken after the massacre (by their own admission and in diary accounts)

This does not mean they were or were not under direct orders by a central command. It states the status of the individuals under discussion.

In ¶ 2 of the Introduction it currently states:

The massacre was carried out by a militia led by local Mormon leaders, who had mustered the militias to keep watch ...

On my Sandbox page I list two reliable sources that show the Territorial militia was named the Nauvoo Legion. I propose the following:

The massacre was carried out by local Mormon leaders of the Iron Military District. This district was a unit of the Utah Territorial Militia (or Nauvoo Legion), which had mustered to keep watch ...

Let the arguments begin. --Robbie Giles 04:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with linking to the Nauvoo Legion as long as there is an explanation making it clear we're talking about the Utah Territory militia. COGDEN 17:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Added in Utah in my proposed text. Thanks for the suggestion

I previously considered that it was not the Nauvoo Legion -- saying that the term "Nauvoo Legion" more properly applied to the military units around Salt Lake City and that I never read any contemporary account calling the 10th Regiment -- the Iron County Militia as the "Nauvoo Legion". And I would still consider Robbie Giles sources as insufficient in that regard, however, I believe that Phillip Klingensmith directly called the Iron Militia the "Nauvoo Legion" in his first testimony, so I was wrong. But it does appear to be a rare term -- "Iron County Militia" being most common on an order of at least 100 to 1, whereas in SLC, the term Nauvoo Legion was somewhat more popular. --Blue Tie 06:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Though it had several divisions, I think all the local militias throughout the Utah Territory were part of the same military force, with a chain of command leading to Brigham Young as Commander in Chief. COGDEN 19:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This massacre B/Y disavowed was nonetheless done by a brigade of his Nauvoo Legion (...whose commander-in-chief-in-chief was Buchanan. Except the circumstances obviously were that Young & co. were in rebellion. As Young insisted Haight & Dame were from him. So there we are.) --Justmeherenow 19:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not see what any of that (either the comment by COGODEN or Justme) has to do with whether it was called the Nauvoo Legion. Being part of the same military unit does not mean it is called by the same name. That it fell in the chain of command does not mean that it was called the Nauvoo Legion. What does demonstrate it is the testimony of Klingensmith -- which is the only contemporary instance that I know of. Until now I had thought it was a sort of "Salt Lake Chauvinism" to call all the militias by the name of their own local (SL) militia. But that Klingensmith called it by that name (and I suppose he was not intentionally trying to make some illegitimate connection) means that even if it was a sort of Salt Lake imposition it was at least in part accepted by some. I still do not think it was common. All the correspondence that I recall, calls it some version of the Iron Brigade. --Blue Tie 09:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Iron Brigade of the Nauvoo Legion/Utah Territorial Militia. A brigade is a unit of a larger army. I'm not sure exactly how it was organized in Utah, but in the US Army today, several brigades make a division, several divisions make a corps, and several corps make an army. Since the Nauvoo Legion was smaller than today's U.S. Army (though probably bigger than the US Army of 1857, so I've heard), the highest level of organization might have been brigade, or maybe there were also divisions. Someone should look into that. COGDEN 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added two additional scholarly (Mormon) resources to my sandbox. The legal name at the time of the massacre was the Nauvoo Legion. B/T has offered no documentation to the contrary. I still stand by my suggestion for the the Introduction.

The massacre was carried out by local Mormon leaders of the Iron Military District. This district was a unit of the Utah Territorial Militia (or Nauvoo Legion), which had mustered to keep watch ...

--Robbie Giles 13:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. COGDEN 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Background is still too detailed

Check out any other encyclopedia:

Britannica

Colliers

Americana

Encarta

E of Mormonism

None of them go into anywhere near the detail in the background. Very few of them mention more than the Utah War. I'm not arguing we have to mimic them, but they use professional editors with equally in depth knowledge and sources. They make editorial choices that are reasonable. I think our article has way too much density before getting to the gist of the article. It is improved over a couple of weeks ago but it is still not good.--Blue Tie 09:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed an article put forward by Richard Turley, one of the writers of the soon to be published history. He has evidently summarized their findings and put out the summary in a press release from the LDS Church. It can be found [here].

Has any of this been used in the article? It is the latest compiled research. I note that in addition to the sources I mention above Turley ALSO does not include all of the esoteric theories in his background but simply provides the actual history and even leaves things like Hauns Mill out of the background entirely -- which I generally agree with. (But ..Did any of the perpetuators of MMM mention Hauns Mill? I think maybe they did?)

There are some small interesting things in this article that I find interesting. For example Dame said: Dame denied the request. “Do not notice their threats. Words are but wind—they injure no one; but if they (the emigrants) commit acts of violence against citizens inform me by express, and such measures will be adopted as will insure tranquility.” I do not recall reading all of that before. If I did , it did not stand out.

Also: "The generally peaceful Paiutes were reluctant when first told of the plan. Although Paiutes occasionally picked off emigrants’ stock for food, they did not have a tradition of large-scale attacks. But Cedar City’s leaders promised them plunder and convinced them that the emigrants were aligned with “enemy” troops who would kill Indians along with Mormon settlers."

When asked by Haight to send the Militia to harass the wagon train, "Dame held a Parowan council, which decided that men should be sent to help the beleaguered emigrants continue on their way in peace."

And "When Haight read Young’s words, he sobbed like a child and could manage only the words, “Too late, too late.” I think I have read that before, but somehow it stood out in this recount.

One thing that Turley's synopsis seems to do is suggest the following:

Haight was the manipulative instigator of the crime. He misled his superior Dame into giving permissions and talked Lee (who perhaps did not need alot of encouragement) into his role.

Lee and Haight were co-conspirators. Lee incited the Indians.

They both worked hard to drag others into the crime.

They both worked hard to cover it up.

--Blue Tie 10:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can make any comparison with the above encyclopedia articles. All of them are very short, and are barely long enough to summarize the actual siege and massacre. The Britannica article, for example, is only 159 words. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism article is longer, but still short, and of course limited in its scope by the LDS Church position at the time. Back when the article was written, the church's position was that the massacre is baffling, and it would be hopeless to try to understand it; therefore, the article spent only one paragraph total on the siege, massacre, investigations, trials, and execution, and much of the remainder on reconciliation efforts and expressions by various people about how baffling it was and how hopeless it is to try to analyze or study it. The church's position has obviously changed since that time, and they no longer consider the subject so immune from historical scrutiny. The article also assumes a basic knowledge of Mormon and Utah history, which we can't assume here.

As to Turley's Ensign article, we can't structure this article based on that either. Although he does include some background, remember that this is an article for the church magazine—the same magazine that Mormons use for home teaching and visiting teaching lessons, and its purpose is to promote faith. You wouldn't expect a lot of background in that kind of article. Notably, though, he acknowledges that "comprehending the events of September 11, 1857, requires understanding the conditions of the time, only a brief summary of which can be shared in this article". He seems to be wishing he could provide more background than he does, but of course Ensign is not the appropriate medium for that context. The Turley audience, moreover, is expected to be fully conversant on basic Mormon and Utah history, and some of the context is well-understood. It would be more useful to compare this article with Turley's upcoming book, written for a general audience, than with his Ensign article. COGDEN 19:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Turley information I linked to was not an article but rather some sort of press release from the LDS Church. I thought it was interesting because it seemed to summarize the recent research and I suspect it did so honestly since it was written by one of the Authors. The book is not out. But this is a summary. Shouldn't the most recent research be included if we have some sort of access to it like this? --Blue Tie 03:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see discussion on this source. The manuscript of Turley's book had been accepted, but is not yet printed. My (semi-educated) guess is that it is being peer reviewed and edited prior to publication. The final will be much the same as the manuscript, but there will be some differences. Another pair of eyes looking is always a good thing before it is reviewed by critics after printing.

We may want to stick (for now) to reliable printed sources. We can and should mention that "the Archives of Jenson ..... written by Turley ..." As we all know, this article can certainly be edited when the new book is released. By using an unpublished manuscript based on papers not available to any other scholars, we are not using a verifiable source. I believe the archives will be opened after publication of the book. I could not find anything on Oxford Press' website about a publication date, but I will check some other sources.

The Ensign article is actually a better choice for inclusion than a press release. Although it is a consumer magazine (as opposed to a trade journal or scholarly journal) it has a publication history and is a recognized publication. You can expand any quotes with something Like "The Ensign gives this book three stars. This publication of the LDS reviews books, movies, video games, and websites of interest to members of the church." Of course the reviewers have a bias. We all do. That bias does not mean it is automatically a bad review or article. Using only sources from consumer magazines would weaken any article, not just this one. Using a balance of sources is the best way to go. By the way, this article is not short on sources. --Robbie Giles 04:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie said, "The Turley information I linked to was not an article but rather some sort of press release."

Nope, actually the LDS newsroom posting and the article to be published in the Ensign in September are one and the same. (A red-typefaced editor had cribbed a contribution from it about Haight's tears and then the words "too late, too late" upon his receipt of Young's letter.) --Justmeherenow 04:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh you are right. But anyway, I think that the information should be used. --Blue Tie 14:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Removals of sourced material

Today (July 11) a citation was removed that showed the official date that Buchanan appointed Cummings as Territorial governor of Utah. The citation was to a U.S. Senate journal. As it stands now, there is not a source for the information about Cummings' appointment. Until a reliable source is put in showing an earlier date, I object to the removal of this citation. What was the rationale for the removal? I will check further in the senate records to find any earlier documents, but I am very confused as to why it was removed.

I found another example where testimony of Mormons who made favorable statements about the Fanchers is no longer included in this article. (It was reduced on the 8th of July, and subsequently reduced again and moved to a footnote.) The reference to the statements of Indians has also been removed. The Mormon participants and bystanders are not the only reliable sources of information in this tragedy. By removing sourced, balanced material the article is damaged. Remember, we are not proving what happened, who is more to blame, or anything else. We are writing an article from as neutral a point of view as possible, using reliable sources.

This article is becoming less balanced with all the rapid little changes being made to it. I suggest we stop wholesale editing, choose one section and work on that. Then move to a next section. I am trying to put in a balance of sources, and feel I am wasting my time when it is removed without real comment.

I also strongly suggest no sourced materials be removed without discussing it on the talk page first. It is discourteous. --Robbie Giles 05:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I put it back. Sorry for the discourtesy - it was inadvertent (BTW, thanks for the excellent talk page discussion/ pointers: this is the first article I've worked on - but I'm learning!) :^) --Justmeherenow 07:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Which poll has been cited to demonstrate this statement: "historians agree Paiute involvement was proportionately small."? I see that there is a reference but it is not a reference that supports the statement. --Blue Tie 09:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my laziness not to have reference even one of the dozen references I'd read that give the lions share of blame to the militia as opposed to the Paiutes - but I'll rectify. Thx! --Justmeherenow 09:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Odd referencing

The contains statements like:

• According to trial testimony given later by express rider Haslam
• In Forney's interview with David Tullis who had been living with Jacob Hamblin, Tullis related that
• According to affidavits or interviews with LDS church historian Jenson
• Also, William Rogers later related a conversation between Carl (possibly Carlts) Shirts, Forney and himself where Shirts related
• According to statements made years later by locals
• According to historian of the Utah War MacKinnon
• According to an article in the Saint George, Utah, Spectrum newspaper:
• Forney and Capt. Reuben Campbell (US Army) related

Sometimes this sounds gossipy. Sometimes it sounds like a news article that did not have time to check its facts so it just attributes a statement without looking behind the facts. It mostly reads badly. And many times it just makes the whole statement look like heresay -- which it might be (and perhaps subject to scrutiny for factual basis).

Typically the article should just state a "fact" and then give a footnote. If the article is trying to express a statement of opinion then attribution is appropriate, but it should be expressed as an attribution of opinion rather than as an attribution of a factual statement. For example, we discuss the note from Brigham Young. We say "Historians debate the letter's contents. Brooks believes it shows Young "did not order the massacre, and would have prevented it if he could." Bagley argues that the letter covertly gave other instructions." These both indicate OPINIONS, and give accreditation to the opinions. (Incidentally, more than just two historians should be quoted here -- and the original text should be set off in quotes for readers to make their own evaluation).

--Blue Tie 11:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - well, sometimes its good to shade reports as possibly hearsay? (Especially those described by maybe only one witness)——for example:

Haight is described by research in church archives as the MMM's manipulative instigator who misled theocratic superiors and must be put to blame for putting into motion the reprehensible actions of its (and his) underlings. And——Haight was SAID to react emotionally to his receipt of the express from Young.

So, according to the (1) who, (2) what, (3) where, et cetera of us historical journalists this is said—

1. ((Of)) whom? ((Of the then- a fugitive from justice)) Haight
2. What? That ((Haslam's superior)) reacted with shock and remorse at recipt of Young's express
3. ((Where? In Haslam's testimony))
4. ((When? During Lee's trial))

So sometimes it's even good to say—

• (by) whom: By the once-youthful express rider Haslam; and thus imply why!: ___?___! (even thought Turley leaves any motivations for Haslam to shade truth to be inferred only by readers who go to the note and recognize the name of Haslam.)

And yet, as for—

• How? I dunno, lol: while Haslam's lower lip trembled? his cheeks and then at his temples, blushed a bright crimson? and he alternatedly mopped sweat from his forehead and dabbed moisture from his eyes/ flem from his nose with a turquois kerchief? Just kidding: we don't know "how"! ;^) --Justmeherenow 18:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If things are so sketchy, they should not be reported at all. If they are factual, then report them as facts and footnote them. If they are opinions THEN provide the context of the opinion. Otherwise it is not well written. The use of opinions of others as though they were facts, even if attributed, is inherently biased. But if they are expressed clearly as opinions (and used sparingly) then its acceptable. --Blue Tie 19:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Blue, there's a lot to what you're saying. It's just that chroniclers must balance competing considerations/ ideals to sometimes end up with a choice a bit in this direction and sometimes in that. For example, Turley said

§ Communication—Too Late. ...Young’s express...arrived in Cedar City two days after...[,] reported...that no U.S. troops would be able to reach the territory before winter. “So you see that the Lord has answered our prayers and again averted the blow designed for our heads”.... ¶ “In regard to emigration trains passing through our settlements,” ... “we must not interfere with them until they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with them. There are no other trains going south that I know of[.] [I]f those who are there will leave let them go in peace. While we should be on the alert, on hand and always ready we should also possess ourselves in patience, preserving ourselves and property ever remembering that God rules.”⁶ ¶ When Haight read Young’s words,

—he sobbed like a child and could manage only the words, “Too late, too late.”⁷

Not only "sobbed" but "like a child?" "Could manage only the words..." (too late, too late)?! So, yeah—chroniclers always make choices.

What details might Gibbs have pulled out of identical Lee trial testimony to breath life into a slightly differently shaded take on the same narrative (as worded by whatever the lights of Gibbs' own, biased understandings)? :^) --Justmeherenow 20:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we must make choices, but not the choices that Chroniclers must make. For example, a Chronicler may choose to be biased. We may not so choose. On the other hand, we may choose to not include lots of extraneous detail or put in lots of theory before the actual incident. --Blue Tie 01:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that:

(A photograph of four-year-old survivor named Nancy Saphrona Huff, taken when she was a young woman back in Arkansas, is featured in the documentary Burying the Past. (Note: it can be viewed by clicking on the footnote.))[77]

Belongs in the article. It belongs in either the Notes or References section. --Blue Tie 11:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggested new Lead

• • I believe that the current lead is too long and detailed. I suggest the following:

The Mountain Meadows massacre was the massacre of the Baker-Fancher party of emigrants on September 11 1857 at Mountain Meadows.

The Mormon militia was mustered to keep watch during the time of tension with the United States government known as the Utah War and massacred the travelers on their way to California. John D. Lee, a main protagonist, also convinced Paiute tribesmen to help attack the emigrants and to participate in the massacre. An estimated 120 men, women and children were killed. Seventeen smaller children were spared.

Though investigations began immediately, cover-ups and the distraction of the Civil War delayed actions until the 1870's when nine indictments were issued. Despite the fact that others were involved, only John D. Lee was tried and convicted. In 1877, Lee was executed by firing squad on the same location as the massacre.

The involvement of Mormons, the subsequent cover-up, and the failure to convict other individuals in the massacre has been a matter of historical interest. The identity and actions of participants have been investigated and debated by historians up to the present day. In particular, the role of Brigham Young as Territory Governor and ecclesiastical leader of the Mormons has been considered likely by some historians and dismissed as improbable by others. edit made by Blue Tie at 04:12, 12 July 2007

I like it! --Justmeherenow 12:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

One comment: "deliberately" is redundant as "were spared" intimates that the action was deliberate. Mylorin 17:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope I did not do something improper, but I edited your proposal here rather than waiting for it to be entered into the article. Please feel free to revert the changes if you think they do not improve the article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Another change I would make is to change protagonist to participant. Protagonist is a positive term that is not appropriate here. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments. I think some of the wording can be tweaked, such as the first sentence, which should say who did the massacre, as well as who was massacred. Also, the last paragraph could include some more info about the meaning and consequences of the massacre. I don't think quite so much space needs to be devoted to Brigham Young, and I also don't think we can necessarily say that Lee is either the "main protagonist" or the "main participant". That's kind of a value judgment. He was the only one brought to justice, but Haight, Dame, Higbee, and others were involved just as deeply, if not more so, than Lee. COGDEN 19:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I again suggest the wording be added to make the article factual about the militia. On my Sandbox page I list five reliable sources that show the Territorial militia was named the Nauvoo Legion. I propose the following:

The massacre was carried out by local Mormon leaders of the Iron Military District. This district was a unit of the Utah Territorial Militia (or Nauvoo Legion), which had mustered to keep watch ...

To ignore the correct name of the militia is not giving accurate information. I have seen no proof to the contrary, only opinions. (Just remember, the horse isn't dead until I quit beating it. And I work in an academic library where I can and will find other reliable sources.) What is the temperature of the group on this? --Robbie Giles 01:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the way you suggest is great. COGDEN 03:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) My stuff was just a proposal and looking at it as it exists now, I would wordsmith it too. I have no problems with the changes that others have suggested. --Blue Tie 03:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

---

More suggestions:

Rather than put speculation in the lead, why not stick with what is actually known. Instead of "The travelers were mostly (perhaps entirely) from Arkansas and on their way to California." We should say "The wagon train was traveling from Arkansas to California".

Regarding: "Militia perpetrator John D. Lee also convinced Paiute tribesmen to help in the attack and massacre." Although I proposed this wording upon seeing it, I think that the conclusion that he convinced them to help in the attack should be reviewed. There are two sides to this story. He said that he was pushed by them. So I am not sure that my proposed wording is best there.

This phrase: "Though investigations began immediately, cover-ups by Mormons", blames Mormons generally. It should say "participants" or something like that. Perhaps, "cover-ups by participants, reluctance to cooperate by other Mormons, and ..." though this may be too much speculation. --Blue Tie 14:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

POV First-Person Edits

First of all, I would like to extend a warm welcome to Catherine Baker (Cbaker50), who has recently made some edits. That being said, I have two issues with her edits, which are by nature POV. (1) It is original research for her to edit (and add brackets to) her own quoted comments. (2) The original inclusion of commentary from a descendant is questionable as well. These descendants are too far removed from the actual event to have bearing on an encyclopedic entry. If I were a John Taylor descendent I hardly think my blog commentary would be worthy of inclusion in the Death of Joseph Smith, Jr. article. --TrustTruth 19:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that showing the edited comments is POV as well. The author has stated they are out of context. If we cannot use it as it was spoken, better to take it out than to misrepresent what she said. I actually would like to see an article on MMM monuments and reconciliation (or something like that.) Deal with everything up to the trial and execution of John D. Lee. Leave in any section related to direct participants or witnesses. Do a short paragraph in the current article and move all the rest to a new article. --Robbie Giles 00:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If the comments were originally edited to skew the meaning, that was certainly POV. I definitely don't understand the encyclopedic relevance of Fancher-Baker descendants. Maybe splitting the reconciliation part into another article will iron that issue out. --TrustTruth 01:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I restored quote's context through referencing, in its applicable "Reconciliations" sub§, Baker's disenchantment with Hinckley's comments of 1999. --Justmeherenow 16:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Are Catherine Baker's comments found in a published source, like a newspaper article or something we can reference? We need to be able to cite to a reliable source outside of Wikipedia for this. COGDEN 18:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WP says noncontroversial commentary from blogs is an acceptable means of publicly accessible "publication" - and an articlein the Trib backs up descendants' feeling pist by the...

[...] legal disclaimer. "That which we have done here must never be construed as an acknowledgment of the part of the church of any complicity in the occurrences of that fateful day," [...] inserted into his [Hinckley's] speech on the advice of attorneys/ [... ¶...and] seemingly out of sync with Hinckley's desire to bring healing to nearly 150 years of bitterness, caused some in attendance to wonder if any progress had really been made at all. If the Mormon Church leadership of 1857 was not at least partially to blame for an estimated 120 people slain at Mountain Meadows, then whom should history hold responsible?/ [¶]: "Well, I would place blame on the local people," Hinckley told The Salt Lake Tribune in a subsequent interview Feb. 23. "I've never thought for one minute -- and I've read the history of that tragic episode -- that Brigham Young had anything to do with it. It was a local decision and it was tragic.. We can't understand it in this time."/ [... ¶]: Now, those who had hoped to hear some sort of apology on behalf of the modern Mormon Church from the man who had done more than any of his predecessors to salve the wounds, were left feeling they had come up short./ [¶]: "What we've felt would put this resentment to rest would be an official apology from the church," says Scott Fancher of the Mountain Meadows Monument Foundation in Arkansas, a group of direct descendants of the victims. "Not an admission of guilt, but an acknowledgement of neglect and of intentional obscuring of the truth."/ [¶]: Others closely involved in Hinckley's participation in the new monument project believe the LDS Church went as far as it's ever going to go in addressing the uncomfortable details of the massacre./ [¶]: "You're not going to get an apology for several reasons, one of which is that as soon as you say you're sorry, here come the wrongful-death lawsuits," says Gene Sessions, president of the Mountain Meadows Association, the organization that partnered with Hinckley on the project./ [... ¶]: "The problem is that Mormons then were not simply old-fashioned versions of Mormons today," says historian David Bigler, author of Forgotten Kingdom.. "Then, they were very zealous believers; it was a faith that put great emphasis on the Old Testament and the Blood of Israel."/ [¶]: Brigham Young's theocratic rule of the Utah Territory -- he wore the hats of governor, federal Indian agent and LDS prophet -- was at its zenith [...]. Reformation of the LDS Church was in full swing, with members' loyalty challenged by church leaders. Young taught that in a complete theocracy, God required the spilling of a sinner's blood on the ground to properly atone for grievous sins. It was the Mormon doctrine of "blood atonement."/ [¶]: The modern church contends blood atonement was mainly a "rhetorical device" used by Young and other leaders to teach Saints the wages of sin. Yet some scholars see its influence even today, pointing to such signs as Utah being the only state left in the nation that allows execution by firing squad. There is widespread disagreement, but some historians have concluded that blood atonement is central to understanding why faithful Mormons would conspire to commit mass murder./ [¶]: Alternate explanations have included [... ¶]: epithets, poisoned watering holes [...,] boastful claims of one contingent called the "Missouri Wildcats" that they were with the Illinois mob that killed LDS founder Joseph Smith./ [... ¶: T]he veracity of those stories has been called into question since the earliest investigations of the massacre./ [¶]: Historian Juanita Brooks, in her seminal book, The Mountain Meadows Massacre, believed the emigrants met their doom in part through their own provocative behavior and because they came from the Arkansas county adjacent to the county where beloved LDS Apostle Parley P. Pratt had recently been murdered./ [¶]: In his forthcoming Blood of the Prophets, Bagley points to new evidence that seems to blunt this one point of Brooks' landmark research./ [¶]: "[Noted historian] Dale Morgan alerted Brooks in 1941 to the likelihood that the emigrant atrocity stories had been 'set afloat by Mormons to further their alibi of the massacre's having been perpetrated by Indians,' " Bagley writes, quoting from Morgan's letter to Brooks. "Even then it was well-established that the Fancher party came from Arkansas, and Morgan had never been satisfied with tales that the company included a large contingent of maniacal Missourians."/ [¶]: That a wagon train mainly of women and children would be slaughtered for belligerence and taunting seems too farfetched to many historians today./ [¶]: "When you have 50 to perhaps more than 70 men participate in an event like this, you can't just say they got upset," says Bigler, a Utah native. "We have to believe they did not want to do what they did any more than you or I would. We have to recognize they thought what they were doing is what authority required of them. The only question to be resolved is did that authority reach all the way to Salt Lake City?"/ [¶]: Fifty years ago, when Brooks broached the question of Young's role and blood atonement in her book, she was labeled an apostate by some and "one of the Lord's lie detectors" by others, such as the late philanthropist O.C. Tanner. Brooks noted her own LDS temple endowment blessing was to "avenge the blood of the prophet," a reference to Smith's 1844 murder. References to vengeance on behalf of slain church leaders eventually were removed from endowment ceremonies./ [¶]: The journals kept by Mormon pioneers, who considered maintaining diaries a religious duty, continue to shed more light on the questions Brooks raised. Among key developments in the historical record:/ [¶]: -- The Sept. 1, 1857, journal of Young's Indian interpreter, Dimick Huntington, recounts Young's negotiations with the Paiute Indians, who were offered a gift of the emigrant wagon train's cattle. When Paiute leaders noted Young had told them not to steal, Huntington translated Young's reply: "So I have, but now they have come to fight us and you, for when they kill us they will kill you."/ [¶]: -- Young, as superintendent of Indian Affairs in the Utah Territory, ordered the distribution of more than $3,500 in goods to the natives "near Mountain Meadows" less than three weeks after the massacre. [¶]: -- The patriarchal blessing given to the commander of the Mormon militia in Beaver, Iron and Washington counties called on Col. William Dame to "act at the head of a portion of thy brethren and of the Lamanites [Indians] in the redemption of Zion and the avenging of the blood of the prophets upon them that dwell on the earth."/ [¶]: There is also additional support for Brooks' original premise: That Young wanted to stage a violent incident to demonstrate to the U.S. government -- which was taking up arms against his theocracy -- that he could persuade the Indians to interrupt travel over the important overland trails, thwarting all emigration. She was the first to note a frequently censored phrase from Young's Aug. 4, 1857, letter to Mormon "Indian missionary" Jacob Hamblin to obtain the tribe's trust, "for they must learn that they have either got to help us or the United States will kill us both."/ [¶]: Hinckley has declared, "Let the book of the past be closed" at Mountain Meadows and believes it is pointless to continually speculate on why it happened./ [¶]: "None of us can place ourselves in the moccasins of those who lived there at the time," he said in an interview. "The feelings that were aroused, somehow, that I cannot understand. But it occurred. Now, we're trying to do something that we can to honorably and reverently and respectfully remember those who lost their lives there."/ [¶]: Sessions, the Weber State University historian who serves as president of the Mountain Meadows Association, says Hinckley's efforts at reconciliation this past summer "may be the most significant event to happen in Mountain Meadows since John D. Lee was executed."/ [¶]: Attitudes are changing, he says, pointing to the church's acceptance of interpretive signs at the meadows that better explain who did the killing. As to who ultimately is to blame, perhaps that's not for anyone to judge./ [¶]: "Somebody made a terrible decision that this has got to be done," says Sessions. "I don't justify it in any way. But I do believe it would have taken more guts to stay home in Cedar City on those days in 1857 than it would to go out there to the meadows and take part./ [¶]: "You couldn't stay away. You would have been out there killing people."

--Justmeherenow 19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is getting very large, and in the interest of clarity, I propose it be split into at least two articles: one on the actual massacre and one on the non-contemporary reconciliations & reminiscences -- maybe titled "Retrospective on the Mountain Meadows Massacre". I've placed a marker in the article where I think it out to be split (after the contemporary and first-person remiscences section). --TrustTruth 20:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should make a split just yet. The article is in a bit of flux right now, and it's hard to see which chunk of the article would be the best sub-article. I also don't think it's too long yet. It's on the longer side, but well within reasonable limits. It seems a lot longer than it is because the kB count includes footnotes and references, which are very large in this article and which don't count in considering article length. I did a count a while ago and we were about 50k, and I think it has shrunk a little since then. COGDEN 22:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with a split or not. I think that there might be too much material in the article both before and after the core material in the center. Generally I prefer deletion, but I could see a split also. --Blue Tie 14:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think enough has gone on in the reconciliation phase to warrant its own article. That way, this article can focus solely on the event and its immediate (up to John D. Lee execution) aftermath. --TrustTruth 19:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Background - role of absconding federal officials

Article is improving, people! Congratulations. In the background section of this article, and Utah War as well, there is no mention of the publicity and pressure placed upon the President and the federal government by the federal officials who "served" in Utah and then "fled" east with stories of tyranny and oppression. Accounts of the official's experience and opinions of Utah ran in many eastern papers and led to the call for federal action against the Mormons. Most of these men, as was common at the time, had looked upon a federal appointment as an opportunity to get rich and gain political influence. They were, according to accounts, sadly surprised when conditions in Utah reduced their financial opportunities and limited their power. In addition, some of the men's personal conduct appalled the conservative Mormons, who quickly saw them as representatives of a corrupt and oppressive government. This led to a generalized view that "Gentiles" entering the territory were also dangerous and corrupt and may have had an impact on the reception of immigrants through the territories, including the Francher party. As everyone is trying to keep the background short (why, oh why! says the historian in me), could we boil this concept down to a couple of sentences? Best wishes. WBardwin 00:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't go down this name-calling path. If we stay away from value judgments, we will present a more balanced article. Where you may feel they absconded, someone else may say they were persecuted, threatened and run out of the territory by religious fanatics. Neither comment adds positively to this article. Let's stick to the facts and back them up with reliable sources. --Robbie Giles 00:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

why are you assuming I'm calling anyone names? There are two POV's on the matter, yes, but this is part of the "why" for the Utah War, and perhaps for the MMM. I believe exploring "why", within our factual ability, is just as important as exploring "how" the event occurred. Both "sides" quickly abhorred the other -- and both of them reacted, creating a volatile emotional condition that helped lead to the war. The officials stirred up the eastern press (believe me, well sourced), and public reaction forced the President to act. The Utah leaders and population saw the men as corrupt outsiders (again, sources), and suspected the federal government would send more of the same who would threaten their hard won independence. These are "facts" and there are additional sources on some of the officials and their activities, and historical opinions on the impact on the conflict. I still think this should go into the background as an element of the Utah War. Please don't accuse me of trying to cause trouble here! Assume good faith! WBardwin 01:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Name calling in the sense of a pejorative adjective for the officials. Not in your conversations with other editors. Sorry for the confusion.

I believe this thread could and should be put into the Utah War (or Expedition to those mobocrats) article. Yes, there are ample sources on the behavior of both sides in the interactions leading to both the War and the MMM. I do assume good faith. I simply don't want this to degenerate into a right-wrong wrangle. We're writing an article from sources, not arguing the interpretations out afresh. --Robbie Giles 01:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an important point, and I agree with Robbie Giles it is best put in the Utah War section. It's also significant because it ties into the later story of Garland Hurt, who was the last federal official to leave the territory before the War, and the first to make an investigation of the massacre, and he said he fled for his life. We don't have to make any judgments. We just tell both sides of the story. COGDEN 01:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The Utah War section in the article starts, imo, rather abruptly. So, while I would not be adverse to putting it there, I thought two or so sentences in the background section would set the stage, as most of the officials' actions predated the War itself. But, thank you both for agreeing that it has a place in the article. Best............WBardwin 01:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a book on the Utah National Guard from the Nauvoo Legion period forward that I got on interlibrary loan (ILL) from a Utah University. The citation is here. It has about about 8 pages on the beginning in the Territory through the Utah War. I can scan pages and send them as a pdf next week if you would like. Or you can see about getting it sent to you by your library. If you look at the OCLC record, it shows the libraries that have it. Boise State has a copy depending on where you are. Working in a library is so sweet, cause I get to use ILL and online journals. And they pay me too. Wow, it doesn't get any better. Leave a message here and we can figure a way to exchange email addresses. --Robbie Giles 03:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the positive or negative role of federal officials is reasonably part of the Utah War article. It should not be part of this article. It is a cause of the Utah War which is a precipitating factor for the MMM. So it is removed from this article by a step. --Blue Tie 14:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Leaner, meaner background section

I've worked hard to streamline the background section. I've condensed it into three subheadings instead of four (stepping slightly out of chronological order to do so, which I hate to do). I also made things a bit simpler and more directly-relevant. I'm not sure if it's possible to condense much further, because there's not much left that can be cut. Pretty much everything left, I think, is necessary factual background that will be implicated later in the article. COGDEN 22:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic. I corrected a few typos. All remaining typos are in direct statement and probably represent the creative spelling prevalent at that time. I unlinked a few dup wikilinks and added a few new.

This sentence in the first ¶:

Because of a history of persecution, theocratic rule, and a recent period of intense Millennialist teachings, conditions were ripe in the Utah Territory for violence and paranoia, particularly in isolated Southern Utah colonies.

I would like to change in this manner for clarity:

Because of a history of persecution, a desire for theocratic rule, and a recent period of intense Millennialist teachings, conditions were ripe in the Utah Territory for violence and paranoia, particularly in isolated Southern Utah colonies.

The people of Utah who moved to the back of beyond to escape persecution wanted a theocracy and that desire was in conflict with what the U.S. President wanted. The idea of losing the theocracy was frightening to them and heightened the tension. It is a picky change, and I won't press it. --Robbie Giles 03:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I still think its too long, involved and crufty --Blue Tie 14:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

High road

I believe that the editors currently working on this article are moving in the right direction. I pledge to continue working on this article in a spirit of cooperation and civility. This is a contentious subject. To have this level of cooperation is a blessing. I refuse to let one or even two or three discourteous editors derail this effort. So, I offer a challenge to all participants to assume that others are as capable as yourself, as interested as yourself, and as worthy of civility of yourself. Remember: On the internet we may not know you are a dog, but by discussion page comments we know when someone is being rude, condescending, and arrogant. So, will you take the pledge? --Robbie Giles 04:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone here has been civil, except perhaps me. And in my case, I did not mean to be uncivil but frank. However, it could be the same thing. Its a lack of patience. But I will try harder. --Blue Tie 14:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal or splitting leftovers

This article has a wealth of information about related topics. Before deleting any information, please make sure it is in the parent article first. For example, the information on the Utah War background deleted from this article may not be in the Utah War article in a sourced format. One suggestion might be to place it on your User or Talk page to include in the other article later. Just a suggestion for a way to use all this hard work. --Robbie Giles 14:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I do not think the good research should be lost. --Blue Tie 14:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)