Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Material archived from the Mountain Meadows massacre Talk page. (Jul 15 – Jul 31, 2007 approximate)

Contents 1 Introduction 2 Major reordering 3 Facts vs Theories 4 Paiute participation 5 Applause 6 Allegations sections 7 Duke train 8 Young's reponse 9 George Smith's travelogue 10 Duplicate citations 11 Time to ask for reviewers 12 Oaks 13 Lessons 14 A positive edit! 15 The current lead 16 How to ruin an article and find enlightenment 17 Final edit plans 18 Please stop major edits for a bit 19 Suggestion about editing 20 §Ark(ansans): edit section

Introduction

¶ 2 of the current introduction reads:

Investigations—which began immediately, although impeded by perpetrators' having been sworn to secrecy and the distraction of the U.S. Civil War—resulted eventually in nine indictments being issued in 1874. Despite others' involvement, only John D. Lee was tried and convicted. Lee was executed by firing squad at the location of the massacre in 1877.

I suggest the first sentence be trimmed to read:

Investigations, interrupted by which began immediately, although impeded by perpetrators' having been sworn to secrecy and the distraction of the U.S. Civil War, resulted eventually in nine indictments being issued in 1874.

It is debatable that the investigations began immediately. Hurt left the territory soon after learning the first details and no further investigations were done until the U.S. was forced to investigate by relatives of the victims and "outraged" newspaper editors. --Robbie Giles 14:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not find the edit terrible, but I should explain my thinking in the original wording. I was thinking about investigations commissioned early on by BY. These were almost immediate. Then too, the investigations a couple of years later in 1859 also followed. This was "pretty fast" for those days and given the travel difficulties. So, I do not think that immediate is such a bad word, but perhaps it could be modified. --Blue Tie 16:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Major reordering

This morning I moved all Fancher and massacre information (except rumors section) up below the introduction. The article had a great deal of information explaining the situation which led to the massacre first. This was distracting from the actual events. I left the Rumors section with other justification text. For now, all info is still there and I plan to edit for passive voice removal. I believe (never humble remember) that the flow will be better if we order as follows:

1. Intro to Fancher party in Arkansas
2. Travels to SLC
3. Travels to Meadows
4. Massacre
5. Immediate activities after massacre

--Robbie Giles 14:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is sort of better and sort of worse:

• It sort of gets to the point faster, but not in a more interesting way.
• I think that "The Massacre and its Aftermath", need to be restructured into more high level sections.
• While I did not like the length of the previous background, I do not think that no historical background is appropriate either. Almost every other source mentions a few historical context items -- chiefly the Utah War.
• The restructuring highlights a need for some better writing.

I have to catch a plane soon, so I will not be able to help with that for a while --Blue Tie 16:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I still like this general outline:

1. Background

(Themes)

Mormons settled Utah Valley to be isolated from the US

Mormons then felt threatened by the US Government

War and siege mentality occurred.

War Strategy -- including the use of indians and cattle rustling

2. Events leading to the Massacre

a. Baker Fanchier Party emigrating through the territory.

b. Conflicts between the Wagon Train and the Mormons

c. The Decision to attack the Wagon Train

3. Sequence and geography of attack events

4. Investigations and Cover-up

5. John D Lee Trial and Execution

6. Memorials and Recent events

7. Theories and Opinions

a. greed

b. Mormon ethic to unquestionably follow leaders

c. millennial expectations (??)

d. frontier violence

e. harsh Mormon rhetoric to retributionally punish sin

f. mob/vigilante dynamics

g. a persecution complex / us-versus-them alienation

h. agitation (threats, poisonings, etc) from emmigrants.

i. war hysteria over the approaching US army

j. desires to steal property in anticipation of scarcity

k. desires to ally with Natives

8. Annotated Bibliography of MM Histories. [--Blue Tie]

I can see where the Banker Fancier Party details (2a) might deserve their own section. I could see switching 6 and 7 or putting 7 between 3 and 4. I think its best in position #7. though. --Blue Tie 17:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

An alternative order for 7 could be:

a. war hysteria over the approaching US army

b. desires to steal property in anticipation of scarcity

c. desires to ally with Natives

d. a persecution complex / us-versus-them alienation

e. agitation (threats, poisonings, etc) from emmigrants.

f. mob/vigilante dynamics

g. frontier violence

h. harsh Mormon rhetoric to retributionally punish sin

i. Mormon ethic to unquestionably follow leaders

j. millennial expectations (??)

k. greed

An example of another Massacre Article that has achieved Feature Status is Lochry's Defeat. It is well ordered, well structured and it has nearly every sentence referenced. --Blue Tie 17:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I just reordered §§ in the article and ended up with this

• 1 Baker-Fancher party
• (1.1 Salt Lake City arrival) (1.2 The Road south to Mountain Meadows)
• 2 Conditions in Utah
• (2.1 Teachings from...pulpit) (2.2 ...invasion panic) (2.3 ...Smith's circuit) (2.4 Unbridling Indians...)
• 3 Siege and massacre
• (3.1 Surviving children) (3.2 Distribution of spoils) ([3.3.1 ...guilty sworn to secrecy] [3.3.2 ...Fanchers "poisoned cattle"]) ([3.4.1 ...Fanchers "threatened"] [3.4.2 Conspiracy at Cedar City: yet belated message from Young] [3.4.3 besiegement of following party...])
• 4 Investigations and trials
• (4.1 ...1857, 1859) (4.2 Prosecutions of Lee)
• 5 Background: Mormons' uneasy position in Utah territory
• (5.1 Memory of...persecutions) (5.2 Expansion of...dominion into so.Utah) (5.3 ...contemporary reminiscences)
• 6 Effects of the massacre within present-day American culture
• (6.1 reconciliations [6.1.1 Expression of regret] [<6.1.2.1 Early markers> <6.1.2.2 1990 monument> <6.1.2.3 1999 monument...> <6.1.2.4 Descendants' remembrances>]) (6.2 Media and academic coverage [6.2.1 Early works] [6.2.2 ...Brooks] [<6.2.3.1 Documentaries> <6.2.3.2 Plays, a novel and a film>])

People shouldn't have to wade with the Saints through Missouri and Illinois, trek with them down to southern Utah, then experience the Mormon Reformation with them etc just to get into the thick of what happened to the Fancher train at the massacre. Still, immediate background is important

I. Justmehere's stab.

So

1. we have the Baker-Fancher company's arrival in Utah
2. then we show conditions of panic in the territory
3. then we have the train's massacre (with our immediately thereafter getting into the thick of it as far as who did what to whom first)
4. then we have John D. Lee's being shot
5. and it's only then we get into Mormons' lengthy background narrative (and sequeing into earliest American take on the MMM, and then Mormons' collecting diaries and reports)
6. then finally "MMM news" stuff: reconciliations, media portrayals (?) :^) --Justmeherenow 19:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - but I'm not entirely satisfied with it.

II. Robbie's most recent stab.

Before I'd started the article went:

1. Arkansas company's SLC arrival & heading south toward MM
2. the massacre, with some children's surviving and a distribution of spoils
3. the background of Mormons' uneasy position in Utah due their memories of MO/IL persecutions, their having expanded into Utah's "dixie" in so. Utah, and then listened to whacky pulpit teachings
4. an invasion panic, with the Geo. Smith circuit's putting Legionaires on alert, the Natives' being unbridled, and the populace claiming antagonization by Fancher threats, leading to Cedar City conspiracy (before the belated message from Young), then on to the Duke raid, all MM paricipants' sworn to secrecy, with then Lee's passing on the poisoning claim to Young
5. but with the feds' not buying that and instead investigating, trying Lee, then there being collection of reminiscences

(Then on to 6) & 7)'s current media portrayals & efforts towards reconciliation)... --Justmeherenow 00:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

III. Blue Tie's suggested outline.

Then what Blue Tie suggests is (something akin to? - )

1. enough background to explain Utah LDS desire for isolation & its need to buck against overbearing federal colonialism
2. war & siege mentality (/hysterics) which brings sealing of borders, taking of folks' cattle, harrassment of U.S. troops en route eastward
3. emigrants' arrival and whatever seeds of conflict and their escalation - into Cedar City's decision to have them Reap the Whirlwind
4. the massacre
5. investigation, with cover-up, resulting in the Lee trials
6. (A) recent events

(B) various theories of

• extreme passions authorized by beliefs
• the young religious society's highly hierarchical regimentation
• its sensing its (our) alienation/feelings of agitated by outsiders (them)
• frontier violence/mob dynamics and/or wartime Patriot Act type "defensive" hysteria or whatever, and
• the need to ally with Natives and
• their both's greed and/or concerns about scarcity in anticipation of apocalyptic defense against the U.S.

(C) an annoted bibliography of Meadows histories --Justmeherenow 01:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

IV. Something akin to the "more-better" chronology Ogden has championed.

Meanwhile, Ogden's last-edited version ran as

1. background of Mormons' uneasy position in Utah with their memory of persecutions and new news of Pratt murder, expansions into Utah's "dixie", motivations through fiery pulpit preachings
2. Baker-Fancher party's path through so. Utah & difficulties trading
3. panicked invasion rumors, Smith's circuit, "unbridled" Indians, Fancher threats, conspiracy at Cedar City, besiegement of following party
4. massacre at Mountain Meadows, surviving children, distribution of spoils, guilty sworn to secrecy and make claim of Fanchers' having poisoned Indians
5. Investigations and Lee trials, contemporary reminiscences
6. current media/ memorials et cetera . . . --Justmeherenow 02:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying out edits on a sandbox page and just made almost no headway on this article. In doing so, I finally realized that some of the same types of materials appeared in different places. I am not bothered by the outline or order right now, so much as I am with pulling similar things together. I definitely think the article is moving forward nicely. I will try to identify some examples to see if we can move them together in the article. At this point, we could call the sections who, what, where, when, and why and figure out the order later. I've been thinking of this as storytelling and seeing if the elements are here to tell the whole story. I think we have most of it. I still have about 3 paragraphs of information on the Paiute perspective I am hammering out. It's not ready yet, as I checked out six more books on Friday for background. --Robbie Giles 20:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the current arrangement is confusing. It jumps around in time, which is good in time-travel fiction, but not in historical non-fiction. We have the situation now where the Baker-Fancher party is meeting resistance from Mormons in Utah, before anything is explained about conditions in Utah. That's baffling to people who aren't familiar with the facts. Second, we discuss the massacre, and then later go back and explain "loose threads". That's not a good idea. It's much better not to have "loose threads" to begin with. Then, finally, at the end, we explain the conditions in Utah leading up to the massacre. I appreciate the effort to do this, but this is not going to work. We'll never get FA status with an article that's not roughly chronological. It's not what the audience expects, and it's way too confusing. COGDEN 01:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that Justme grasped my perspective well. I would give some immediate and general conditions in Utah that preceded the massacre but not all the detailed theories that people have put forward. Just the most basic things and in a fairly brief manner. Then into this mess steps the Fanchier party (and sometimes either that party or others get into tense situations with the Mormons). Then the party runs into the folks in Cedar, particularly Haight and plans are developed. The plans both go awry and escalate until there is a massacre. The massacre is described. Then the cover-ups and the investigations, followed by the trial. I am not quite clear on what should follow next. I am torn as to whether it should be all the various historical reconstructions and theories or if it should be the stuff about the monument and memorial services. I tend to like the monument and memorial services first because then a statement of the various theories and thoughts could precede a brief annotated bibliography (which I think is important in this case). The connection between the theories and the various proponents and arguments could be enhanced by putting it near the bibliography of the various books that make these cases.

I agree with Justme that we should not have to wade through too many side journeys before getting to the gist of the article. I also agree with Robbie that there is some redundancy. I think the redundancy should be eliminated through most of the article but it would re-appear in the theories section because different theories interpret the same information in different ways. I also agree with COGDEN that it is currently somewhat confusing. I think the new order highlights a need for better writing of the sections.

I've wanted to Sandbox a version but I just do not have time. sorry. --Blue Tie 02:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There have been so many edits recently that it's hard to follow who is doing what, but thanks to whoever put the article back into rough chronological order. I'm personally satisfied with the amount of pre-1857 background material, though I'm sure it can still be massaged. I'm going to try and focus now on the events immediately preceding the massacre, and the massacre itself. I would like to avoid a "theory" or "analysis" section if possible, by incorporating such material right into the narrative, or perhaps in footnotes to the narrative. This avoids lots of problems, by putting primary focus on the facts (primary sources), and secondary focus on the analysis (secondary sources). It also avoids a level of redundancy. COGDEN 17:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Facts vs Theories

Clearly we are nearly at polar opposites. I think the background information is currently too dense and crufty. I think that the best place to put the various ideas (which are actually sorts of debates) is in a separate section. I say present the facts of the massacre. Then the various theories about the "reason why". I think that makes for an NPOV article. I think presenting all the various theories as background "fact" is pov, crufty and puts too much density before you get to the heart of the article. While I do think that chronological order is best, the theories should be segregated into their own section where they can be separately evaluated by the reader. We already know that COGDEN and I disagree. But I just want to register it again. --13:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The distinction between "fact" and "theory" is that a fact is something that somebody said happened, while a theory is somebody's second-level interpretation of a fact or group of facts. Just because a fact is alleged doesn't make it a theory, because all facts are alleged by somebody, and not all factual information is necessarily "true". Any fact relating to the massacre should, if possible, be told in chronological order, like any good narrative. Theories go later, but you can't discuss a theory without first telling the facts upon which the theory is based. Whether or not you personally think a particular fact is important, you'll still have to tell that fact at some point in the article before stating the theory. So what better place to tell the fact than in chronological order as part of a narrative, in the context of the other facts that you do personally consider important? COGDEN 17:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your definition of "fact". But I will get to that momentarily. I also disagree with your notion of how things have to be presented. I will also deal with that. But first, I want to make something clear, because even though I have tried to be very clear, based upon what you wrote above, I would have to say I have not communicated in a way that you comprehended my intent.

I have complained about TWO things:

1. There is too much CRUFT. By cruft I do NOT mean Theory, though theories might also be cruft. But I mean too many trivial, insignificant FACTS. Facts that are minutia and interesting only to people with a hobby interest. Or facts that are only presented in order to BOLSTER A THEORY, particularly obscure or revisionist theories.

2. There is too much ASSUMPTION that THEORIES of motives, are FACTS -- or that they are presented as though they are facts. Sure, there may be facts that support these theories (or perhaps interpretations of facts that support these theories), but the theories are not facts. I have been complaining about this all along.

Both of these issues are at play in the background material that you bring. And they create a density, early in the article that is simply not appropriate for summary style writing as should be done in an encyclopedia.

Now, as for your concept of "fact", I also disagree. And this may lie even more closely at the heart of the problem. To me, you have a liberal view of what a fact is. You say that even if it is alleged -- or if someone just says it -- it is a fact. I have a very hard time with that idea. For example, liars may say things, but they are not facts just because someone said them. To me, a fact exists independent of what someone says about it or how it is perceived. But enough philosophy. This is wikipedia and there are actually guidelines about this sort of thing. Let me quote:

"By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can. By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." -- Wikipedia's Policy on Neutral Point of View.

Finally (but consistent with the notion of too much cruft), what sorts of "facts" need to get presented in the background is also apparently an area where we do not see things the same. You say that "Any fact relating to the massacre should, if possible, be told". I disagree with the concept of "any" which I think you take to an undeserved extreme. Only reasonably important facts should be included. These should be things about which there is no serious dispute or disagreement. (I would say these are things about which there is a consensus that this is "background" -- but weirdly you have rejected the notion of consensus -- despite that being a fundamental principle of wikipedia.) They should also clearly advance the narrative of the events chronologically -- following in a non-convoluted, fairly direct line to the massacre. On the other hand, anything that is uniquely required to support some theory of motives should be suspect as "background" material and reviewed against the standards of not being in dispute and being important to moving the narrative along. If it fails those tests it should not be presented as background, but instead considered for the theories section.

All of the various theories AND THE FACTS THAT SUPPORT THEM, particularly the special facts that are required to uniquely support these theories, should be included in a separate section. In some cases that might require a restatement of more common facts because different people will see those facts as saying different things. For example, the same note from Brigham Young is seen as proof he did not support the massacre and as proof that he ordered it. I think that it should be presented in the article without comment either way, and then the theories of Brooks and Bagley should be presented in a separate section.--Blue Tie 01:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing Ogden presents that's not addressed in spades in loads of secondary sources. Sure, Wikipedia benefits every once in a while through its publishing pertinent researches firmly grounded in primary sources--but a good adverb here is modestly? - since Wikipedia's not for specialists to come to and get background nitty gritty. Rather its job is to summarize whatever the story--as explained by the experts. Which,*

____

|[*(obviously--if ya'all will excuse yet another one of my self-indulgent fables)]|

====

in the case of the annotated Jack and the beanstalk, would be through references to such established experts in its field as Mother Goose, the Grimm brothers and Hans Christian Andersen. Otherwise folks will turn to Wikipedia to learn about magical beanstalk and needlessly get bogged down in facts.

• The person who told Jack about the magical beans was Wilbur.
• Wilbur said on May 1st: "Jack, spreckled ones grow fastest."¹
• Still, Jack planted both plain² and speckled.³ But the quicker growing plants - which instantaneously stretched up into the clouds - were too slender to support human weight. Come morning, however, stoutly gigantic, plain-beans produced beanstalks were standing there alongside Jacks front fence; and Jack climbed one. --Justmeherenow 03:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that things may be attested to by 2ndary sources. Many of them perhaps. Like the Kennedy Assassination. I would not want all of the history (well attested in 2ndary sources) about Kennedy's political problems with Texans, efforts to eliminate Castro, Bobby's fights with organized crime, Big Business Fears about his "socialism", CIA feelings of betrayal by him or other "facts" to be presented in a background section prior to the gist of the story on the assassination. I would, instead, see them presented in their own section on Theories about the Assassination. Among other reasons, it would prevent the story from getting bogged down early. All that stuff is cruft ... of interest (in detail) to assassination conspiracy theorists and hobbyists. But if one of them comes along and is really interested in the details of those theories they could look into them in the "Theory" section later in the article - AFTER the gist of the article was covered -- as appropriate for the general reader. This is a sort of summary style appropriate to encyclopedias. I am unable to detect that anyone else feels quite as I do about this. Not sure if your fable above is simply a comment going neither way or if you are supporting or rejecting my ideas. I often find it difficult to follow your posts and I have come to believe I am not quite as smart as you because your nuances are more subtle than I am. I think subtlety like that requires a certain intellectual level that I have not achieved. --Blue Tie 04:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• _____

1. (the talking horse [however, some commentators believe strings were tied to his lips])
2. (See May 22nd correspondence of Jack to Jill.)
3. (although Jack said "sprekled", in the rest of his correspondence he said speckled)

--instead of just the summary drawn from respected sources that Jack planted a magic bean which produced a giant beanstalk.

People so often take what I say as having some overarching tone of sarcasm, for some reason. But what appears to be mocking is really just my trying to peel back layers of onion and reveal seeming contradictions--that really aren't. (In other words, Blue Tie, I rarely understand what I'm saying myself, actually. People rarely say I'm intellegent. Crazy - quite often.) Be that as it may, my fable is supportive of a summary style of encyclopedic coverage. --Justmeherenow 15:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I admit I'm using the term "fact" in a lawyerly way (understandable since since I'm a lawyer), so maybe we should use some other term that doesn't have so much baggage. Since the technojargon term cruft seems to be popular, maybe we can continue the computer analogy and use the term data. Data relating to the MMM is anything some primary source says relating to the massacre. Data can be assigned any number of values such as "true", "false", "significant", "credible", "of central importance", "of peripheral importance", etc., by a secondary-source historian (i.e., Brooks, Bagley, etc.). When such a value is assigned by a secondary-source historian, this assignment itself becomes another point of data (let's call this particular type of data metadata, instead of our previous term "theory"). We as Wikipedia editors cannot create data or metadata. We just filter it for the user (the Wikipedia reader).

So how do we filter the data? We can't filter the data and metadata based on our own distinction between true/false or important/non-important, because doing so would create metadata, which we can't do. Ultimately, we must filter based on some factor inherent in the data itself. For example, we can present the data in chronological order, topical order, or geographical order. Our filter can also make a distinction between data and metadata.

There are therefore a number of alternatives. We could create, if we wanted:

1. an article containing only metadata, but omitting the corresponding data. The metadata would still have to be sorted by some internal criterion, such as author, chronology, or topic. This would be an article like: "Will Bagley believes that Brigham Young ordered the massacre. Juanita Brooks disagrees. Most scholars believe that the Mormon Reformation, the Utah War, the Mormon War, and the deaths of the "prophets" were contributing factors to the massacre. If you want to know why they think that, go read their books, because you won't find that information in this article."
2. an article containing only metadata (theories) together with the corresponding data. The data and the metadata would still have to be sorted based on some internal criterion such as chronology or topical order. They could not be sorted based on some editor's notion of what is "important" or "central" to the massacre, and what is just cruft. Sorted by chronology, this would be an article like: "Mormons were persecuted in ways A, B, and C. During the Mormon Reformation, Mormons taught D, E, and F. During the early Utah War, Mormons did G, H, and I. Then the Massacre happened. Later, Juanita Brooks wrote that factors A, D, and G were important contributors to the massacre. Will Bagley wrote that factors B, E, and H were important. D. Michael Quinn wrote that factors C, F, and I were important."
3. an article containing only data corresponding to the entire set of metadata, but omitting the metadata itself. (This is pretty much how the article is now.) This article would be the same as that described directly above, except with no discussion (yet) of the writings of the secondary sources.

COGDEN 19:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

We do not see eye to eye. You say: "We can't filter the data and metadata based on our own distinction between true/false or important/non-important, because doing so would create metadata, which we can't do." I disagree almost entirely. I firmly do NOT believe that we are unable to pass judgment on content. I positively believe we should and must do that or we abdicate our editorial responsibilities. If I draw your statements to their logical conclusion, it would see that you are arguing for articles that just dump loads of information at the reader in an almost indiscriminate fashion -- with the only guiding concept being the relatively automatic (mindless) placement of that data in temporal continuum. In your approach there is no distinction between unimportant, trivial, moderately important, important, and critical "data". There is only "data" without value. (And interesting that you use the word "data" -- since data in fact has no value until it becomes "information"-- which requires collation, analysis and judgment -- all things your argument would suggest are "bad"). As an editorial approach, this is ridiculous and I think that you are smarter than that. I know that if you passed LSAT you had to be able to distinguish between levels of importance -- its one of the types of questions asked. But, if despite your knowledge and skills that has become your philosophy in writing articles for wikipedia, it is no wonder that we differ. And if that is not your philosophy, why are you arguing for that approach? There must be something else at work here. --Blue Tie 21:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The data also has to filter through Wikipedia policy filters, which would exclude trivia, fringe theories, and we should avoid giving material undue weight. As far as "importance" is concerned, I'm not saying the article should have no concern for importance: all I'm saying is that the judgment of what is "important" or "critical" is not ours to make. The secondary sources already make those judgments, and we're stuck with them. But we can, for example, exclude from the article data that no notable secondary source believes is important to the subject. COGDEN 20:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Notice that you say wikipedia requires editorial judgment. Then you say we cannot make that judgment. You have your cake and eat it too. The judgment of what is important or "critical" has not been made by secondary sources, since they do not all agree on this matter. Incidentally, I am not arguing to exclude anything. But, neither am I talking out of both sides of my mouth. --Blue Tie 04:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If the real issue here is that there's just too much detail for one article to hold, then I think that's a legitimate concern, and we should be talking about budding-off subarticles and using summary style. Because of the possibility of creating sub-articles, too much detail is never a problem in Wikipedia, unless you get into the realm of trivia, but there's no trivia in this article. COGDEN 20:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have never argued that the length of the article is too great. I have argued that there is too much density, hobby interest, cruft, etc in the article, before we get to the main point. My example of the Kennedy Assassination is still fresh in my mind. Your approach to this article is as though we were to cover all of the Bay of Pigs, the attempts to assassinate Castro, hatred of elements in the CIA for Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy's attacks on organized crime, and many other things, all in Chronological Order, BEFORE we get to talking about Kennedy getting shot in Dallas because all of these things are "data" that factor into various theories that may or may not be plausible... but we cannot judge between them. To me that is a horrible approach. THAT is the real issue. To me it boils down to a fundamental disrespect for the reader and a pride in our own research, hobbies and opinions. Gotta go catch a plane now. later--Blue Tie 21:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Kennedy Assassination analogy is not quite apt, because the subject matter can be organized by perspective, rather than by chronology. There, it's possible to tell the assassination story from Kennedy's perspective without any background at all on Oswald. You don't even have to mention Oswald until half-way through the article. All you have to do is say why Kennedy was in Dallas, explain about the open car, say that at least two shots rang out and they rushed him to the hospital, later pronouncing him dead, and all the other mechanical details of the assassination from Kennedy's perspective. Then, you could tell the story from Oswald's perspective, going into Oswald's background and later his actions in Dallas. Then, you could tell the story from the perspective of organized crime, the CIA, or Castro. Each story has a different background, and they don't overlap much.

Here', on the other hand, the only perspective is that of the southern Utah Mormons. Since only a few Fancher children remained, we don't have the Fancher perspective so we can't tell the massacre from the eyes of the Fanchers, and then go back and explain the Mormon background and actions, although if we could do it that way, that wouldn't necessarily be bad. It might even create suspense, because the audience is waiting to find out whodunit and why, like a mystery novel. But that won't work here because we don't have the Fanchers' perspective. Plus, it's difficult in any case to tell a story out of chronology and make it coherent.

I don't think that giving the readers background disrespects them. They know, from the introductory paragraphs, basically what the massacre was, when it happened, who the main players are, and how it was done. Next, most readers would expect to hear the whole story from beginning to end. The story begins, I think (and the secondary sources seem to think), with Mormon persecutions in Missouri. COGDEN 20:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you type all that with a straight face? The "only" perspective is that of the Southern Mormons because "only a few of the Fanchier Party survived"? But with the Kennedy we can choose his perspective because ... what? Because he lived? Enquiring minds want to know about that! In what alternate reality does such logic hold sway? Let's see if we get this straight... the "only" perspective that can be written from is that of survivors... but not all survivors... only survivors who are mature... not children. Is that right? Then we can write from the perspective of the surviving Mormons and ... in the Kennedy assassination we should write from the perspective of Jackie, Castro, the CIA, Organized Crime and On-lookers, right? Because, after all, they surivived. Or is it that the "only perspective" that can be handled is that of the individuals who died -- Kennedy and the Fanchiers? But wait.. you already ruled out the Fanchiers -- but oddly included Kennedy.

Obviously there is no consistent logic in your approach. You are simply justifying your horrible editing choices with "logic" that is absurd. And the nonsense starts with the notion that there can "only" be the perspective of some of the participants. That's pov to the extreme. (And as an aside, though you talk about "chronological order" as some sort of holy mandate -- you do not really stick to it either... another inconsistency in your approach).

Your approach disrepects readers because it does not adhere to principles of lean and spare editing -- where the more important information is provide first and details (and cruft) come later. It is really bad editing. And your justifications for it are increasingly less reasonable -- with this last series of comments being that we cannot make judgments but then you arbitrarily decide on a non-neutral pov for the article -- and say thats the only way it can be. How can you read your own words and not stare a bit? --Blue Tie 04:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Paiute participation

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

Applause

I've been observing the interaction among editors of this article on the talk page here, and think all of you who have lately been participating here deserve high praise for your conduct. For such a touchy subject and range of opinions and perspectives, you have done an outstanding job of keeping discussion level-headed and finding ways to work together. The article isn't perfect, to be sure, but with this kind of collaboration it's going in a very promising direction. I think Robbiegiles, COGDEN, Justmeherenow, Blue Tie, Trust Truth, WBardwin, and Storm Rider particularly deserve applause. Kudos to all! alanyst ^/talk/ 04:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Alanyst, thanks for including me in the list, but I have mostly been watching the action. They are doing a good job, aren't they? The article's improving all the time. WBardwin 06:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Allegations sections

I would like these paragraphs moved down with the coverup section. The allegations were made after the fact, and were an attempt to justify the massacre. I have not found any sources that show the allegations were recorded (reported, noted) before the massacre. (no diary entries prior to the event, no minutes from stake meetings, etc.) George A Smith wrote it down two years later. The allegations were reported to Carleton two years after the massacre. To stay in chronological order, we should move the section below the actual massacre. What say? --Robbie Giles 00:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not so sure this belongs in a cover-up section. That they were not recorded before the massacre does not mean that they did not happen before the massacre. I am sure many things do not go recorded until after some event makes them important. Having said that, I guess that you raise a question for me: When we say "Chronological Order", do we mean, Chronological Order of the Events as nearly as can be reconstructed? Or do we mean Chronological Order of when things became known? The latter is what you seem to be arguing for, and that looks like a hard/impossible standard for writing an article that would be clear and concise.

I would also say that if the TONS of other background material stays in the front of the article, certainly this stuff can too. But I have said all along that the Background should be more pointed and shorter and a longer theories section should follow the bulk of the article. That is not to say that I think that there should be no Background... I think historical context is important. But I would want it limited to things that are pretty much never disputed -- or only disputed by folk with very narrow interests. --Blue Tie 03:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Cattle dying at Corn Creek maybe deserves a quick throw-out-there mention. But its falsely being magnified into a rationale for Paiute involvement belongs for best chronology post massacre? while mention of supposed Fancher arguments with Haight (We'll join up with the U.S. troops/ Got th' gun wut kilt JSmithJun blah blah) at the last resupply stop in Utah at C.C. would chronologically belong before C.C. meetings? --Justmeherenow 14:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Duke train

I am unclear why information about the Duke (or Turner - Duke) train is included in this article. I see no direct link between that part and Mountain Meadows. Unless there is some direct bearing on the article, I suggest it be trimmed, or placed in another article more appropriate to that train. --Robbie Giles 00:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Duke train does seem to bear some significance as it was a non-Mormon wagon train travelling through Utah at the exact same time as the Fancher party. However, the article claims that Jacob Hamblin incited the Piautes to attack the train in order to steal their cattle. Is there a source on this somewhere? My understanding is that Jacob Hamblin was traveling south from Salt Lake City at the time that the Dukes were first attacked. He then had to ride night and day without sleep to get close to the train and was still far enough away that he never actually came into contact with them. This hardly seems conducive to planning an attack with the Paiutes. 71.246.225.219 03:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)panbobor

Was it the Duke train that may have caused some of the tensions with Mormons and the anxieties were transferred to the Fanchier train? --Blue Tie 03:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A policy of cattle rustling gone awry equals the MMM.

In September of 1857 there came to be a policy effective immediately to raid emigrants' cattle. In early September, (A) the Arkansans' cattle, (B) a Missourian man's cattle up in Ogden, and (C) the Missourians by the name of the Turner-Duke party's cattle were raided. Yet (according to notes from recent lectures by LDS historians), any Brooksian shenanigans involving some "wildcat militia in southern Utah hailing from Missouri" really refer to this following train that was raided.

• A twirling headline. It stops and we're able to read: Extra! Dozens massacred in bank robbery."
• Cut to FBI profiler Johnson, who asks his co-workers: "When revolutionaries robbing a bank get worried that some patrons saw their leader's face when his mask fell off, what might they do?
• Next scene. A flashback to some guy in a different context - who has the cajones to make some disrespectful remark right in the lead revolutionary's face.
• Then cut to a scene where the robbers are explaining to supporters why they needed to kill the people in the bank. Sure enough, as they retell the tale, they mix together both true events to create a fictional one ... that's only "true" from the perspective: "Those guys brought it on themselves!"

--Justmeherenow 05:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I would still appreciate a source confirming that Jacob Hamblin organized the Piautes to attack the Duke party. Is the contention that he helped organize the Indians to steal cattle before he went to Salt Lake City? The current article intimates that he was directly involved in the attacks, and this seems highly inaccurate.134.11.64.137 15:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Panbobor

The section on the Dukes and Jacob Hamblin is getting better, but is still not quite there yet. #1 I have still not seen a source that Jacob Hamblin organized the Piautes to attack the Dukes, either before or after the Mountain Meadows Massacre #2 at least according to Hamblin's autobiography, he never personally dealt with the Dukes. He recounts the he became aware that the Indians were going to attack another wagon train as he returned from Salt lake city. He then raced south to intercede, but as he had gone without sleep, sent Dudley Leavitt and company ahead. It was this group which negotiated with the Paiutes, and Leavitt who accompanied them to California. Hamblin later wrote to the Dukes in California informing them that he had regained a portion of their cattle and thereafter returned it to them. If there are other sources which dispute this, I would be glad to see them. This section also appears to be in a strange place now.71.246.225.219 21:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Panbobor

Sorry to be a pain...but wasn't it Paiutes who attacked the Duke train, with or without militia support? And again, Jacob Hamblin did not take the Duke train through to California. Dudley Leavitt did. Hamblin gathered their cattle back from the Paiutes and sent Leavitt ahead to intercede between the Piautes and the Dukes believing that the Dukes would be slaughtered as well.71.246.225.219 03:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Panbobor

No, Panbobor, you're not a pain. Far from it!

Sorry for my incoherance (incoherance?) tonight, but--

In my sloppy edit this afternoon (where I'd left stuff I thought I'd deleted - sorry), I left the impression I just wasn't going to give Hamblin a pass with regard territorial officials' conspiracy to run a protection racquet(?racket) re "unauthorized" emigrants' cattle. However, I like Hamblin, and there's nothing I know of about his behavior with regard any of the emigrants to compare, say, with that of his underling, the Indian missionary Lee's, re the Arkasas company. So I'm cool with leaving unimpeached the story Hamblin stuck to (and that Brooks only had to go by) about the guys having been out and about dutifully (coughs) protecting emigrants from angry Natives. If you'd like to make some easy money, though, name your odds if you predict the upcoming Oxford treatment won't admit what Bagley discovered from Huntington's diary---saved from the page-ripping hands of whoever redacted everybody else's minutes and diaries to cover up some of the tracks of Utah's otherwise benignly successful cold-war tactics during the Rebellion?...... :^) --Justmeherenow 04:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm baaack. OK, here's a source re the Mormons' militia's raid of "more than five hundred head" from the "Dukes company" (of which, says Lee, "[These men and Indians obeyed orders then the same as my brethren and I did with the first company." (And, from quotation's first line: Think Lee was bitter?! lol)]

Jacob Hamblin, commonly called "Dirty Fingered Jake," when called as a witness, gave as a reason for his long silence, concerning what he says I told him, that he was waiting for the right time to come, and he thought it had come now./ ¶ This reminds me of a circumstance that was related by Joseph Knight and John Lay, who were missionaries to the Indians under President Jacob Hamblin, at his headquarters at Santa Clara Fort, in 1859. In the Fall of 1859 two young men, on their way to California, stopped at the fort to recruit their jaded animals, and expecting that while doing so they might be so fortunate as to meet with some train of people going to the same place, so they would have company to San Bernardino, the young men staid at the fort some two months, daily expecting a company to pass that way, but still no one came. Hamblin assured them that they could go through the country with perfect safety. At the same time he had his plans laid to take their lives as soon as they started. The Indians around the fort wanted to kill the men at once, but Hamblin objected, and told the Indians to wait until the men got out on the desert--that if they would wait until the right time came they might then kill the men./ ¶ At last these young men started from the fort. Hamblin had told the Indians that the right time had come, and that he wanted the Indians to ambush themselves at a point agreed on near the desert, where the men could be safely killed. The Indians obeyed Hamblin's orders, and as the men came to the place of ambush the Indians fired upon them, and succeeded in killing one of the men. The other returned the fire, and shot one of Hamblin's right-hand men or pet Indians through the hand; this Indian's name was Queets, which means left-handed. By wounding this Indian he managed to escape, and returned to the fort, but doing so with the loss of the pack animals, provisions and the riding animal of his partner that lay dead upon the desert. The survivor stayed with Mr. Judd for a few days, when a com-

--Page 270-- pany of emigrants passed that way, and with them he succeeded in making his escape from the death that Hamblin had planned for him. / ¶ Hamblin was at Salt Lake City when the Mountain Meadows Massacre took place, and he pretends to have great sympathy with and sorrow for their fate. I can only judge what he would have done towards the massacre if he had been at home by what he did to help the next train that passed that way. When this train was passing through the settlements, Hamblin made arrangements with Nephi Johnson and his other interpreters (all of them were tools for Hamblin) how and where to relieve this company of the large herd of stock that belonged to the train. They had a large number of horses and cattle, more than five hundred head in all. Several interpreters were sent on ahead of the train. One of these was Ira Hatch. They were ordered by Hamblin to prepare the Indians to make a raid upon the stock, and these men and Indians obeyed orders then the same as my brethren and I did with the first company. About 10 o'clock, A. M., just after the train had crossed the Muddy, or a few miles beyond it on the desert, at the time and place as agreed on by Hamblin, and just as he had ordered it to be done, over one hundred Indians made a dash on the train and drove all the stock off to the Muddy./ ¶ The emigrants fired at the Indians, but the treacherous Nephi Johnson was acting as a guide, interpreter and friend to the whites; in fact that was how he came to be along with them was to pretend to aid them and protect them from Indians, but in fact he was there by order of Hamblin, to make the Indian raid on the stock a success./ ¶ Nephi Johnson rushed out and told the emigrants that if they valued their own lives they must not fire again, for if they did so he could not protect them from the cruelty of the savages--that the Indians would return and massacre them the same as they did the emigrants at Mountain Meadows./ ¶ The acting of Johnson and the other interpreters and spies that were with him, was so good that after a consultation the emigrants decided to follow his advice. The final conclusion was, that as Johnson was friendly with the Indians, and could talk their language, he should go and see the Indians, and try and get the stock back. The emigrants waited on the desert, and Johnson went to the

--Page 271-- Indians, or pretended to do so. After a few hours he returned, and reported that the Indians were very hostile, and threatened to attack the train at once; that he was afraid he could not prevent it, and the only chance for the emigrants was in their instant departure; that as the emigrants would be gaining a place of safety, he would, at the risk of his life, make an effort to keep the Indians back, and pacify them. Also that he would report to Hamblin as soon as possible, and raise a force of men at the fort, and get back the stock, if it could be done, and would write to the company, giving an account of his success, so they would get his letter at San Bernardino, and if he recovered the stock, the emigrants could send back a party to receive it, and drive it to California./ ¶ Under the circumstances, the company adopted his plan, and he left them on the desert, with all their loose stock gone; but the danger was over, for the stock was what Hamblin and Johnson had been working for./ ¶ Johnson returned and ordered the Indians to drive the stock to the Clara. The Indians acted like good Mormons, and obeyed orders. Hamblin gave them a few head of cattle for their services in aiding him to steal the drove. The remainder of the cattle and horses the secret keeper, Hamblin, took charge of for the benefit of the Mission. As the cattle became fat enough for beef, they were sold or butchered for the use of the settlers. Some were traded to other settlements for sheep and other articles. In this way Hamblin used all of the stock stolen from the Dukes Company, except some forty head./ ¶ In order to keep up an appearance of honesty and fairness, Hamblin wrote a letter to Capt. Dukes, in the fall of 1860, saying that he had recovered a small portion of the company's stock from the Indians, by giving them presents, and that some of the stock had been traded to the settlers by the Indians. This letter was to be confirmed by all the missionaries and settlers, when the stock was to be called for by the former owners. No one was to give information that would lead to the discovery of the stock./ ¶ This was always the way when the Mormons committed a crime against the Gentiles. All the brethren were to help keep the secret. Some of the Dukes Company came back to Hamblin's for their cattle and horses, and after three weeks' diligent search among the secret keepers, they succeeded in getting about

--Page 272-- forty head of cattle, and returned with them to California. Several of the settlers were severely censured for giving the little information that was given, which led to the recovery of that small portion of the large herd of cattle and horses that the Saints, Hamblin and Johnson, had stolen by the help of the Indians, and the efforts of the brethren.

--Justmeherenow 05:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is too much detail for the article. The Duke train deserves at best, a few sentences, perhaps as footnotes. --Blue Tie 10:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. I'm assuming that this was from John D. Lee's autobiography, correct? Well, yet again with MMM we have a case of conflicting original sources as Hamblin's autobiography tells a much different story. Speaking personally, I give far more veracity to Hamblin's account, though I admit that his story is probably incomplete and did not speak of probable plans to relieve immigrant trains of cattle. I have included Hamblin's story in the Wikipedia article on Jacob Hamblin. In any case, this section now in the article overly relies on John D. Lee's account. It seems that to be fair and objective, both accounts should be included and attributed to each source: e.g. Hamblin claims that...Lee claims...Again, I find it highly dubious that Hamblin had the time to concoct this sophisticated raid while traveling south from Salt Lake. I may try to clean it up later, but if someone else has time, that would be great.134.11.64.137 13:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Panbobor

Panbobar said (that JH's story)

did not speak of probable plans to relieve immigrant trains of cattle.... I find it highly dubious...Hamblin had the time to concoct...raid...traveling...from Salt Lake. I may try to clean it up later....

What info needs to be referenced from JH's autobiography for balance? (What the article, at present, says is identical to what you yourself admit is "probable": namely, that the militia - even if not Hamblin, per se - had plans to rustle the Dukes' cattle. What's left to reference from Hamblin's autobiography if the article's only mention of him is about his later having written the Dukes to send men to retrieve cattle?) --Justmeherenow 14:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, certainly Hamblin doesn't mention any militia attmepts to rustle the cattle...this accusation seems to come from John D. Lee. However, it does seem to fit in with the general policy of rustling cattle. But more importantly, Hamblin claims that he met Lee near Fillmore after hearing about the massacre from the Indians. In his autobiography and Lee's second trial he states that Lee told him about his own involvement with the MMM and the involvement of other Mormons, but who put all of the blame on the Paiutes. Hamblin continues that after he left Lee, he recieved word that the Paiutes were going to attack another wagon train (the Dukes). Believing from Lee that it was the Paiutes who had been the main perpetrators of MMM, he apparently feared another slaughter and hurried south as quickly as he could to interecede. He writes that he sent Dudley Leavitt ahead because he had been traveling very quickly and without sleep, and Leavitt negotiated with the Paiutes and then took the group to California. Hamblin claims he then negotiated with the Paiutes to restore what cattle he could. While all of this may be rather nuanced, I think the important thing from Hamblin's point of view is that he thought he was stopping another masssacre from occuring under the impression that MMM had largely been a Paiute affair. Great conversation by the way.134.11.64.137 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Panbobor

Young's reponse

The following:

Young himself did not conduct any investigation of the massacre. When John D. Lee visited Salt Lake City some time later to report on the massacre, Young was already aware of it, and he cut Lee off, and stopped him from reciting further details.^[1]

Looks to me like a poor retelling of things. Young did not personally investigate, but he did conduct an investigation. I am not sure that Young cut Lee off because he was already aware of it. I think he said that he did not like to hear the story because it harrowed up his soul or something to that effect. Anyway, this paragraph is suspect. --Blue Tie 03:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you give details of the investigation BY had done? I can't find a reference to one. There were letters and reports written beginning in 1858, most notably by George A. Young Smith. (oops, sorry for the confusion) If you can give specifics, we can add it in. --Robbie Giles 03:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Young had to submit a report to the US Government within a few months of the massacre. To write that report, he investigated it and relied most heavily upon Lee's written report of events. Then Young sent G.A. Smith to investigate, and Smith sent a report in August of 1858. These are the first investigations of the event. They are not particularly good investigations in that the guilty were completely trusted to report honestly, but they were investigations and they were the first ones. I am not sure that they are particularly important (except that Lee's report shows his cover-up), but the article currently says that BY never investigated, which is false. --Blue Tie 04:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me a suggestion for finding information to include on this. I really have not seen where BY was asked for and did a report. I still have all the books here and this is a great time to get the info and citation for the article. Actually, the first investigation was Hurt's, made before he left at the end of September 1857. --Robbie Giles 11:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought Hurt just sent an unlettered indian boy to ask questions of some of the Indians -- and I am not sure that the boy talked to indians who were actually present at the massacre. If my memory is correct about what Hurt's "investigation" consisted of, then I would suggest it is a strain to call it an investigation. But I suppose its in the eye of the beholder.

As for the report from BY, I would have to research it a bit. I wrote from memory. I think his report was sent in December or January. --Blue Tie 10:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Young's report was an official communication to James Denver and dated January 8th, 1858. It might be found in Dale Morgan's compilation of letters regarding Indian Administration in the West from 1851 to 1858. --Blue Tie 11:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

George Smith's travelogue

That section is WAY overblown. It deserves one sentence at most.

There is so much cruft in this article... its boggling. --Blue Tie 04:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No way! The alleged role of George A. Smith in the massacre is a very big deal. I personally think he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, but for anyone who says Brigham Young ordered the massacre, they always say it was via George A. Smith. Plus, Smith's circuit shows what the Iron brigade were doing in the month of August, how they were preparing, and what their intentions were. COGDEN 17:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I note that you describe the role as "alleged". Fine. Then it is a theory. You have it in great, long boring detail in the background as though it were an important fact. But actually, its boring and tangential. Cruft.

George Smith's trip does not really show what the Iron County Military District were doing in August or how they were preparing. It shows how George Smith was interacting with them and what he saw. That's all. It is almost -- -perhaps "not quite" (because of "allegations") -- but almost, irrelevant.

I look and stare. I shake my head. I have no idea why you must put so much cruft in the front of the article. Why must the reader indulge every theory and every miniscule and nearly pointless (except to support a theory) detail in advance of the event? It is not fascinating, interesting or even necessary detail to advance the narrative of the article. It is like stripping up the pavement and plowing furrows into what should be an easy to travel road.

All these theories (and associated evidence and discussion) belong in their own section after the main elements of the article. --Blue Tie 10:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Six problems with that: (1) George A. Smith's actions are facts or alleged facts, not theories (which are interpretations of facts and alleged facts by secondary sources); (2) your suggested approach would be putting factual and alleged factual information out of chronology, (3) George A. Smith met the fanchers and was directly involved in telling Mormons not to share grain with emigrant parties, (4) his alleged role comes up in relation to the investigations and trials, (5) even if facts relating to Smith are segregated into a "theories" section at the end of the article, you'll still have to include all the facts and alleged facts anyway, leading to redundancies, and (6) George A. Smith's alleged role is one of the central issues of any discussion on the MMM. COGDEN 17:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem 1: That his actions are fact, does not change whether they are cruft. And they are cruft... OR they are necessary to support a THEORY of motivation.

Problem 2: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson. We should NOT sacrifice readability on the altar of consistent timelines. If a fact is necessary to support a theory but not to advance the narrative it should NOT be presented as background but reserved for a section on theories.

Problem 3:I have no problem with presenting his instructions about not sharing grain with the train, IF that is an important fact that helps move the narrative along. But that does not require a travelogue. His having met the Fanchier party is cruft -- many people met them. It does not matter that he met them.

Problem 4: "Alleged role" is again theory. It belongs in the theory section if it is important.

Problem 5: You may not have to include all of the facts, but a recitation to include redundancy does not bother me. It happens in all sorts of documentation, dissertation, argumentation, etc.

Problem 6: Note "alleged". Its a theory. Smith's alleged role is central to a discussion of the THEORIES about motives. It is NOT central to the massacre itself. He was not there. He was not in the decision making group. Its cruft or theory. It does not belong in background.

None of your "problems" amounts to anything but a weak justification for making the article really badly constructed. --Blue Tie 01:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate citations

I have removed two citations and the corresponding inline refs for Garland Hurt. Both are found in the existing Thompson ref, which is available electronically online. The ref section is quite large, and I am reviewing to see if all refs are used, and if there are dups. Anyone who objects may UNDO my changes, or I can if it is believed I deleted the better ref. --Robbie Giles 12:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Actually, we've hit a strange technical limit where the last few citation templates aren't being expanded. This appears to be a bug (or maybe an intentional safeguard) in Wikimedia software that limits the number of templates that can exist in a single page. I've hit this limit before in a highly-templated list, and I don't think there's anything we can do about it except work around it. COGDEN 17:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Time to ask for reviewers

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

Yes. --Justmeherenow 14:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If this were a software application, I'd say we're entering the alpha-testing phase. COGDEN 17:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been a couple days since the article's been tagged for peer review. But I was impatient and asked Gwen Gale for comment. --Justmeherenow 12:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my commentary. Best to all. Gwen Gale 00:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It was an interesting commentary with some thought to it. --Blue Tie 00:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Oaks

Friday an edited transcript of PBS's Oaks interview was posted over at LDS Newsroom.

[Elder Oaks]: I think we can only understand Mountain Meadows by understanding the context in which it happened. And part of that context was the frontier, where people had to fight for their lives, where relatives had been killed. I’m not talking about persecutions at Haun’s Mill or in Illinois, but I’m talking about Indian wars and conflicts with the Indians and conflicts with a lawless element of the frontier. People were much more ready to take a gun and go out and solve the problem along the frontier. That’s not just Mormons; that’s western America. That’s part of the context./ ¶ Part of the context was the Utah War. The president of the United States was sending one-sixth of the U.S. Army out to subdue the Mormons, and there was a lot of talk about killing the Mormons and driving them out. Most of these people had been driven out of one place, some of them two and three places. They were beleaguered./ ¶ Then there were provocations reported of this group that was coming through. The provocations are insignificant compared to what was done about them, but there were provocations. And they were in the context of a violent society and in the context of what later came to be called the Utah War. Now none of that comes close to justifying what was done, but it is beginning wisdom to realize that these local leaders, without the capacity to communicate clearly with those that presided over them, quickly cleared it. They went ahead and made some very bad decisions. And that’s the only way I can put a face on it./ ¶ As a fourth- or fifth-generation Mormon growing up in Utah — but not in the area where the Mountain Meadow Massacre happened — I have learned about that tragic episode, and my heart has gone out to the descendants of those who perpetrated that atrocity and to the relatives of those who suffered it. I can only imagine the kind of pain that comes from contemplating the involvement of those that you love in such a tragic episode in the history of the West, so unexplainable. I have no doubt on the basis of what I have studied and learned that Mormons were prime movers in that terrible episode[...].

--Justmeherenow 17:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting quote, because a lot of other Mormon apologists argue (in agreement with most non-Mormon scholars, I think) that there was remarkably little actual lawlessness in the outlying Mormon communities, especially compared to other frontier communities. The early Mormons were generally a very law-abiding people (with the qualification that "law" refers to theocratic law). COGDEN 17:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Most such apologists and non-Mormon scholars do not overly categorize "law" with the hobbiest adjective added to it .. of "theocratic". They simply speak to the general lack of troublesomeness by these people without regard to the nature of the laws that they obeyed. --Blue Tie 04:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying that the consensus seems to be that Mormons were very obedient and lived in an orderly society far different from your typical Wild West. The only difference was that they obeyed Celestial law (think polygamy), which sometimes came into conflict with federal law. In fact, some of the very little "lawlessness" that went on was actually perfectly lawful and orderly under the "law of God", such as the Santa Clara ambush of 1857 in which Brigham Young authorized Dame and Haight to secretly take out a couple of backsliding ex-convicts on their way to California. COGDEN 17:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I read that article. I do not think it said that Young gave such an order. As I recall, Young gave a general order that miscreants were to be apprehended and punished. I did not see him give specific orders about specific people or specific crimes. And you are emphasizing the point in the opposite direction of the one I was emphasizing... namely that the nature of the laws that were abided were not particularly discussed when this subject is mentioned in various places. That distinction is more of a hobby interest. --Blue Tie 22:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Young's letter authorized Haight and Dame, "in case of need" (i.e., if they stole cattle), to "pursue, retake & punish" two particular ex-cons who were headed to California (John G. Ambrose and Thomas Betts), and it said that they should keep the matter secret, and make sure nobody is left alive for prosecution. It ended up that the southern Utah people ambushed the wrong men by mistake, but this is a situation where what would appear to be random Wild West violence was actually, under the surface, an orderly theologically-legal process. COGDEN 23:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is what Young authorized:

1)have a few men on the look out

2)have them ready to act in case of emergency.

3)have them go out and make a short trip around to see that all things are right.

He advised them to not fret about false imprisonment charges or testimony against them if they did that.

Where do you read "ambush"? Where do you read "make sure nobody is left alive?" This is imaginary. And ... who fired on the group that included Tobin? What were the names of the shooters? I did not see that mentioned. That you...or someone you like... has imagined some sort of event does not make it a fact. (This author makes arguments based upon things that did NOT happen! -- a lack of evidence!) Yet you express it as uncontested fact. Maybe you are just enamored with the act of highlighting obscure theories. Maybe its a matter of being proud of your research. But can you see how this looks like an overweening focus on cruft with a pov spin on marginal evidence? You present it as having equal weight with things of more substance and veracity. This approach has informed the editing choices you have made. Choices that are not defensible by an appeal to logic. How does this escape you? --Blue Tie 23:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A pretty new newslink by Esplin & Turley is right here! (I'm gonna add just a ref to it @ 1990 Reconciliations. Any objections? - thx!) --Justmeherenow 17:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Lessons

Before we get into the "moral" learned (good and bad) from folks' taking biblical imperatives seriously (& especially the Us-Them ones)--

I think Ogden's background intro is pretty well-written. Maybe it can be further balanced by some other hand-- (obviously not mine), but it's not really too very long, IMO. :^)

HOW can the article be balanced, though? I suggest more--context? MORE of a tonality that Lee/Haight's interpretations of LDS doctrines were "whack"?

Altho I don't think the MMM is a stick to beat contemporary Mormonism with, I still think when people tragically interpret apocalyptic religious rhetoric just waay too literalistically (and do so within a religious community where such an extreme interpretation is the exception rather than the rule)--well, that there are insights to be gained from considering what reasoning led the individuals in question to take the dispicable actions they did. For example, with regard monsieurs aye/bee Haight-jay/dee Lee, exemplars extraordinaire of 19th century Mormonism's wish of a separtist zion, there would seem to me to be an instructive parallel that could be drawn between these perpetrators and their co-travela--American-born physician Baruch Goldstein.

Accoding to Noah Feldman (Harvard law prof & fella at the Counc. on Foreign Relations)-'s piece in "Orthodox Paradox", yesterday's NYTimes insert-mag: "In 1994,...Goldstein massacred 29...atop the Tomb of the Patriarchs...."

Goldstein attended a prominent modern Orthodox Jewish day school in Brooklyn. (In a classic modern Orthodox twist, the same distinguished school has also produced two Nobel Prize winners.)/ ¶ Because of the proximity of Goldstein’s background and mine, the details of his reasoning have haunted me. Goldstein committed his terrorist act on Purim, the holiday commemorating the victory of the Jews over Haman, traditionally said to be a descendant of the Amalekites...../ ¶ [The Book of Samuel] details the first intentional and explicit genocide depicted in the Western canon: God’s directive to King Saul to kill every living Amalekite — man, woman and child, and even the sheep and cattle. Saul fell short. He left the Amalekite king alive and spared the sheep. As a punishment for the incompleteness of the slaughter, God took the kingdom from him and his heirs and gave it to David..../ ¶ Of course as a matter of Jewish law, the literal force of the biblical command of genocide does not apply today. The rabbis of the Talmud, in another of their universalizing legal rulings, held that because of the Assyrian King Sennacherib’s policy of population movement at the time of the First Temple, it was no longer possible to ascertain who was by descent an Amalekite. But as a schoolboy I was taught that the story of Amalek was about not just historical occurrence but cyclical recurrence: “In every generation, they rise up against us to destroy us, but the Holy One, blessed be He, saves us from their hands.” The Jews’ enemies today are the Amalekites of old. The inquisitors, the Cossacks — Amalekites. Hitler was an Amalekite, too./ ¶ To Goldstein, the Palestinians were Amalekites.

[But could't what monsieur Feldman writes next also be written verbatim about Haight or Lee?--Justmehere]

"Like a Puritan seeking the contemporary type of the biblical archetype, he applied Deuteronomy and Samuel to the world before him. Commanded to settle the land, he settled it. Commanded to slaughter the Amalekites without mercy or compassion, he slew them."

Goldstein could see difference as well as similarity. According to one newspaper account, when he was serving in the Israeli military, he refused to treat non-Jewish patients. And his actions were not met by universal condemnation: his gravestone describes him as a saint and a martyr of the Jewish people, “Clean of hands and pure of heart.”/ ¶ It would be a mistake to blame messianic modern Orthodoxy for ultranationalist terror. But when the evil comes from within your own midst, the soul searching needs to be especially intense. After the Hebron massacre, my own teacher, the late Israeli scholar and poet Ezra Fleischer — himself a paragon of modern Orthodox commitment — said that the innocent blood of the Palestinian worshipers dripped through the stones and formed tears in the eyes of the Patriarchs buried below.

You don't read Feldman about Goldstein and necessarily think, "Wow - all of both secular Israelis and the 'Modern Othodox' are whack!" You just---think (if you want to). And that's what whoever strives to balance the article's tone should continue to stive for. In any case, although it could always be improved, I think it does OK in that regard, at present... :^) --Justmeherenow 14:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If we can find a citation arguing that Dame and Haight's interpretations of Mormon theocratic law were exceptional, we should put it in. But I think the citation would need to come from a historical work. I know there are a lot of apologetic arguments comparing the Dame/Haight views to modern Mormon doctrine and concluding they were exceptional, but that comparison is not really relevant to this article. What we need is a citation comparing their views to the actual views of other Mormons circa 1857. Most of those comparisons end up arguing that the views of Dame and Haight were not exceptional. If we can find one that goes the other way, though, we should cite it in the article.

We should keep in mind a couple of issues, though. First, the "mainstream" view of southern Utah Mormons might have been different from that of Salt Lake City Mormons. Since Dame and Haight were the priesthood leaders of southern Utah, it's hard to argue that their views were outside the southern Utah mainstream, especially given that they had the support of several bishops and 100 or so militiamen. Second, there's a difference between believing something and being willing to act on it. Most Communists believe in the violent overthrow of the government, but very few could ever actually storm the king's palace. Most Republicans believe in torture, but very few could ever actually tie a man down and water-board him. Likewise, most Mormons in 1857 believed in blood atonement and the law of vengeance in theory, but very few (or arguably zero) Mormons actually did anything about it. So maybe we could cite Quinn (1997), who said that despite the First Presidency's violent rhetoric of the time (which Mormons generally took seriously and literally), most Mormons never participated in religious violence. COGDEN 18:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You postulate things as truths that are not established... and where evidence even contradicts. You claim that it is "it's hard to argue that their views were outside the southern Utah mainstream, especially given that they had the support of several bishops and 100 or so militiamen." Yet there are sources saying that when Haight presented his plan to pursue and somehow punish the wagon train, it was first met with resistance and incredulity. When the massacre was enacted, it was done under -- it seems -- at least some cover of lies. Does that sound like full support? Lee and Haight met in the dark, alone, to concoct some of the plan. Does that conflate into full open support by your reckoning? As for the militia men, later testimony by them (and maybe they lied but maybe not) said that they had been tricked into participation -- that they were not whole heartedly behind it. So, it seems not so hard to argue a different view, even though you postulate as fact, the difficulty of such a thing.

Your other examples are even weaker. What poll was taken of "most communists" and of those who had an opportunity to act, how many refused? What poll has been taken of "most Republicans" with regard to their belief in torture in conjunction with their willingness to do it? What poll was taken of "most Mormons" in 1857? Mormons took it seriously and literally? What poll said so? I suppose that without a poll we can presume that "most Mormons" never participated in religious violence ... at least in Utah, because it was not a widely reported problem. But that is the only claim where at least some reasonable evidence exists to support your assertion. Everything else must be an opinion by you... or the people you read.

Instead of "assuming" something, it should be established. Rather than assume that Haight or Dames views were either exceptional or typical, a source should be quoted. And if it is an OPINION rather than a fact (and how could it be otherwise)... it should be expressed not as a fact, but as the OPINION of SOME PERSON. And really, this should be in a theory section. The basic facts should not be sprinkled with opinions as you want to do. The opinions should have their own place so that they are not given the same weight as the facts. (And the facts that support those theories can be given with them).

Again, this gets to respect for the reader. Wikipedia editors should respect the average reader's interest in the basic issues and the readers' time more than they respect their own command of trivia, cruft and innuendo. So far, this article errs badly.

Since I am the only person raising these issues, I wonder.... do I get a John the Baptist Barnstar for crying in the wilderness for truth or do I get a "Don Quixote" barnstar for stupidly attacking windmills? --Blue Tie 05:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there's an argument to be made that Haight and Dame were some kind of priesthood anomalies who somehow tricked 100 upstanding Mormons, including bishops, to act against their religion by executing innocent men, women, and children in cold blood. If some notable secondary source is convinced of that scenario, we should include those arguments in the article. We do have at least one citation (Quinn 1997) saying that Mormons took the First Presidency's sermons seriously and literally, and it wasn't based on a poll, but it was based on a large amount of data in diaries, newspaper articles, and sermons. He was also commented that most Mormons did not participate in religious violence, which I believe is based on the relatively small number of reported beheadings and throat-slittings in the Utah Territory during that time period. COGDEN 18:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge that Quinn has his opinion and that it is an educated one. But it is an opinion. As for Haight and Dame, I am not sure, but I believe there are original sources that claim Lee tricked people into participating and secondary sources that say that Haight lied to Dame to get him to go along. The original sources would not be opinions exactly but they might not be the truth -- people had motivation to lie. The secondary source rises above the level of opinion in the way it was developed as I recall.--Blue Tie 22:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A positive edit!

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

The current lead

The current lead paragraphs are about the best that they have ever been. I exclude my recent edits in that praise because I think that they can be improved on. One concern: I am not sure that "leaders" directed Lee. I am not even sure that he was clearly directed by anyone, though I believe he claimed to have been directed. Anyway, that aspect may be not quite correct. --Blue Tie 14:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Wikipedia! as, the lead's good 'cos somebody came along and clearly & succinctly voiced something representative of the breadth of our subject's material. (While material from out of our self-selected assemblage of Wikipedians' jam sessions shows promise, it's always nice when some adept hand grabs a baton or sits down at the studio console to highlight and distill some of the more sublime stuff from out of it; yet, of course - just as in Young's Utah! lol - even back benchers guide the enterprise along to the degree they buy into or can be inspired by the direction they are being led?) --Justmeherenow 17:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

How to ruin an article and find enlightenment

The section on "Unbridling" was already plenty long enough -- it could have been reduced by at least 50%. But in this edit it went from kinda bad to much worse.

The whole article is already crufty enough and then this already overlong section is increased by 30%. And the 30% makes the article worse not better.

Here is the original first paragraph:

On September 1, 1857, in Salt Lake City, Brigham Young (who as governor held the title of Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Territory) met with Indian chiefs from the southern Territory, which included the area around Mountain Meadows. During a one-hour meeting, Young complained that the Americans had come to kill both Mormons and Indians. He told the chiefs that if they helped fight the Americans (meaning the army), he would give them all the cattle on both the northern and southern California trails. In essence, Young's war policy encouraged the Indians to steal cattle from emigrant wagon trains, such as the large herds of the Duke and Fancher parties. However, this was not an invitation to kill the emigrants.

Straight forward and direct, for most of the paragraph it simply states the facts, and does so in a relatively spare fashion. Only the concluding 2 sentences have rather modest issues.

Then the change comes:

As one of Brigham Young's many roles, he was Superintendent of Indian Affairs in the Utah Territory, and when it became clear there would be an invasion by U.S. troops, he mounted a campaign to win the hearts of Native American leaders and enlist them to help fight the Americans. Young sent messengers to various tribes with wagon loads of food. Young sent his trusted interpreter and former Danite Dimick B. Huntington, who framed the Utah War as a battle, prophesied in the Book of Mormon, between Mormons and Native Americans, on the one hand, and "gentiles" (non-Mormon whites) on the other. Young counseled Indian tribes to "be at peace with all men except the Americans". Scholars disagree whether the Young intended the Indian tribes to fight all non-Mormon Americans, including emigrants, or just the approaching U.S. Army.

Rather than straight forwardly discuss the facts and let the readers make up their minds, the focus now turns to the more speculative and crufty conclusions (almost mind reading) that it was a campaign to win the hearts of the Native Americans. We draw conclusions -- but rather than state them as such, we present them as undisputed facts. Even though Young had already been working with the Indians for nearly 10 years, suddenly he “mounts a campaign” to “win their hearts” – like they didn’t already respect and listen to him. How is this an improvement? Oh yeah… I can see the improvement… we get to introduce one more new (but basically uninvolved) character into the complex twisting confusing narrative. Later, to avoid becoming too boring and slow moving, we introduce two more new and uninvolved characters. Its like soap opera about a Chinese fire drill. Don’t look away or you’ll miss something important – or at least weird.

Do we really need to go on and on and on into excruciating detail on topics that have almost nothing to do with the massacre? Wait… I feel nirvana coming on… we are going to be enlightened. The article… like a generous bodhisattva dispensing Zen truth gives us the tidbits about how Lee accused Hamblin (who was not at MMM) of rustling cattle from a completely different wagon train – but wait, Hamblin couldn’t have done that because he was in SLC and met Lee coming back from MMM and then rushed down to his home and blah blah blah blah…. I feel myself falling into a trance. That’s the goal! We transcend reality to understand the MMM! I see the light.

Its pathological.

Between June 19th and July 19th, this article DOUBLED in size. But not in quality. A month ago this article had “a wealth of information”. Since then it has grown by another 40%. on top of what was already “MORE than enough to cover the subject”.

(But philosophically, can you really ever have enough cruft? In suggesting it, I might be committing a Blasphemy Its like the Paradox of Zeno. Isn’t having enough cruft just like trying to achieve the speed of light?)

Someone said this article looked like a gigantic data dump. Ohh. Harsh. No. That wasn't right.

No. Its more like an explosion in an obscurities archive.

What on earth is wrong with us?

We are sacrificing a potentially good article to the God of Cruft and Self Indulgence.

Out of control. It’s a hobby. A religion. A cult. Om Mane Padme Om and send more juice to the emeters. This is a never endingresearch project to figure out just how many settlers can be massed on the head of a pin to be killed by Mormons and then just to be sure readers know how wonderful our research is, we provide an electron microscope picture of every grain of dirt in the Santa Clara valley along with copious footnotes detailing the shape of each grain and the opinions various insignificant people have recorded in their journals about what they think they heard someone say about the shades of color the grains exhibit in different lighting – because after all, its possibly related to the subject matter. Make sure, that while we are at it, we overuse primary source data contrary to wikipedia policy so that we can turn this article into a brand new 500 page book of original research. --Blue Tie 07:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Blue Tie,

There's an old saw about lawyering - something about ya either can argue the law, when it's on your side, the facts, when they are, or confuse the issue when neither are?

<Shakes head.> But I'm not directing this subtle barb at you, per se.... Fact is, every knowledgeable and intelligent Mormon to the man (/woman) is obsessed to deny even the most inconsequential wartime actions against non-LDS civilians, it seems. (Cue up sound bites of folks' sputters of St-st-steal cattle????! Uh-uh-uh s-s-such a policy c-c-c-couldn't have been put into place...wh-wh-wh-why, I-i-i-i-indian chiefs and the president of the Indian mission were still traveling home from Salt Lake City on Sept. 11th!! [then in the next breath say how, in any case, Mormons' weren't extorting cattle from emigrants anyway but only accepting these as payments to out-of-control tribesmen to shield the poor emigrants from harm-- ])

Whatever, I give up. I don't care.

OK, it's true. <Shrugs.> The reason for Lee's actions were because he was afraid of the Pauitues. Fine.

No, no <sighs>--I can't give up. ("Truth must prevail!") lol. I guess I missed my calling as a plaintiff's lawyer, but here goes:

Blue Tie said, "[...]Lee accused Hamblin (who was not at MMM) of rustling cattle from a completely different wagon train – but wait, Hamblin couldn’t have done that because he was in SLC[...]."

OK, slow down. Peace, brother. The circumstial evidence is

1. prez of mission to Indians brings chiefs to meet Young up in S/L
2. there Young says Indians are free to take cattle
3. almost while meeting takes place, Mormons negotiate at various locations for cattle to be taken
4. mister cattle-stealer Lee (mass murderer too, but let me get back to my civil suit here, kay?) says he acted under military directions of Haight(&Dame&Smith&Young) and, as well, direction (within a capacity as Indian agent) of Hamblin([& perhaps technically Hurt?]&Young).

Now the jury must decide. However your foreman is current apologists who admit the policy was to steal cattle. Can the rest of you jury members please go along? But it's not a matter of intelligence 'cos I know you guys are smart. Hello people! There was amnesty for this. It was forgiven. It was a wartime policy. Cattle was taken. Get over it. Geez!!!!!!!!!!!!

(OK. I feel better now.) --Justmeherenow 08:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Way too much tripe. The orders to take cattle were given and implemented. Its enough to state that and get on with things. Instead we turn it into its own little drama BUT ITS INCIDENTAL TO THE MASSCRE. Lets get focused. --Blue Tie 13:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

p/s What historians say is Young used Indians' harrassment of travelers as a threat. "Go easy on us and we'll continue our good work of pacifying Natives." Unfortunately, the problem with any class of threats whatsoever is that eventually there has to be an instance where somebody receives whatever the threatened action, otherwise such threats will never be respected. That's why "respect" is such a byword and in turn such a universal motivator of various behaviors within organizations: flexing military muscle (Otherwise, people we stiffen our military shoulders to won't respect our resolve!); giving celebrity CEO's prison time (Otherwise, Wall Streeters won't respect inside trading laws!); every once in a while somebody's being whacked (Hey <grins>--uddawise no body's gonna pay their volutary contributions to the Protection Fund.) --Justmeherenow 11:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

With age, comes wisdom (sometimes.) I refuse to get sucked into a pointless argument. I believe ridicule and sarcasm are a waste of intelligence and effort. I choose to continue working on this article. I will ignore comments about my abilities, motives, and character.

Yes, in my tiny mind, it is all about me. There are too many other topics to write on that need my skills as an editor and parroter of research. I'm not wasting my time on petty bickering.

In my opinion (never humble, remember) editors should continue to work on this behemoth in a civil and constructive manner, or go find other articles to edit. --Robbie Giles 13:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciated Blue Tie's edit and took most of it in gest (the links were great). However, I would also say that too much information is too much information. The topic is MMM and everything should focus on that topic. Yes, background information should be provided, but it needs to be succinct.

Also, the comparison of the two paragraphs above does demonstrate a weakening in the quality of the article. The second one is just bad writing. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The edit is not a weakening of the article, only a representation of how the debate stands among scholars. The original version is incorrect that there is a consensus that Brigham Young did not call on Indians to fight emigrants. The scholars disagree on this: many think the Indians were to fight "Americans" in general, others think they were to fight only Americans within the U.S. Army. Complexity is not weakness. Also, the comparison between the two paragraphs above is not the full story. Look at the next paragraph, as well, in the newer version. Two paragraphs replace the original one, and I think overall, the full complexity of the issue is more accurately reflected. That's not to say that the writing style cannot be improved. COGDEN 18:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 :^) OK, I've cooled off. Yes, Storm, Blue Tie's jests were great! Anyway, I agree the whole shebang about other trains and cattle rustling and whatnot could be in full maybe a sentence. (Yet Ogden is also right that ya can't praise saying "he said, she said" with regard Brooks and Bagley and then turn around and find fault with the same dichotomy elsewhere-- ) :^) Anyway, I'll be gone for a cupla days (not that ya'all would miss me!) --Justmeherenow 19:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

got caught in timing conflict

When I read the second paragraph, it comes off as if written from a specific perspective. To state that Young "mounted a compaign to win the hearts of Native Americans" in the context of just began to do something is false. The LDS people and the Indians had long shared a postive relationship. Is there any evidence that a new "campaign" had been started. Not only does this interpret actions, but this is stating something as fact that is not real.

When there is a quote, it is best to cite the source. What is the context of the statement? Is the fact that scholars disagree satisfy a need for context? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I went back a few hours ago and changed the wording to just get rid of that broad statement. You can take a look and see what you think. As to the other Indian raids following Young's policy, I agree with Justmeherenow that these can be cut down. It's important to mention that there were such raids, but we can move the details to footnotes. COGDEN 22:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Final edit plans

I'm anticipating that, once sourcing and additions to the article are finalized, several editors will do significant edits to tighten prose and remove more incidental and less focused material from this article. May I suggest that we all look for related articles that would benefit from some great material that has been developed for this expansive article. Could at least include Utah War, Brigham Young, and John D. Lee. Other suggestions? WBardwin 02:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Utah War; Parley P. Pratt; George A. Smith; Nauvoo Legion; Jacob Hamblin and the list goes on. --Robbie Giles 05:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

and a new article for Isaac C. Haight. WBardwin 06:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Isaac C. Haight is no longer in red as I schlocked out an article for him last night --GERANIUM (Justmeherenow 15:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

I added pix of

• a beardless Young - as Brigham was circa '57
• an early MM cairn, and
• of two of the survivors

Please note otherwise I've knott added kneww stuff - ownly pushed stuff outta bloated background & into the § re historical treatments (in §§ re JDL's autobiography & the Reformation) to make the pull down our Meadows trail just a leetle beet lighter. --Justmeherenow 17:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC) (Erratum: oops! I had added the one bit of info re Lee's charging Fanchers with driving two bulls they called by the names of Presidents Kimball & Young <meekly>- sorry.) --Justmeherenow 19:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a bit of background about the proposed edits on the sandbox page. The discussion page of that location will redirect to this talk page. I tried to pull all the sections directly about the train and its members only. This is not the same order as the current article. Any ideas for a name? How about FANCHERS Section for short. I have dealt with no expanded background, etc for now. There was already some stuff in there sections and I added a bit about not selling to the emigrants by order of B.Y. Not all of the refs occur at the bottom of the sandbox page, so the links from the citations may not work now. I tried to pull most of the major ones, but did not do the ones used only once. There are also refs needing formatting that I am tagging. We can clean those up later. Ditto for wikilinks. We can fix those on the FINAL final edit.

Now I want to know:

1. Did I miss any sections on my pass through which deal specifically with the FANCHERS?
2. Does this tell a coherent story of the train and its makeup? If this was all we could tell, what else needs to be in this story?
3. Does it give enough information about the journey to Utah?
4. Does it give enough information about the journey through Utah?
5. Does it give enough information about the siege?
6. Does it give enough information about the massacre?
7. Does it give enough information about the immediate cover-up?
8. If you were asking questions for clarification, where would you ask? Mark those places in bold with (Who?) or the appropriate question. An example might be (What were the names of surviving children?)

You can just bold it on the sandbox page in black if you prefer. You can even use your own color for your edits to the sandbox page. Strikethrough color can also be changed, but that is just so obsessive compulsive even for me.

Because of the depth of this article, I am sure those questions have been answered elsewhere. We may choose to incorporate it here, or leave it in a section (like the Utah War section) which will be placed before some of the sections here. After editing and expanding sandbox page|there, we have the basic story and can transfer it to the article, or leave it there for now.

Next, we might create an edit project on Why did the Mormons do this? or BACKGROUND section. Take the sections on Utah War, Reformation, etc and tell that story. Answer all of the same types of questions. Then weave those two major sections together in (probably) chronological order and check for flow, coherence, etc. Then on to the third major topic. etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, until we's done. Let me know if this sounds doable. COGDEN said he will be away, and he may want to chime in before we replace stuff in the actual article. --Robbie Giles 20:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

All of Robbie's suggestions sound do-able and great!! :^) --Justmeherenow 00:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. So I've added section headers for these sections:

• §Ark(ansans):
• §Pai(utes):
• §Inv(estigations):
• §Tri(als):
• ((Why?)):

• §Mor(mons):
• §War:
• §Con(flicts/atrocity):

• §Com(mentary):
• §Mon(uments):

Just working titles--anybody can change them --Geranium (Justmeherenow)

That is great. Thanks. --Robbie Giles 19:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop major edits for a bit

Can we let this sit for a few days with no major edits by the principle participants? I have been trying to format some proposed edits on my sandbox page and they are now moot because of all the changes made in the last two days. I also requested a review, and we will not be able to follow up on reviewer suggestions if the article is radically changed. The active editing may also deter some reviewers altogether.

This is 100 pounds of flour in an 80 pound sack. No matter how much we empty, move the contents about, and refill it:

it is still an overflowing sack of flour.

(You can substitute whatever you would like for flour here.)

We have less than five weeks to finalize, nominate and make requested changes to get this featured for September 11. We need to be doing final editing, not adding more.

I invite you to review my sandbox edits to see what I am trying to do. I am using a modified legislative edit format. Poposed deletions are struckthrough and additions are in red font. Comments are at the bottom of each section. Feel free to put in comments or suggestions. This is time consuming, but I plan to propose in this manner prior to editing in the main article.

So, I beg you to let it rest for a few days. Make proposals on the talk page before moving things around or adding or deleting.

Sometime more isn't better, it is just more.

--Robbie Giles 16:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hooray!--Blue Tie 17:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hip hip! - Okey dokey, Good friends. (Yet still I still think the general rule of courtesy is ta pre-announce the section for which you suggest the current wiki be moved over to your sandbox & then post a link here on the talk page to it??) <tips hat> "Much obliged!" --Justmeherenow 17:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion about a pre-announcement. This is the first major edit I have done with a group. --Robbie Giles 17:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

OK from now on I'm green and my nickname is--Geranium (Justmeherenow)

Suggestion about editing

I suggest that having one person do the final editing is both at once a wonderful idea and a horrible idea. It is wonderful because the best articles that I have seen have been done mainly by one person. However, in this article I think it is too much responsibility for one person to bear and consensus should be the approach on an article like this.

I suggest the following approach:

1. Agree on an OUTLINE for the article before anything else. (I currently believe this is a huge problem).

2. Have one editor revise the article to fit the agreed upon outline. (I like Robbie)

3. Establish committees of one to however many want to join, to edit each section subject to the outline.

4. Agree in advance not to add ANYTHING, not even footnotes, without a discussion by all.

5. Agree in advance to:

a. Move things from the article to the footnotes whereever possible

b. Eliminate wordy footnotes if references can do (as with most articles)

c. Avoid drawing general conclusions in the body of the article from specific instances in the footnotes (logical fallacy).

d. Remove footnotes and data if they are too crufty.

6. After editing the pieces of the outline, bring the pieces together again.

7. Have one editor review and edit for discrepancies and fullness. (I like WBardwin).

8. Let one person who has not previously edited the article, work to bring it to a shine. (I can suggest someone who does that very fast and very well, typically for featured articles.).

I do not know if that is the best process. Its the one I suggest. --Blue Tie 22:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with the gist of Blue Tie's plan. --Justmeherenow 00:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to run to Hoboken so I don't have time to look at it at the moment - but Robbie's sandbox's apparent outline is this?

• Baker-Fancher emigrant train
• Salt Lake City arrival
• South to Mountain Meadows (moved)
• Siege (September 7–11, 1857)
• Massacre
• Cover-up
• Survivors

• Investigation

• Accountability

Meanwhile, the article's present outline is

1 Background (1.1 Mormon memory of Midwest persecutions) (1.2 Mormon dominion in the West) (1.3 Teachings from the Mormon pulpit) (1.4 Start of the Utah War)

2 Baker-Fancher party's travels in Utah (2.1 Arrival at Salt Lake City) (2.2 The road south to Mountain Meadows)

3 Tragedy

1. 3.1 Invasion panic [3.1.1 George A. Smith's circuit through southern Utah] [3.1.2 "Unbridling Indians" against Americans] [3.1.3 Interactions between Mormons and Fanchers in Cedar City]
2. 3.2 Conspiracy and massacre [3.2.1 Meetings at Cedar City to decide emigrants' fate] [3.2.2 Siege (September 7–11, 1857)] [3.2.3 Killing field]
3. 3.3 Aftermath [3.3.1 Collection of spared children and distribution of spoils] [3.3.2 A belated message from Young] [3.3.3 Cover stories with regard Native motivation for murders]

4 Investigations (4.1 Hurt's hearing of militia's involvement. Lee's alleged admissions to Hamblin and Young) (4.2 Federal investigations in 1859) (4.3 1870s prosecutions of John D. Lee)

5 Major sources (5.1 Mormonism Unveiled) (5.2 Popular descriptions and commentary) (5.3 The period of the "Mormon Reformation") (5.4 Stenhouse, Gibbs, Brooks, Bagley, Denton, etc.) (5.5 Historical fiction and portrayals)

6 Commemorations (6.1 early markers) (6.2 LDS public relations) (6.3 1990 monument) (6.4 1999 monument: foundation's petition to purchase site)(6.5 Sesquicentennial remembrances (2007)) --Justmeherenow 00:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Mine is not an outline for the entire article. It is only those sections dealing directly with the train. It is in chronological order for this group of sections only. I was not sure we had the entire story of the FANCHERS from beginning to end. I saw the other subjects added in the proper order as we get to them. This is my attempt to tell each story fully, then integrate them all into one story. I just started with the FANCHERS first. I think the next most logical edit group is BACKGROUND. Others might be INVESTIGATIONS, TRIALS, MEMORIALS, until we have all done. I want us to place explanations only once in the article. The most logical place in the first occurrence of the information.

An example might be B.Young's declaration of martial law. I have added it to the FANCHER section in the Salt Lake City arrival subsection. When we do the BACKGROUND section and integrate with the first group of sections, it may actually occur earlier in the chronology in a Utah War subsection. We can then delete the explanation in the later section of the two, making sure we include all the information in the first occurrence. In this way, we have the full story and delete duplicate information more easily.

If it is more sensible and logical to do an outline rather than weave sections together, I am fine with that. Unless I missed anything in the FANCHER story, I now see the story line. I believe it is complete or I have listed places where I need questions answered to tell the whole story. (Enquiring minds want to know.) For example, after reading numerous books, there is a question whether it was 17 or 18 children spared. I now need sources for both numbers, or we change it back to seventeen. I also want to find out if any train was issued a safe conduct pass near this point in time, as J.D. Lee mentions the lack of a pass as significant several places in "Mormonism unveiled." Now I will dig to see if any other of the more scholarly publications mentions this as problematic for the train.

I see the sandbox page as a place for everyone to add information or comments. Once we arrive at a consensus (after COGDEN is back on board and Justmeherenow is back from Hoboken), we can edit it in the actual article. I'm fine with editing the sections from suggested comments and talk page ideas. This process will probably take a week or two to complete. We may also be responding to REVIEW SUGGESTIONS with edits and fixes.

I am interested in working on the ref and citations once the article is close. I am a bulldog(ette) on code and picky tiny errors. But I'm up for almost anything. I'm feeling good about this. It should be fairly rewarding and hopefully not too trying. Who knows, we may hoist a virtual glass together after this is done. Just pick your favorite beverage, since some of you are good Saints and I'm a wine drinker. --Robbie Giles 02:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops one more thing. I used some words in my proposed edits like 'murder.' Challenge everything you see as POV. It will save us in the long run to have it as NPOV as possible. I understand this bothers some, but them's the rules. It doesn't have to be bland, we just have to be very descriptive and precise in our word choices. Language is a lovely thing. --Robbie Giles 02:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

MMM-aftermath-Timeline.

Garland Hurt heard rumors of massacre & sent an Indian interpreter to make inquiry. According to the Piedes, J.D. Lee persuaded the Indians to attack the emigrants. After being repulsed three times the Mormons persuaded the emigrants into laying down their weapons and then killed them all. The Mormons received all the plunder. (Message of Pres. October 24, 1859. Brooks. Appendix VIII) Hurt, his life is threatened by Mormon Malitia, escapes to FT. Bridger and delivers the first account of the massacre to the government. (NV Indian Agents Oct. 24, 1857).

J.D.Lee arrives in SLC with an awful tale of blood. One hundred and fifty California emigrants, intent on doing evil, poison a beef and a spring which killed both Indians and Saints. Indians become enraged and in five days kill all the men, slit the throats of the women, but saved eight or ten children which they sold to whites. They stripped the men and women naked and left them to rot. The Indians took all the property. From Wilford Woodruff's journal Sept.29,1857. Brooks Chapter 8.

Indian agent G.W.Armstrong writes B. Young from Provo. The emigrants poisoned a beef and gave it to the Indians. The Parvantes followed the company to Mountain Meadows where they attacked killing fifty-seven men and nine women. The citizens of Fillmore were unable stop the Indians. Sept.30,1857. Brooks Chapter 8.

California Newspapers report the massacre. Emigrants cheat the Indians & give them a poisoned ox. Indians kill all except for 15 children, which are saved when the Mormons purchase them from the Indians. (See ref. Newspaper articles).

B. Young, Gov. & Supt. Ind. Affairs, UT, notifies James Denver, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, of the massacre. The emigrants poisoned an oxen and water killing several Indians. The enraged Indians then took revenge. Young quotes a letter from Lee. (SeeBrooks Chapter 8).

AR state senator Mitchell and citizens of Carrol County receive information that 15 surviving children have been taken to San Bernardino by Mormons and demand the government rescue them. US Senator Sebastian, AR, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of War, Col. Johnston, and acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs C.E. Mix were notified. (Message of the President) Mix orders the Indian Agents of CA & J. Forney, Super. Of Indian Affairs UT Territory, to retrieve children. (Message of President March 4, 1858)

Forney informs Mix that he has met Jacob Hamblin who has 15 children purchased by Mormons in his neighborhood. Forney will travel to this dangerous country to get the children in 4 weeks. (Message of President.June 22, 1858) a questionable date.

Forney notifies General Johnston that he has 10 children in his possession. . (Message of President. September 10, 1858)

Mormon Apostle George Smith conducted an investigation of the massacre in Sept.'58. His finding reinforced the poison ox story and that also Mormon interrupters had unsuccessfully attempted to stop the massacre by the Indians.(See Brooks Chapter 9).

(December 10,1858 Valley Tan) Forney goes South as far as Corn Creek to deliver gifts to the Indians.

Forney notifies James Denver, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, that he has located 7 more children (a total of 17) and is paying for their board & clothing at a home in Santa Clara. He will gather the children on his return visit to the Indians. (Message of President .January 28, 1859)

Hamblin notifies Forney that he has 15 children and that he knows the Indians have 2 more. He traveled South and found one with the Navajos but left it because it was sick. Governor Cummings request Army protection for travelers on the Trail since 139 were killed @ Mountain Meadows. (Valley Tan. 2/15/59).

After spending a few days at Federal judge Cradlebaugh's Court in Provo, Forney goes South with Mormon guides and teamsters and is joined at Nephi with W.M. Rogers.(see Rogers. Appendix XI Brooks or Valley Tan 2/29/1860).

Found abandoned at Beaver ,on March 27, and threatened with physical harm if he were to continue, Forney is given assistance by frontiersman and Mexican War Veteran Lynch and two of his men. They spend the night at Mountain meadows and travel to Santa Clara. (See Lynch & Rogers).

At Santa Clara the condition of the infants is noted. Lynch says its pitiful. (see Lynch). Rogers says its good except for the ones with sore eyes, Sahara Dunlop went blind. (see Rogers). Forney says its good except they are poorly clothed.( Message of President. March 1, 1859)

After waiting three days for clothes to be made, they travel to Harmony in an effort to obtain plunder taken at the massacre by Lee. Unsuccessful, they travel to Cedar City to see Haight & Higby with the same results.(see Rogers)

With sixteen kids the party goes north where Chief Knosh in forms them that their two more children. At Corn Creek they met an army detachment under then command of Captian Campbell of Camp Floyd. (see Rogers) The purpose of the army going to Santa Clara is to escort Major Prince with the army payroll, protect travelers in that region, and make inquires of the massacre. (Message of President .April 27, 1859) With the army was judge Cradlebaugh and Marshall Stone. While Campbell did not see the children the Judge interview them extensively. (Message of President .April 30, 1859) Marshall Stone becomes ill so Cradlebaugh deputizes Rogers. Forney request that Rogers locate the two missing children.(see Rogers) Forney, Lynch and the children travel to Spanish Fork where they remain until escorted to FT Leavenworth. (Message of President .May 1, 1859)

The army travels to Mountain Meadows where they inter the remains of many of the victims. Army Surgeon Brewer gives a detailed description of the killing field. (Message of President May 5, 1859.)

They then traveled to Santa Clara where Campbell and Cradlebaugh met with the Indians. (see Campbell. Message of President .July 6, 1859) The Indians told the judge that they partipated in the initial attack but since the Americans had rifles the Mormons, dressed as Indians, finished off the Americans. The Army then went back to Mountain meadows where they rendezvoused with the California Troops under the command of Major Carleton who was escorting Major Prince with the Army payroll. (see. Cradlebaugh & Carleton)

Cradlebaugh, Rogers, and a number of soldiers set up a court in Cedar City where the judge talked to several Mormon who admitted participating in the massacre. Arrest warrants were issued for Height, Higbee, Lee and many others. Rogers was not able to locate any of the accused. After several days Campbell told the judge that he orders to remove soldiers protecting the court which ended Cradlebaugh's investigation. (see Cradlebaugh & Rogers)

After threatening to search every house in the territory, Rogers was able to locate an infant which Hamblin and one of his wives delivered to Forney for a total of seventeen. (see Rogers)

Although Forney refused to pay the Mormons money that they claimed was used to purchase and trade for the children with the Indians, he did pay $2.50/wk upkeep for the children and Hamblin's wages. (Message of President. July 25, 1859)

Forney (Indian agent): given instructions by Mix to retrieve the children. Campbell (US Army): given orders by General Johnston to escort the army payroll from Santa Clara, protect the Southern trail, and investigate the MMM. Carleton (US Army): given orders by General Clarke to deliver the army payroll to Santa Clara and "bury the bones" at Mountain Meadows.

Mormon memory of Midwest persecutions It seems that the historical societies of Illinois, Missouri, & Ohio have a more tempered and often divergent view of Mormon persecution than that expressed in this article. Should those views be given equal space?Tinosa 03:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

§Ark(ansans): edit section

I have completed some edits on the section on the sandbox page for this section. I have then put the proposed two paragraphs at the end of the first section without any of the editing history here, to aid in reading for comprehension.

Feedback and your edits on this section are appreciated. Please note any place(s) where the story of the emigrants needs explanations or pruning. --Robbie Giles 02:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)