Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre

Archives

1. Archive 1 June 11 2004
2. Archive 2 November 12 2006
3. Archive 3 November 19 2006
4. Archive 4 December 31 2006
5. Archive 5 March 10 2007

Poll? Mediation? Arbitration?

Seriously wtf? the article gets unlocked and its game on. I guess its time to get back to war. Its my full intention to modify or revert any changes that I feel do not improve the article. Goodfaith attempts at consensus building have seemed non-existent. Sqrjn 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are your objections? I mean, name one item of hard content please. I'm sincere. After that, we can get to the second. Gwen Gale 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(first) What happened to the poll, mediation, and arbitation? I was interesred in seeing how it planned out. (second) At one time, Gale's rewrite was seperate from the Mountain meadows Massacre Article. What happened to that? Maybe there should be two versions of this article:(1) The Mormon and Utah view. (2)The Arkansas and US Army view.

"The Mountain Meadows Massacre was a mass killing of approximately 140 European-Americans at Mountain Meadows, a stopover along the Spanish Trail in southwestern Utah, on Friday, September 11, 1857.".

'European-Americans'? It is my understanding that the victims were from Arkansas, the 25'th state of the US (the melting pot, you know).

the majority of americans, and certainly back then, could indeed be called "european americans", they are full european stock, they just moved to another land, and later became heavily mixed "euro-mutts"...I like to call them aggressive european colonists and i even refer to modern america as "one of the colonies", (to this day its never really been anything else, yet an independent colony of course), yet if we are to call black americans "african americans" then "european americans" holds as well...(the african americans were colonists as well of course, and ursurped the "native americans" just like the european americans did, they were just in beta to omega status until a few generations later where many attained alpha status as well)(perhaps in a another hundred years the various american ethnics will have mixed sufficiently so that it will be hard to refer to them anymore as "european americans" or "african americans", "asian americans" etc etc...they will finally mainly be some mixed breed of just "americans", held together & grouped not anymore by ethnic makeup, yet wholly by american ideological, religious, cultural, and citizenship factors)(they are in the process, yet just not quite fully there yet, and for example the country is governed almost exclusively by european-americans, or "euro-mutts", totally out of proportion to the ethnic make-up of the country)...but, like we can call all living in Russia as "russians", despite that many arent actually russian in ethnic make-up, we can of course refer to all americans simply as "americans" too, we can split it up though further. However, ideologically at present most all americans now have several unique "american" ideological, cultural, behavioral make-ups 83.79.167.141 20:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

'September 11, 1857'? It is my understanding that the Mormon insurgents commenced the attack on the Sept.7 and completed massacre on Sept.11. What is the completion time of a massacre? minutes, hours, days, weeks. Tinosa 02:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The massacre happened on the 11th. The article already describes the chronology at MM, which began on the 7th. I humbly suggest you re-read that part, you may have missed it.

Are you asserting they weren't European-American? Are you aware that there are spurious claims the Fancher party was mostly Cherokee?

Do you interpret the current version as pro-Mormon, pro-Arkansas or pro-Army? Why? Please be specific. Gwen Gale 04:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

GAME ON? When did this become a game? I must have missed something in this wiki thing I have been doing for some time; where was the game part? If I were to look at the immediate history Centrx released the protection and you, Sqrjn immedately went to the POV edits that have been throughly discussed, disputed and agreed are not in keeping with history. Is that the game you are talking about? The game of insisting that only your version of history (read rewrite) is possible in an encyclopedia; again to point out that no ohter legitimate historian has ever called it kidnapping. That is called reconstructionist history or history made from whole cloth i.e. it is only your POV.

In any vote or poll you want to do let's do it because it is a small minority that supports your position. I still favor keeping the article locked indefinitately because refuse to cooperate with the community. It is only your perverse version that you insist upon and facts and history be damned. Gosh, are we having fun yet? This is the kind of crap that ruins a public encyclopedia; dealing with the private agendas supposed editors. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be delighted to include the word "kidnapping" in the text, in reference to the kids. Please please please provide a citation using that term from a published secondary source, preferably a peer-reviewed one but truth be told, almost anything treating the incident as an historical topic will do. Gwen Gale 04:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing by attrition I like that. That is indeed what its come down to, but there is no reason for it. Especially since we dont even seem to disagree. My MAJOR problem right now is that you are replacing a finished article with great footnotes, that a lot of people including myself have worked on, with one that has none. Until you have improvements to make I ask that you refrain.

Please provide specific objections as to content, thank you. If you'd like to add something to the article, please do it, along with the cites. Meanwhile, you're now in danger of violating the 3rr rule. Gwen Gale 04:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as kidnapping goes, we've been having a partial debate. Somehow the argument has gone from the accurate use of language, to whether a secondary source has applied a particular term. Every word does not have to be directly culled from a secondary source. If people object to the word kidnapped I ask How is it inaccurate? How will it mislead a reader by being POV?Sqrjn 04:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In a controversial article, every word does have to be supported by a cite if necessary. Meanwhile, no debate is necessary. Please provide a reliable secondary source which uses the term and I'll be happy to help make sure it stays in the article. Until then, use of the term kidnapping is original research, however much we may both agree the kids were kidnapped after their parents were murdered, neither you nor I are acceptable citations for the article. Gwen Gale 04:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Up-dating Information on the "Arkansas Emigrants Wagon Trains"

I am a Mountain Meadows Massacre Historian and a Fancher Family Historian. I tried to edit the info you present on the Fancher Party - didn't realize someone here apparently has to authorize corrections first. Sorry! (In your talk on the Fancher Party you are discussing several areas that are my personal Rootsweb.com pages :)

It's great to see that you all are attempting to present an unbiased account of the Massacre, which is an extremely difficult undertaking! There is no current internet source, or book written, that is not biased in some important way. And believe me, I've looked! I'd like to be able to point to one internet article on the MMM for those are unfamiliar with the history. I was kinda hoping this article could be it! Unfortunately, the majority of the sources you are using represent out-dated, or flawed, information. The Fancher Party information you are presenting in this article is old, and is almost totally inaccurate. I hope you are willing to rectify this, because it really is important to the history of the Massacre:

"Today you will see find records and tales relating a story about one wagon train, and the men, women, and children who were murdered at Mountain Meadows, often referred to collectively as the Baker-Fancher Train. This is not accurate. This designation developed in 1990, intended as a recognition that there was more than one wagon train involved in the massacre. In addition to the Fancher Train which is the most remembered, there were many other wagon trains that joined up along the way, broke off, or joined up again. Those other wagon trains included the Poteet-Tackett Train, the Crooked Creek Train, the Campbell Train, the Parker Train, the Baker Train, and others. (Some of these trains escaped the Massacre.) The Baker Train, named for Captain John Twitty Baker, was the last to arrive in Utah of those who had chosen to join up and travel south together through Utah. Each Spring, thousands of wagon trains left for California and somehow the story of the Arkansas Emigrants and the Mountain Meadows Massacre has incorrectly morphed into one large "Baker-Fancher Train" that left from Caravan Springs, Arkansas. Such a Train never existed.

The Fancher Train, under the leadership of Captain Alexander Fancher, left from Benton County, Arkansas. The Huff Train also left from Benton County. The Poteet-Tackett-Jones Trains (all relatives) originally left from Johnson County and traveled up through Washington County. The Baker Train left from Carroll County near present day Harrison. The Cameron and Miller Trains (previously from the Osage area) left from Johnson County, while the Mitchell, Dunlap and Prewitt Trains departed from Marion County. They all left at different times and were under the organization of each individual wagon train master. There were probably individuals and elements of other wagon trains that joined these trains along their journey, as was the custom at that time. Because of this, we will never know with certainty the names of all of those who were members of the trains on the fateful day they reached Mountain Meadows, in the Utah Territory.

As these trains made their journey south through Utah, records, and John D. Lee's writings, refer to the group as the "Fancher Company", "Capt. Fancher & Co." or the "Fancher Party. Having made two previous trips to California in 1850 and 1853, ALexander Fancher was an experienced leader and cattle-driver." (Fancher, Lynn-Marie & Wallner, Alison C., "1857: An Arkansas Family Primer To The Mountain Meadows Massacre", 2007. Posted with permission of the authors.)

Captain Alexander Fancher was never referred to as "Colonel" (Shirts.) His Uncle James Fancher was the Colonel.

And just to answer some questions in your other discussions -

Captain Alexander did make two previous trips from Arkansas to California. One in 1850 and one in 1853. The first is confirmed by the 1850 San Diego census, the second by private family correspondence, that is not available in any printed source.

There were no known Missourians, or even the so-called "Missouri Wild Cats", associated with the Arkansas Emigrant wagon trains. None of the known victims were from Missouri, they were all from Arkansas. There is no known record that supports any Missourians. This is a subject that may better left out of your article completely for no other reason than the complete lack of proof that these mysterious Missourians ever existed. (It was part of the Mormon effort to defame the Emigrants, along with other stories that they spread, to use as an after-the-fact excuse for murdering them. They initially blamed the Paiutes, then the Emigrants themselves. Today, the Paiute Nation will tell you that they had no part in the MMM, based on their oral traditions. But modern authorities agree that the attack was made by a band of Pauites and local Mormon Militia.)

The MMM Monument in Boone Co. Arkansas and why is it there when Boone Co. didn't exist in 1857 - A few of the wagon trains (not the majority, as many stories say) left in early April of 1857 from Beller's Stand, near the homestead farm of Captain John Twitty Baker, that was located near Harrison. In 1857 this area was part of Carroll County. Later boundary changes set this Harrison area within Boone County. This monument was erected in Harrison in 1955, and contains errors regarding the names of the victims and where they were from, but it does represent the best information available at that time. It was not until around the late 1990's that more accurate information began to emerge.

The Utah War, or the Mormon Rebellion, should actually be included in your article because it is absolutely integral to the story of the MMM, and explains why the Mormons were so riled up during that period. If there was no Utah War, there wouldn't have been a Massacre. A great source for this is Will Bagley's book "Blood Of the Prophets", but there are also some internet sources on the basic facts of the Utah War that are pretty reliable.

There was always a rumor of an 18th child. To-date, it has never been proven one way or the other.

While they were in Mormon homes, the surviving children were re-named by the Mormon families. This, and their young ages, led to some of the children's confusion about their real names. Christopher "Kit" Carson Fancher, for example, was called Charley by the Mormons, which led to later confusion about the given name of his father, Captain Alexander Fancher. The 1932 marker called Captain Fancher Charley, as does Juanita Brooks in her first 1950 publication of her book. Her later editions were corrected.

The various wagon trains arrived at different times in Salt Lake, it was not one great big train that arrived on a specific date in August. We do have records that place the Fancher Train in Salt Lake and say that this one group waited there more than a week for others to arrive to join up with, before taking the southern route through Utah. (The trains did not take the northern route and then turn back and take the southern route. At Salt Lake, as the individual trains gathered there, decisions were made by each whether to take the northern or southern route. For example, we know that from Melinda Cameron)Scott Thurston's deposition that she, her husband, and the rest of her Cameron family arrived in Salt Lake around the first of August. She and her husband took the northern route. The rest of her family took the southern route, and died at Mtn. Meadows. http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/malindathurston.htm)Another record tells us that, of these trains that were gathering in Salt Lake, the Baker train was the last to arrive. These trains were arriving in Salt Lake probably between the end of July and the first week of August of 1857, but there is no way to pinpoint those dates.

Brigham Young tearing down the cross and cairn at the Meadows - According to Mormon Apostle Wilford Woodruff's diary dated May 25 (1861)he was there with Brigham Young when he, and a group of Mormons, visited the site of the Mountain Massacre. According to Woodruff, Young did not say in so many words that he wanted it destroyed, but with a wave of his hand, he indicated to the group what he wanted them to do. It was also Woodruff who recorded that in response to the words on the cross "Vengeance is mine and I will repay saith the Lord" Young said it should be "Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little." The rocks from the cairn were scattered, but sometime after that, and over the following decades, unknown passerbys apparently made efforts to keep piling the rocks back up into a small cairn. The 1999 Monument at the Meadows contains rocks from the original cairn.

ParkerMMM 03:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome aboard. I assume this is your website. Lots of good info. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wallner/mmmfanch1.htm#Open

Do you have acess to the Boone County Hertiage muesuem? http://www.bchrs.org/collections/mmm/index.html

Tinosa 14:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, likewise. For starters, where could one find a solid citation to support the statement that there were no "Missouri Wildcats" associated with the wagon train as it traveled through Utah? Gwen Gale 16:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I also welcome you, ParkerMMM. We look forward to your contributions to this and other articles. I agree with your comments that the Utah War probably needs more discussion as part of the context, and that the presence of "Missouri Wildcats" is disputed. Regarding the destruction of the cairn, my understanding is that Woodruff recorded Young's statement but didn't actually mention the destruction of the cairn. The source for the destruction of the cairn was Juanita Brooks reporting a family story from her grandfather, Dudley Leavitt.

I hope you will familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia policies, especially Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. As an encyclopedia article, the article should represent the consensus of historians rather than the viewpoint of any single historian. Therefore, sources need to be cited; differences of interpretation should be acknowledged and cited. It is considered acceptable to cite other secondary sources, but not your own original research (especially when based on unpublished sources). When in doubt, it is best to bring an issue to the talk page first.

I hope someone picks up this ball about there being a lack of verification of any Missourians being present at Mountain Meadows. That ParkerMMM presents themself as a Fancher historian who's researched the makeup of the ill-fated Fancher party is important and shouldn't be brushed to the side. And, incidentally, research published elsewhere isn't considered new research even should it be the contributor's own, as long as other editors allow it to stand. The bottom line is, the more historical expertise contributors bring to the table the better. --Justmeherenow 02:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to working with you. BRMo 16:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Gale -- Bagley's book (p. 280), describes the Missouri Wildcats story as "Utah mythology." He says, "The 'Missouri Wild-cats' may well have been the Dukes party that followed the Fancher train. Its leader, William Dukes, and at least eight other men were Missourians; virtually everyone in the Fancher train came from Arkansas." Since we don't know the identities of everyone in the Fancher train, it seems overly strong to conclude that they all came from Arkansas. But the article certainly shouldn't treat the presence of the Missouri Wild-cats as an undisputed fact. BRMo 16:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put a reference to the historical dispute in the article, with the cite you provided. As an aside, yeah, we don't know, but with all the evidence of post-massacre spin and ante-bellum communications in Utah being what they were, it's reasonable to think that the historical presence of some people from Missouri along the trail late that summer could have been twisted all out of proportion in an effort to create the notion that LDS folks were "provoked" into the massacre. Ĩ would hastily add that, for only one example, in absence of any evidence, it is wholly unreasonable to assume the Dunlap girls had anything to do with it. Gwen Gale 17:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

About BY and the cairn, I think the provenance of this tale makes it very dodgy. Moreover, though I have no doubt he visited the site (which is so close to SG), my personal take is that whatever his involvement in pre-massacre planning or post massacre spin (and we don't know what that involvement was, if any), he was too smart to order the demolition of the cairn in front of witnesses in broad daylight, never mind he must have been aware that he couldn't erase its existence so easily. Gwen Gale 17:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Howdy ParkerMMM, and welcome to this dicussion. We were asking for more information about Cap. Fancher's experience and were having difficulty finding a source we could use and cite. Hopefully your contributions can be used to expand this seciton. With all the revert wars this article has suffered I think I can state for everyone that anybody willing to colleberate rather than just brute force their will onto this article is more than welcome to contribute.

Overall I like and respect your contributions but I do have a couple of disagreements I'ld like to bring up. I hope you will take these in the spirit intended.

I would caution against putting phrases like "Such a Train never existed." I have no doubt that is true, but could be phrased less acutely. Or better yet, just correct the inaccurate information without stating the previous author was wrong. With so many sources on MMM that contradict each other IMO we should be cautious about phrases that attack credibility of respected sources. Its hard enough to get every body to stick to non-biased sources (or at least biased but with an open mind), that we shouldn't refute for somebody for trying to use good sources. I think if we go down this road the article could degenerate into a peeing match of "My source is better than yours". NOTE: I have so far reverted edits using FARMS sources (Farms is a Mormon Apologetics group) and sites that have an obvious anti-mormon ax to grind as they are easy to discount as non-biased (though unfortunatly some of those sites have some excellent information on them).

The second Gayle already touched on. I was looking into the claim that BY ordered the destruction of the monument, as a result of the above discusison started by Duke53. Wilford Woodruff's diary does NOT state this, at least from the sources I found. He claimed BY visited the cairn and made the wise crack "No, Vengence is mine and I have taken a little" But from what I've found someone else added the claim that he then had the monument distroyed after the fact. However I did find one interesting claim that stated the cross was vandalized with the phrases like "Remember Haun's Mill" but this source did not claim to know who did the vandalizing.

Just my $.02, please take in the spirit intended.

Also for the record I am not an expert on MMM nor do I claim to be. It's a long story how I came to get involved in this article. Let's just say its helping me brush up on my writing skils =-)

Davemeistermoab 07:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

“Vengeance is Mine Saith the Lord, & I have taken a little of it.” Editors might check the following. "Suddenly Strangers". http://www.suddenlystrangers.com/Chap18Appen.htm

John D. Lee faithfully kept a journal. Five days after the above mentioned visit to the Mountain Meadows monument, Lee’s diary entry, [30] May 1861, reports Brigham at the monument as saying: “Vengeance is Mine Saith the Lord, & I have taken a little of it.” He also records Brigham as saying that any who betray their brethren’s involvement in the massacre will be damned.[v]

footnote v. “Pres. Young Said that the company that was used up at the Mountain Meadows were the Fathers, Mothe[rs], Bros., Sisters & connections of those that Murdered the Prophets; they Merit[e]d their fate, & the only thing that ever troubled him was the lives of the Women & children, but that under the circumstances [this] could not be avoided. Although there had been [some] that want[e]d to bet[ray] the Brethr[e]n into the hands of their Enemies, for that thing [they] will be Damned & go down to Hell. I would be Glad to see one of those traitors.” —D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, pp. 252–253,536, footnote180. Tinosa 15:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In modern terms, JDL died a convicted mass murderer. His diary entries relating to the crime for which he was convicted may provide leads to reliable sources, but in themselves they are not reliable because JDL is not a credible witness to anything. The pith being, is this diary entry supported by any other contemporary primary source? In my truly humble opinion, I think it's almost worthless to an encyclopedia article without substantial secondary source interpretation and commentary as to provenance, historical context and credibility. Gwen Gale 16:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In the news

US presidential candidate Mitt Romney is a great great grandson of Parley P. Pratt (Associated Press, Romney Family Tree Has Polygamy Branch) who is mentioned in this article, and whose article links back to this one. Depending on how Romney's campaign goes, this article could become a canny firestorm in a few months. Gwen Gale 02:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

its an interesting tale, yet just how could it become a "canny firestorm?"...this incident happened 150 years ago, Romneys grandmother wasnt even born yet, just how do you propose it would affect his campaign and what does it have to do with him or his ability to hold office?...83.79.167.141 20:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. Aside from Utah politics, it's no big deal. I was only hinting that when WP articles about controversial topics attract wide attention in popular culture, extreme PoV spinners (along with well-meaning but mistaken ones) show up to have a go. Gwen Gale 22:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

yes u are correct, it is possible someone could use the Romney campaign and his genetic links to bring this incident of 150 years ago to light in a wider public arena, either to try and discredit him or Mormons in general, yet things like contemporary polygamy & child brides cast perhaps more negative light on them. Anyways, I doubt many people in the position to bring it to wider public scrutiny know of its existence tho...and just how does this historical tale affect Utah politics to this day, it happened 150 years ago? 83.79.142.61 13:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ever been to Utah? :) Anyway I was only making a comment related to the dynamics of this wiki and how those could affect this article. Not much more to see here. Gwen Gale 13:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the sesquicentennial of this tragedy approaches

- with history being so often written by its victors! I occasionally return to this page only to see how the published article ever retains the perpetrators' after-the-fact spin concerning these emigrants' supposed culpabilities for their very own victimization. -- 67.82.249.240 09:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have any specific objections to the article's content, along with any helpful citations from reliable secondary sources, that would be a help. Thanks. Gwen Gale 10:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A reliable secondary source? "Some of the men boasted of possessing a gun which had "shot the guts out of Old Joe Smith" and claimed they would return from California with an army to wipe "every damn Mormon off the earth." http://www.mormonismi.net/bio/john_d_lee.shtml

Give me a break! Tinosa 21:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes and the article characterizes that as "...may have been...by some accounts claiming..." and the only part of that quote used in the article is "shot the guts out of Old Joe Smith" which is clearly presented as a possibly dubious account. Gwen Gale 22:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I got it now. To acheive a proper NPOV, Wildcats may have joinded the group followed by reference to Bagley's skepticism is the compromise/ neutral ground between the otherwise irreconciliable factions' complaints of "You don't see intrinsic value in Mormonism" on one hand and "You deny or excuse an historical atrocity" on the other. Thanks! --Justmeherenow 14:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say true or not the claim of "missouri wildcats" belongs in the article in some form. If they existed, the mention provides context; if they did not exist, the mention shows the extent and method of coverup. At a minimum more than ample evidence exists to show that the stories were circulating about the existance of the wildcats. I Agree that the wording at present is not perfect, and a better writeup that shows both possibilities is do-able. Perhaps you could paste your proposed re-write here (in the talk page) and recommended placement of this text here for discussion? I think you'll find the regular contributors of this article are fairer than you are giving us credit for. The problem this article seems to face is that only a few stick around to calmly discuss. Most contributors have done a "dump and run" of the event per their eyes, or worse a rebuttle to every paragraph that provides contrary contant to their view of the event. Compromise is possible, I think the regular contibutors of this article have proven that.Davemeistermoab 03:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So there are these rough-and-tumble miners/ flinty plainsmen who were militia-members of some colorfully named unit who are said to have met the Fancher party in Salt Lake and some believe perhaps eleven of them joined the Fancher party - only (1) start bragging about having murdered Joseph Smith, and (2) (as the article subtly alludes to, and as was complained of in official reports by the territory's Indian agents Lee and Hamblin) to poison a spring, resulting in deaths of Native Americans; however, these reports - along with the belief that Missouri assassins were among the group -- Bagley and others say was part of a compaign of disinformation. If we are to refer to these rumors, they must be counterbalanced by rumors about Danites, where, instead of rough-and-tumble, Missourian plainsmen, we have hardscrabble frontiersmen Lee and Hamblin, militiamen of the Navoo Legion, who (1) seek to ally Native American with the militia against the approaching U.S. forces (2) enforce an official policy not to resupply trespassing emigrants, and (3) hope to dangle the rewards of plunder of all these non-sanctioned emigrants' properties in front of these tribesmen to foment terror. And whereas the evidence of Missouri Wildcats in Utah has died along with whatever fate imagined them, very amply memorialized notebook entries and participants' testimonies attest to the conspiracies of Utah's "avenging angels" during the then-still-raging "Mormon Reformation."

Yet the only culprit punished was Lee, his particular implementation of territory policies at Mountain Meadows framed as the deciding factor in the senseless slaughter there. And it's true that militia-directives Hamblin implemented immediately after the tragedy at Mountain Meadows were radically less severe: Mormon militia and tribesmen accosted the train following the Fancher party a day or two later and few miles north (a train ironically containing Missourians), which resulted in only an emigrant or two killed yet with this train's stock successfully negotiated to be driven from them (by threat of force, with the ruse it was to be turned over to the spontaneously warring Indians and appease them; yet after these emigrants arrived in California, they sent men back after the conflict had cooled and retrieved a portion of their brands of stock not from the Indians but from the Mormons.) Should the article address the covert guerilla warfare applied to all wagon trains at the onset of the War or just address the one wagon train slaughtered? To widen our scope will help us gain greater perspective.

Before deeper background, nuance, and color are added, we assemble the most pertinent, verifiable facts. Then there's impetus to mitigate the stark guilt by contextual explanation of how such treachery could occur at the hands of otherwise humane folk, with "color" added showing the animosity that festered between Missourians and Mormons and how the Mormons adopted the mindset at this juncture never to surrender ground again (with this dynamic's coming to authorize some Mormons to engage in the most vicious of wartime "exigencies"). But if the underlying motives of perpetrators is given weight, this material surely must be balanced. Since an article about an atrocity calls for a fore-determined set of bad guys and good guys, it still retains impartiality even when those who sympathize with its historical perpetrators feel uncomfortable - and that's how it should be. Thus a matter-of-fact portrayal with only addition of simplistic and vaguely sourced material backing a belief that the victims' actions contributed to their fate (uttering slurs and bragging at having perpetrated prior violence) opens the door also to reciprocal testimony being added of the zealous, intemperate rhetoric from the territory's Pulpit at the time; and vague reference to "Wildcats" need to be balanced with tales about the treachery of Mormon "Avenging Angels."

If we have here a narative of tragic heroes/victims being caught in the web of religious fanatics, we also are presented with the fact of the sincerity of the Mormon faith. Nonetheless, this faith's Millennialist nature in 1857 - its divine calling to build a Final Utopia According To God's Plan and according to His personal direction - motivated some Mormons to an overly ruthless (percieved) defense against a coming conflagration. And the ruthlessness displayed at Mountain Meadows still is and was inexcusable. --Justmeherenow 12:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick comment. As you state, the way to a neutral presentation is a detatched description of the events. Thus, whether the Wildcats were actually with the Francher party or not, there were reports of rumors (the fact being presented is that "there were reports of rumors of Wildcats...", not that "there were Wildcats...". Thus, one sticks to the neutral presentation. In my mind this may help one understand the context of the event, but in no way excuses the perpetrators. Try an experiment, ask someone who is not Mormon and doesn't even know what the MMM is to read the article and report to you their conclusions about the events without informing them of your view. I'd be curious about the results. --Trödel 23:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of common knowledge which isn't in the article in its present form. I'm going to review its history and see where there are places where sourced info has been deleted and seek a consensus to weave it back into the article.

For example, ParkerMMM disputes that Alexander Fancher was ever called "Coronel" (referencing Shirts) and that the train should thought of as a single unit prior to many of their consituent parts assembling in northern Utah (referencing Fancher/Wellner). --Justmeherenow 20:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please bring any proposed changes here to the talk page first, with supporting citations from reliable sources. Your remarks contain a number of inaccuracies about the article content along with what I take as a severe PoV slant. Thanks. Gwen Gale 21:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Gale:

I'll mention everything here first.

Is there a citation of Alexander Fancher's contemporarily being addressed as "coronel"? Is the analysis that he led the majority of the train from a single location in Arkansas through to their fate in Mountain Meadows the only reasonable one? If not, let's be bold and fashion the narrative to account for this interpretation (referencing Shirts and Fancher/Wellner, respectively), since, of course, nobody owns a Wikipedia article :^) and when covering controversial subjects it's certainly possible to include the most compelling of whatever historical interpretations as are competing while at the same time maintaining neutrality.

By way of analogy, many Turks believe sharp condemnations of the atrocities they visited on Armenians, during the mutual nationalistic struggles of the two peoples, is awful screed and displays a slanted point of view and that such viewpoints should be suppressed since such condemnations shouldn't be lain solely at Turkey's feet (which, incidentally, culminated in Turkey's becoming 99% Muslim and Greece's becoming 98% Christian and so on) - and I'm sure with a moments' thought we could cite numerous additional controversies of this type as well. But to get beyond such tensions and examine some specific atrocity against the Armenians, we'd search out as much truly relevant information as possible before we'd allow things to become clouded with who started what first. Once that's accomplished, those sympathizing with Turkey's historical nationalistic aims would be allowed to reference Armenians' provocations, albeit in a reciprocal manner such that not just one side ends up with its grievances aired. And so, with concern to the Mountian Meadows massacre, rumors about culpable Missourians must be balanced with the quotes from the pulpit admonishing the people not to resupply the emigrant trains and against militia's overt instructions not to protect the emigrants from warring Native Americans.

To be here a century-and-a-half later merely hemming and hawing about the covert, para-military policy underlying that policy, without which policy and its perhaps faulty implementation (as both are documented in the historical record) the massacre would not have occured, would not speak well for us as neutral Wikipedians; and instead we will surely do the right thing and just bite the bullet and allow whatever the unvarnished facts are to speak for themselves. --Justmeherenow 02:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just curious - what implications does this have on the massacre? I.e. that the final composition of the francher party was not settled until they were in Northern Utah? The reason I ask is that there should be a notable impact on the article in order to be included. Thx in adv --Trödel 02:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If, according to consensus, any particular improvement is too unimportant to be made, I'll refrain from making it. However, where folks have strong beliefs about material they feel would help improve the article, we can resort to something such as, "Although such and such is in dispute, the belief of some historian such as Bagley is thus and so, whereas Fancher family historians have recently argued (1997) this and that.

1. Viz. - Assume good faith; consider the other is trying to positively contribute.
2. Don't revert good faith edits. E.g. - Reverting other than obvious vandalism (like "LALALALAL*&*@#@THIS_SUX0RZsammygoo", or someone changing "4+5=9" to "4+5=30").
3. Be gracious: Liberal in forebearance and Conservative in behavior. --Justmeherenow 05:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The request for an explanation of why that particular edit should be included does assume good faith. I am assuming that there is something I don't know about that explains why it is important to include that the party was not fully assembled until northern Utah; therefore I am asking what it is. BTW, I would suggest that quoting basic policies to experienced Wikipedians who 1) clearly understand them 2) have been successfully contributing and working together on a controversial topic is counterproductive. --Trödel 14:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, the article already puts Fancher's affected military rank of "colonel" into quotes (adapting an unoffical military title was much more socially acceptable 150 years ago, by the bye so the whole thing is utterly unremarkable), along with making it wholly clear the wagon train's structure was fairly loose and that the "Fancher party" included wagons which had started out from Arkansas with sundry other trains. Gwen Gale 14:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to go on about all this stuff IMHO.

• Please provide a verifiable citation for anything you think might be helpfully added to the article content.

• Likewise, if there is anything in the article which you think is not supported by a verifiable reference, pls bring it up.

• This is a controversial topic. As an editor, I will tend to rm anything in this article which is not supported by a reliable citation.

Lastly, could we leave the Armenians out of this? Such talk can easily stray into WP:OR. Thanks. Gwen Gale 11:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a consensus to allow the inclusion in the article of some type of sourced material to address the imbalance caused by the current article's prevalent citation of rumors among Mormons of Missouri "Wildcats"? That is, not necessarily a precisely reciprocal citation of rumors among Missourians of "Mormon Danites" but rather to revert some of the sourced accusations against Utah territorial officials?

Then when I glanced up the talk page I saw that there's been a proposed edit to reference recent research by Fancher family historians which reflect their belief that the Baker party - who, remember started off from "Bellers Stand" - didn't really meet up with Captain Fancher's group - which actually didn't start off from Beller's Stand - before the two companies had arrived in Utah. (That is, as opposed to forty families supposed to have met up at Beller's Stand in Arkansas as our article currently says.) Although I'm new to Wikipedia in face of many of you more experienced hands, I nonetheless believe this proposed edit would have improved the article. I didn't mean to insult anyone by refering to the Don't-revert-good-faith-edits policy, the nuances of which I admit I don't understand fully; however, from what I understand the spirit of this enterprise to be it's my impression that if others wish for the article's original interpretation to be maintained we could then agree to quote sources for both interpretations?

Maybe I'm mistaken?...but from what I understand - as in love of art for the sake of art, improvements to precision in a Wikipedia article's wording is an admirable end in itself and we're supposed to strive toward a synthesis of good faith edits toward improvement rather than merely protect the status quo out of fear of faulty interpretations. So that, for example, in the case of whether the Baker party grouped with the others at a single place in Arkansas or not, to support any total revert of this material, the onus is actually on those championing the existing interpretation to impeach this interpretation from the newer-dated published research by historians of the victims' families...not the other way around?) :^) --Justmeherenow 19:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ya know, I'll try this another way to show I'm listening and waiting. Could you please simply and briefly list one single item of content you wish to change in this article along with a supporting citation from a reliable source? Once we've handled that one, we can carry on to the next. How's that? Cheers. Gwen Gale 19:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How about the proposed text

"The Fancher and the Huff parties both left from Benton County, Arkansas, the Poteet-Tackett-Jones party (These three men were relatives) from Johnson County, the Baker party from Carroll County near present day Harrison, the Cameron the the Miller parties (previously from the Osage area) left from Johnson County and the Mitchell, the Dunlap, and the Prewitt parties left from Marion County. They all left at different times with sometimes individuals joining and others leaving the individual parties along the way. The Baker party was the last of the parties to arrive with the rest who would unite under Captain Alexander Fancher's leadership as their wagon master at Salt Lake City, (Fancher, Wellner, 2007) where the emigrants faced the decision of either taking the northern route towards their hoped-for destination, which would entail their traveling westward across the dessert and Sierra Mountains and then southward through California, or the southern route which would carry them through the settlements in Utah. One couple among these assembled parties did hurry westward..." (reference deposition document archived on-line)

spliced to due the the lateness of the season ...and on --referencing Fancher, Lynn-Marie & Wallner, Alison C., "1857: An Arkansas Family Primer To The Mountain Meadows Massacre", 2007. Posted with permission of the authors)? --Justmeherenow 21:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is all the granularity as to family names important here? Were they among the massacred victims? Aside from this, are you aware that the article currently makes all the above clear, and sometimes in more detail? Gwen Gale 21:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My $.02, Why not start a seperate article titled the "Fancher Wagon Train" or something similar. Then have this (MMM) article briefly mention the makeup of the train and link to the new article for more information. To include so much information here about the Fancher wagon train could dilute the purpose of the article, with is after all, about the Massacre, not the Wagon train. Similar to how we purged information about John D. Lee earlier and moved it to a seperate article about Lee. If a seperate article is started about the Fancher Party, I would support removing the "missouri Wildcats" from this article and moving it to the the "Fancher Wagon Train" article with more detail.

On the other point in question above. I have no problem if the article BRIEFLY mention Danites and link to the Danites article. There is PLENTY of sidebar topics that can and will get dragged into this article if we don't adhere to this standard (keep this article about the massacre and only brief mentions of related topics). I can see 2 hours after somebody throws in a 3 paragraph subtopic about the Danites somebody else will throw in a 3 paragraph article about the Haun's Mill Massacre, Extermination Order or other pro-mormon side to this, then the next day somebody else will throw in a 3 paragraph subtopic about the covenents of the temple endowment or some other anti-lds side argument and so it goes. Sound Familiar (retorichal question to the long time participants in this article =-) )?

Davemeistermoab 22:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol > Davemeistermoab. OK I'll try to make a stub (stubs) - thanks. :^) --Justmeherenow 23:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is a lot of supportable info to be had about the Fancher party (in all its forms) between the time it first appeared in Arkansas and was slaughtered at MM yes, I think a separate article called Fancher party would be helpful. Gwen Gale 12:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

B. Young + lynchpin = MMM

September 1, 1857. I'm surprised that the diary of Dimick Huntington has not been introduced. According to Huntington, B. Young, met with the four southern Utah chiefs (September 1, 1857) telling them that if they help kill the Americans the Indians could have all the cattle on the California Trail South.(SEE Bagley. Chapter 6. PP 113-114).

Indian agent Garland Hurts's annual report excerpt. "Dirnie B.. Huntington, (interpreter for Brigham Young.) and Bishop West, of Ogden, came to the Snake village, and told the Indians that Brigham wanted them to run off the emigrants' cattle, and if they would do so they might have them as their own". See: Message of the President pages 96-98.Tinosa 16:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC) AGAIN! Tinosa 01:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tinosa. What do other sources say about it? Could it be backdated "hearsay"? Could be spot on but I'm worried about WP:OR is all. Gwen Gale 09:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

See Brooks, Chapter 3, pp140-142. See Bagley. Chapter 6. pp 113-114. See Denton. Chapter 11. p158. According to Brooks, the Journal of Church History describes an hour long meeting with the Chiefs on Sept. 1 but not the conversation. The Hamblin journal page for that day is torn out. Brooks speculates on the conversation. Bagley & Denton claim the journal of Huntington was found in 1999 which details the conversation. Tinosa 15:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Put it in then. I wasn't aware it has support. Gwen Gale 16:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

New article Fancher party Arkansas emigrant wagon train (Mountain Meadows massacre)

I notice that the new article, Fancher party Arkansas emigrant wagon train (Mountain Meadows massacre), includes some problematic material. There is a quotation attributed to "Fancher family historian" (name?) that incorrectly attributes to Wilford Woodruff the story that Brigham Young ordered the memorial cairn to be torn down. (Woodruff's diary recorded Young's visit to the memorial and his statement regarding vengeance, but did not say the the cairn was destroyed. The source for the destruction story is a family "legend" reported by Brooks (p. 183), which had been passed down from her grandfather, Dudley Leavitt.)

The new article also has a long quotation from Mark Twain that had been dropped from the MMM article. The quotation includes some factual inaccuracies (e.g., the massacre was on the 11th, not the 10th). Twain wrote many years after the massacre and was not an expert; he was relying on other secondary sources. I think the biggest problem, however, was that the old article had become a battleground in which quotations were being used for POV pushing. If the new article becomes a dumping ground for quotes and POV pushing that have been rejected for the main article, it will quickly become a candidate for articles for deletion.

The purpose of the new article is to provide some details on the Fancher party that are not needed for the main article. The same standards should apply to the new article as for the main article. All material must be encyclopedic, verified by high quality sources, and reflect a neutral point of view and avoid original research. BRMo 17:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm there are many worries here. The article title is too long. Nothing is cited. I suggested Fancher party. Speedy and try again? Gwen Gale 17:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

For starters, I've moved the content to Fancher party and will put a speedy tag on the other. Gwen Gale 17:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, almost everything there was a raw text or data dump, the rest was uncited PoV. Fancher party redirects here for now. Gwen Gale 18:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I won't be editing at all on the above article(s) but can't support a link from this article to a raw data and text dump. Gwen Gale 19:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Because Mark Twain says the ambushed travelers held up a baby dressed in white instead of Lee's merely waving the palm of his hand to signal he'd be willing to negotiate the embattled emigrants' passage to safety? Who cares. Mark Twain's rhetoric wasn't sensationalistic. It was ironic in spots - ironic that religious people, who you'd expect to look out for others, get caught up in atrocity. But what a low threshhold for pithy commentary hereabouts! I'm learning that Wikipedia's all about compromise. But my sythesis of how wagon trains left from various places in Arkansas is a "raw text...a dump...blah blah"? I'm offended. --Justmeherenow 03:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Article intro

Here is the article's current introductory section, minus the reference citation:

The Mountain Meadows massacre was a mass killing of emigrants, mostly from Arkansas, at Mountain Meadows, a stopover along the Old Spanish Trail in southwestern Utah, on Friday, September 11, 1857. Estimates of the number of men, women and children killed range from less than 100 to 140 individuals. The causes and circumstances remain highly controversial.

Why does it not identify the perpetrators of the killings? We get the victims and info on the number killed, but nothing about who was on the other side. According to the Manual of Style:

the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article (e.g. when a related article gives a brief overview of the topic in question). It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see news style and summary style). The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic unless that definition is implied by the title (such as 'History of …' and similar titles).

The lead section needs mention who was on both sides of the incident. Has this come up before in prior discussions? Jacob1207 06:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, no, it has not come up. Point is well stated. So how do we word this? "The killers were radical Mormons with some accounts having Paiute indian involvement"? How's that?

Davemeistermoab 14:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say radical, they were drawn from the mainstream of local LDS communities. Gwen Gale 15:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Gwen is correct; these were just your average Mormons who carried things to an extreme. I would reject an attempt to describe them as a people who were evil or exceptional. They lived their lives normally prior to the massacre and for whatever reason convinced themselves that killing a group of strangers was an acceptable choice. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. What do you suggest? Davemeistermoab 20:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Lee was convicted we can safely say "by a Utah military unit believed influenced by a radical provocateur"? Then for readers wanting background, provide links to articles about the regular LDS militia, the Nauvoo Legion turned Utah Territorial Militia, and the radical paramilitary group that Lee was associated with, the Danites turned Utah territorial secret service? --Justmeherenow 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Gwen Gale 20:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Slaughtering many dozens of people under the banner of a truce is both evil and exceptional and can never be considered acceptable, no matter the circumstances. Duke53 | ^Talk 08:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Duke, you missed my point. The people were not evil or exceptional. They were very ordinary individuals who did something that was atrociously evil. To understand this you must understand that average people are capable of doing incredible things given the right circumstances. Think of Pol Pot and the killing fields of Cambodia, Stalin and the gulags and the massive slaughter of many tens of thousands of Russians. We like to kid ourselves that evil actions demand evil people; it makes us feel better about ourselves. However, given the right set of circumstances each one of us might even have chosen to crucify our God; they were no different than you and me. If you think differently, remember the next time you seek to offend another. It always begins with just a word. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I like Storm Rider's answer enough to leave it there, myself. Gwen Gale 12:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Storm, you missed my point: the day they committed those murders they officially became evil and exceptional ... by choosing to take part in this horrific crime they sentenced themselves to an eternity in Hell. Duke53 | ^Talk 14:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm, that's PoV. From any theological standpoint it's utter codswallop for you to make that "judgement" yourself (about anyone but yourself). From a standpoint of WP policy, your take is unsupported: Most of the killers were family people from the local communities, in an isolated religious culture, doing what they were ordered to do as militia members. What they did was murder, criminal, ugly, so too "evil" if that word does it for you, but luzzing these qualitative adjectives into the article is PoV. Meanwhile, find a verifiable cite from a reliable publisher that calls these folks "evil" and we can put it in anyway for context but it must be referenced. Gwen Gale 14:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

POV? Here on the talk page? ... nice spin. If others can discuss Pol Pot, Stalin, etc. here, then I can make the point that the Mormons who committed this atrocity are evil also. Their slaughter of those innocent people under the cirumstances that took place was evil. 14:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you misunderstood me (and sorry if I misled you), your WP:CIVIL PoV is welcome here for context, please go for it :) It's ok with me, anyway. If I talk back about it, that's only cuz if I don't it might imply I'd be ok with this kind of stuff leaking into the article is all. Now, meanwhile, I do agree with you that the deeds themselves were utter "evil" (a word I dislike but nonethless tacitly accept in terms of moral responsibility) but I can't even begin with any notion the people themselves were "evil." Hey, my Calvinist ancestors might even say they were doomed to evil deeds, but calling them evil is not the same thing at all. Semantics? Naw. We're all cousins, but for the grace of [whatever] go I? Gwen Gale 15:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Gees it is good to have Duke back. I have missed that refreshing sense of God's own voice among us to set us straight. I really don't know how I survived these last many weeks of relative calm, neutral editing and discussion. It so enlivens the conversation when an all-knowing (even knows when someone is condemned to Hell is pretty all-knowing) is interjected into the mix. Welcome back; you have been deeply missed. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please don't ever study any type of philosophy or history in any depth; it would completely throw off that wonderful sense of all-knowhing you possess. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)