Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Untitled

Material archived from the Mountain Meadows massacre Talk page. (Sep 1 - Sep 30, 2007 approximate)

Subarticle(s)

The article currently is about 60 kB of readable prose. I can't find any featured articles longer than about 50 kB (e.g., The Lord of the Rings, Punk rock, Alcibiades). So that means we need to trim at least 10 kB or so by putting material into one or more subarticles, leaving behind a summary style section. Any thoughts on what parts to include? I think the Commentary and Commemoration sections are the weakest parts of the article as it now stands, so maybe it would make sense to put those into a subarticle. That way, we won't have to do the work to get them into shape for FA status, as long as we have a good summary. My second choice would probably be the "Conspiracy and massacre" section, since this is the section with the most potential for expanding down the road. This section alone could easily fill at least one article, when fully developed. COGDEN 19:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to respond. I think that the Commentary and Commemoration stuff is the weakest also. But as before, I am not in love with much of the background stuff either. My one thought about the C&C area is that it sort of ends the article on something of a positive note, which helps mitigate the dreadfulness of everything before it. And on all of the things in the introduction meant as "background explanation" I think there has been so much speculation on reasons and causes that it ought to be, at least, referred to. But I think it should be closer to the end -- for the hard core reader who wants to know much more than average. --Blue Tie 22:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also support branching the Commentary and Commemoration material into a distinct article. But one solid paragraph relating modern contact between survivors/family and LDS church should remain. WBardwin 22:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Federal investigations in 1859

The Utah War interrupted further federal investigation and the LDS Church conducted no investigation of its own. ??

It seems that a fellow named George A. Smith investigated the MMM in late July of 1858.

Just out of curosity, what dates did the "Utah War", the "Mormon War of 1857", the "Mormon Rebellion", or "Buchanans Blunder" begin and end?

12.72.174.96 16:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

George A Smith wrote a report to Brigham Young (BY), but there was no investigation done. It was an apologetic attempt to take blame from the Mormons as instigators and place it on the local Indian tribes. In about 1890, the church historian (Jenson?) collected source material in the form of oral histories, diaries, etc. related to the massacre. This material has never been made available to outside scholars or researchers. It is evidently the basis for Turley's manuscript submitted to Oxford University Press.

The troops were ordered out to Utah in the first half of 1857, with the Mormons learning of troop movements about July 24th. Senate Document 71 deals with the dispatching and a letter from General Winfield Scott to General W. S. Harney is dated June 29, 1857. The first official contact was in early September when Van Vliet arrived in SLC. In April 1858 the offer of amnesty was made to the Mormons. BY accepted the pardon in in early June 1858. The troops marched through SLC to the future of Camp Floyd on June 26, 1858. Source: Poll, Richard D (1961). ""Buchanan's Blunder" The Utah War, 1857-1858". Military Affairs. 25 (3 pt. 1): pp. 121-131. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Settlers (ordered by BY to evacuate) began returning home from evacuation sites By July 1, 1858.

--Robbie Giles 13:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. GA Smith did investigate. That was where his report came from... his investigation. I believe I have read journal entries by people involved of how LEE escorted Smith around to obtain information on this investigation (I even think it was called an "examination"). Since Lee was one of the instigators, it is not surprising that as HE lined up the witnesses and and HE escorted Smith around and then HE sat and HE listened as they gave their stories to Smith, that things were whitewashed. But I do not think that there is any objective evidence that Smith whitewashed anything. On the other hand, it does not sound like a competent investigation, as later investigations showed. However, it is wrong to say that there was no investigation. An allegory of sorts may be on the Pat Tillman killing. Some investigations found out one story and other investigations found out other stories. Were the ones that did not reveal the truth not investigations? No, they were. But they were just not as good as the others. --Blue Tie 20:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the best source for GA Smith's investigation? I need to look at those again with an eye to correcting this statement. I will look also at the major ones. How about this? (Or something like, as this is very rough.)

Brigham Young commissioned a report of the massacre for the church and George A Smith submitted his findings in (or on) DATE. (Then a citation to the appropriate source.)

I guess I am too cynical about poor old GASmith. The best construction on his report is he interviewed people who lied to him about the event; the worst is he wrote what BY wanted to hear. I want to see an objective statement that reflects facts and leaves interpretation to the reader. --Robbie Giles 15:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to say "I will work on it", when I realized I can't. My dad has had a stroke and I have had to be with him. I can rarely research anyway, because I am always traveling, but some weekends I can get home and look things up. Not now. However, I will see what I might dig up anyway. --Blue Tie 22:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A red-typefaced editor recently, for the umpteenth time, removed the article's mention of what really should by now be referring to as Turley (et al)'s alleged manuscript (even though I personally take it on faith such a manuscript at one time had existed :^)

--ALLEGORICALLY "FROM MISSOURI": THE "SHOW ME" STATE ;^) Justmeherenow 14:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Paiute participation

All reports indicate Paiutes were present and participated in the attack. This is not just an allegation. Kanosh reported that Moquets died of a wound he received during the initial siege. Jackson (brother of Moquets) reported to Carleton that BY ordered Paiute participation in writing. Dimmick Huntington was the person the Native Americans identify as the bearer of the orders. Jackson indicated to Carleton that he and his brother participated in the original attack. His brother died of a leg wound received in the initial attack. What is also made clear by Klingensmith and Indian statements is the majority of killings were done by the Mormons, and not the Paiutes.

I propose the following sentence in the introduction. Hopefully, this will help stop the small edit war on this content. I will not make any changes until it has been discussed here.

• (version 1) The Mountain Meadows massacre was a mass killing of the Fancher-Baker wagon train at Mountain Meadows in Utah Territory on September 11, 1857, by members of the local Mormon militia and Paiute auxiliaries.
• (version 2) The Mountain Meadows massacre was a mass killing of the Fancher-Baker wagon train at Mountain Meadows in Utah Territory on Friday, September 11, 1857, by Mormons, some disquised as Native Americans and their alleged Paiute Allies.
• (suggested version for compromise) The Mountain Meadows massacre began as an attack on the Fancher-Baker wagon train at Mountain Meadows in Utah Territory in September 1857 by members of the local Mormon militia and local Paiute tribesmen recruited by the militia. It culminated on September 11, 1857, in a mass killing of the unarmed emigrants by the militia after they surrendered to the Mormons.

This proposed statement is intentionally vague on the participation of the Paiutes in the actual killings because the 4th paragraph of the intro further explains the actual killings. I have also dropped the day of the week, but will discuss this in another talk section. I left out the "disguised as Paiutes" statement, as it is discussed fully in the article.

I am waiting for the first volleys on this suggestion. --Robbie Giles 16:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The suggested version sounds good to me. alanyst ^/talk/ 17:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Attack. "I stand corrected" There is no doubt that the Piutes participated in the initial attacks of the train. It seems that the Piutes of Beaver volunteered information that they did indeed paticipate before the Mormons slit the emigrants throats in the massacre. (Hurt's Report)

(Cradlebaugh) Chief Jackson in the presense of Maj. Carleton, & Capt. Campbell. "a portion of their men engaged in the massacre, but were not there when the attack commenced.

LOCAL MORMON MILITIA? Were the local Southern Utah cowboys, an unorganized bunch of yahoos or were they an organized militia with a command structure? Were all of the Mormon insurgents local?

True or False? The Mountain Meadows massacre was a mass killing of the Fancher-Baker wagon train at Mountain Meadows in Utah Territory on Friday, September 11, 1857, by Mormons, some disquised as Native Americans and their Paiute Allies.

12.72.173.37 20:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Tinosa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinosa (talk • contribs) 00:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I made a suggestion for two revised sentences to begin the introduction to the article. I expanded to include the initial attack in addition to the actual final killings. That is new. I attempted to address the issue of Paiute participation, as it was a fact they participated, and not simply an allegation. The description of the final killings states the killings were done by the militia. Yes, the Mormons were an organized militia, with a command structure and a history of orders, payroll records, and unit rosters. From all participant and witness accounts, the sixty or so Mormons were from the Iron County military district. The descriptions of Paiute participation vary wildly from forty to six hundred. Bigler actually gives a good comparison of numbers from various participant and witness accounts. Tom and Holt present the Paiute oral histories which support the account that most of the killings were done by Mormons and not Paiutes. Paiute Tribe of Utah

This is not simply revisionist history. Many editors have worked on this to use reliable sources with a variety of interpretations to present as balanced a report of this event as possible. I asked for comments on my suggestions, and do not understand what this response means. The True/False statement above is an additional version, not either of the two currently being used in back-and-forth edits. Are you proposing that instead of what I suggested?

I left out the day of the week, as there is no significance I can find to the actual day of the week. The massacre was actually a multi-day event, with some deaths occurring prior to Friday. No substantive reason has ever been given to support inclusion of the day. The majority of editors have suggested it be left out in prior discussions. If you have a specific reason for including the day in addition to the date, please discuss it in the next section.

One editor, in June or July, suggested seeking Featured Article status on this topic for the 150th anniversary coming up in less than two weeks. Editors have been trying to furnish full information, complete with citations and illustrations. The back-and-forth edits over the day of the week and alleged or actual participation by the natives have served only as a diversion and wasted time. If editors truly are interested in the topic and motivated to produce an article, we will stop chasing these two Red herrings and work on other areas which may still need critical review.

Unless you clearly state what is your preference, your entire response adds nothing to this discussion. Sarcasm, irony, innuendo, or any other ploys are excellent in face-to-face repartees. They are much less understandable in writing. If you have a preference, can you state it? --Robbie Giles 14:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

An Expert in Western history & an Expert in the History of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. This is surely a pleasurable experience.

If it is not to much trouble for your excellency, would it be possible to cite the contributions you have made to the article. Also, I noticed that you have made it difficult to add or modify references. Is that your form of censorship?

Paragraph (1),(2),(3). Agree or Disagree! If nothing else, you have a sense of humor.

Out of curiosity? Since you obviously have spent little time learning about the History of the Mountain Massacre, what drew your interest to this subject?Tinosa 02:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)tinosa

I request that you remain civil in this discussion. Your attempts to ridicule my participation are not appreciated. I refuse to get into an argument with you over this.

• I made a suggestion for an edit on the talk page before adding it to an article which has seen numerous edits.

• I asked for comments on my suggestion.

• You have accused me of censoring the article. If you are unfamiliar with the Harvard references, here is information on the use of this format in Wikipedia. The format was actually added by another editor and I have made my subsequent edits using the same format.

• You have cast aspersions on my abilities as a volunteer editor. I need no credentials. I do not need your approval. I do not need your permission. I am old enough to appreciate myself and my abilities with or without your approval. If my edits are unhelpful, poorly constructed, or in need of revision, the other editors will make the necessary changes to them. In this case, I sought consensus on a proposed change. I did not make a drastic change to the article. I have changed nothing in the actual article, merely made suggestions on two topics.

• Again I request: Unless you clearly state what is your preference regarding my suggestion, your entire response to this section adds nothing to this discussion. Sarcasm, irony, innuendo, or any other ploys are excellent in face-to-face repartees. They are much less understandable in writing. If you have a preference, can you state it? Otherwise, let interested parties work on the article, and go bug other people.

Here's hoping we can continue the collaboration among the editors we have achieved over the past ten weeks. I remain hopeful. --Robbie Giles 03:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the absence of any coherent arguments to the contrary, I suggest that the version Robbie Giles proposes be instituted. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I liked Robbie's version. Isn't it on there now? Incidentally, though the paiutes were sometimes considered peaceful root diggers, I also think they were known to savagely massacre people from time to time when moved my emotion. I also believe that the recent forensic investigation (despite what the SL Tribune articles implied) indicated that some skulls were not shot but smashed in -- which is how the indians were said to have killed some of the settlers. Whites could have smashed heads too, but I do not recall that being described as a method they used. Also, the forensics were done on a few bodies dug in one place, but supposedly the whites and the indians killed the people at some distinct distance apart from one another. The accounts from the trial seem to indicate that the whites mostly killed men, but there were quite a few women and girls killed also. Who did it? On the other hand, I have my doubts that the indians were strongly motivated to kill women. The account of Ruth Dunbar's killing shows that the indian wanted to spare her and Lee killed her. But it also suggests she got away from the indians who were chasing her. I bring all this up to say: The fact that the Paiutes deny killing people is not surprising. So did many whites. But killing did happen... and probably by people who denied it. Denials are not the same thing as certain innocence but what is certain is that the indians were there. --Blue Tie 22:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I will implement my proposed change later today. According to WP:Consensus the community has agreed to support the edit proposed on Aug 30. While there is a minor dissent on the day of the week, the following sentence from the official policy covers this:

However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice.

The change to the opening paragraph will be as follows:

The Mountain Meadows massacre began as an attack on the Fancher-Baker wagon train at Mountain Meadows in Utah Territory in September 1857 by members of the local Mormon militia and local Paiute tribesmen recruited by the militia. It culminated on September 11, 1857, in a mass killing of the unarmed emigrants by the militia after they surrendered to the Mormons.

Thanks for participating in this discussion. I will repeat this in the day of the week discussion section. --Robbie Giles 16:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Day of the week in opening paragraph

I propose we drop the day of the week from the opening paragraph of the article. I believe this has been discussed before and no logical explanation was ever given for adding the day. All editors, save one, agreed the day was superfluous. In the previous segment, I proposed other changes, so they are listed here as well.

• (suggested version for compromise) The Mountain Meadows massacre began as an attack on the Fancher-Baker wagon train at Mountain Meadows in Utah Territory in September 1857 by members of the local Mormon militia and local Paiute tribesmen recruited by the militia. It culminated on September 11, 1857, in a mass killing of the unarmed emigrants by the militia after they surrendered to the Mormons.

The actual day of the week is mentioned in the expanded section later in the article.

Unless a cogent argument for retaining the day of the week is put forward, I want to make the suggested changes after a period of discussion. I will notify the parties involved in making the recent back and forth changes. --Robbie Giles 17:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to join the "Friday Club" a while ago but was rebuked. I really wish there was a reason to include this fact so I wouldn't have to be here, but no such luck. I actually didn't revert the article when "Friday" appeared in the second sentence since it wasn't as offensive to me there, but in the very first sentence? That seems to get to me :) Anyways, I guess we'll see what happens this time around. Cheers, --Tom 17:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the suggested compromise version. I also reiterate my earlier position that it's not a big deal either way, whether Friday is in the lead or not, but that I find the version without it slightly more preferable. alanyst ^/talk/ 17:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

" ... I find the version without it slightly more preferable". And I still find the version with it in the lead sentence far more preferable. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you mind if I ask why? TIA --Tom 12:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't mind at all, but it's been asked and answered previously, counselor. Check the edit history. TIA. Duke53 | ^Talk 14:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, Duke53's arguments from the history can be summarized as "it's factual", "useful information", "contributes to the flow in reading the article", and "what does it hurt to leave it in". I don't think he's argued anything about the day of week actually having special significance, or why mentioning it in the body without having it in the lead is unacceptable. My take is that his rationale is no stronger (but also no weaker) than the rationale for removing it from the lead, though he may be more emphatic about expressing his preference. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

<outdent>Thanks alanyst. Just to reiterate my case. When I see the day mentioned it peeks(sp) my curiosity as to why its being mentioned. I ask "is there a reason for that?" Anyways, --Tom 16:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that Duke53 added "Friday" back into the lead sentence today. Is there ANY consensus either way? It seems that the ownus(sp) is on the folk(s) arguing for inclusion rather than the folks who don't think its relevant to the lead. Anyways, --Tom 15:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

1 Jos. Smith reveals the anniversay of the Nativity to be April 6--which, incidentally, coincides with the date the church was formally organized

2 Pope Gregory authoritatively establishes the West's Good Friday in relation to Passover, itself reckoned for millennia by direct commandments. And eighteen fifty-seven's Good Friday I think was March 27.

3 The closest Friday to the midpoint between April 6 and March 27 (viz, to April Fools Day, April 1) in 1857 is April 3. Exactly half a lunar year or 25 weeks later is.....September 11, 1857. --Justmeherenow 18:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

*Grin.* Don't forget that Robinson Crusoe's man was named Friday. That's gotta figure in somehow too. :) alanyst ^/talk/ 18:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am shocked at this horrid display of humor! Stunned even. I can not undestand why the stated reason, BECAUSE I WANT IT THAT WAY!! is not good enough for you uncouth fools. Damnation, it is almost as if you think your opinions are of value on Wikipedia. What part of owning this article don't you understand? Friday is necessary in the lead sentence first and foremost, because he wants it that way and a distant second, because it lends an appropriate lead into some valuable piece of evidence that will condemn Brigham Young, that scoundrel of the west. Unfortunately, this remarkable piece of evidence has been omitted from the article up until now; however, it is forthcoming and you must be patient. You will eventually learn that it is a stylistically appropriate doodad necessary for true literature...once that missing piece of information is added. I request that you politely hold your breath until it is added. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no point in adding the day of the week. It halts the flow, adds volume -- even if it is one word -- and cannot provide any helpful insights. I will agree with Duke that it is factual but nothing else that he argues for its inclusion makes sense to me. --Blue Tie 22:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I will implement my proposed change later today. According to WP:Consensus the community has agreed to support the edit proposed on Aug 30. While there is a minor dissent on the day of the week, the following sentence from the official policy covers this:

However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice.

The change to the opening paragraph will be as follows:

The Mountain Meadows massacre began as an attack on the Fancher-Baker wagon train at Mountain Meadows in Utah Territory in September 1857 by members of the local Mormon militia and local Paiute tribesmen recruited by the militia. It culminated on September 11, 1857, in a mass killing of the unarmed emigrants by the militia after they surrendered to the Mormons.

Thanks for participating in this discussion. I will repeat this in the Paiute participation discussion section. --Robbie Giles 16:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"One editor, in June or July, suggested seeking Featured Article status on this topic for the 150th anniversary coming up in less than two weeks."

IMO, this article is far from being qualified for Featured Article status. It seems that the surviving children were bought and sold (and even traded) by folks after the massacre, but the article cannot describe them as being kidnapped, even though there is no indication (or proof) that any of these children willingly or voluntarily went to live with the mormon families they ended up with. This is one major flaw in the article, AFAIAC. Duke53 | ^Talk 14:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's go!: ("let's" meaning mostly Robbie unless more folks show up expert in this kind of mortis and tenon joinery. Actually I'm neutral about the concept of a "featured article" itself--tho I'd love it if it were to become one--if that makes any sense? I/e the anniversay is an arbitrarily useful deadline for ed's to fact check/ winnow/ polish-for-flow & actualize some more A-Well-Researched-Article-On-This-Topic's potential..... SWITZERLAND Justmeherenow 17:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There are certainly some important missing information, but it might still be close to FA status. There's no requirement that the article be 100% comprehensive. We've done the peer review, and didn't get much comment. I guess the question is, what needs to be done before FA nomination? If we clean up the rough edges, is that enough, or do we need something else significant? I'm not sure, and I've been hoping an outsider would provide comments, but thus far nobody has really stepped forward. Meeting the Sept. 11 date might not be feasible at this point, but we can shoot for as soon thereafter as possible. COGDEN 18:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as the FA status is concerned. I think the article is getting there. My criticism a few months ago was that the article devoted too much space to tangential details and background information. Now that this info is starting to be moved to sub and related articles (as it should) I think it's getting better, with more to do.

As far as the kidnapping is concerned: IMO this would take the article away from FA status rather than towards it. FA articles generally avoid inflammatory language, meaning a serious charge such as kidnapping would need supporting evidence. No reputable analysis of the massacre has so far used that word. I think the accusations can stay with murder and pillage, which are serious enough charges that have supporting evidence and avoid dragging the article into questionable areas. But then this topic has already been argued ad nauseum on this talk page before with no resolution. It seems almost as futile as trying to resolve if "Friday" belongs in the lead sentence.Davemeistermoab 22:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Look up the definition of kidnapping; what happened to these poor little children was kidnapping, although the 'ransom' wasn't paid until years later (in the form of payment to the mormon families for 'taking care' of these children who had become their slaves). Just because no 'reputable' source uses that exact term to describe the incident doesn't mean that it isn't factual or true. Tapdancing around this issue also doesn't make those murderers and thieves look any better to most people. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking up the definition of kidnapping and applying it to the incident when no reputable source says it was a kidnapping would violate WP:OR and add WP:UNDUE weight to the issue. Bytebear 23:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying that you don't believe those children were kidnapped? Common sense goes a long way when trying to understand things. "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, chances are it's a duck"Duke53 | ^Talk 23:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am saying the experts who have investigated, studied, and written about the subject at length do not say they were kidnapped. 23:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bytebear (talk • contribs)

I do not believe that they were kidnapped as I understand the word particularly as the word "Kidnap" would have been understood in the mid-19th century -- which is how an historical subject from the mid-19th century should be treated. I understand it to mean that that individuals (particularly children) are taken for the express purpose of RANSOM or as a HOSTAGE in a barganing situation.

As I recall, the term originally applied to ANY stealing of a child for the purpose of enrichment, whether as ransom or sold as a slave. Over time, it gradually developed a change in definition wherein it no longer applied strictly to children and where it may not require any sort of enrichment. Just the forceful taking of a person against their will.

And generally speaking, in the mid-19th century, they used a different term when such sorts of massacres occurred with people being taken. (typically both women and children would be taken - rarely men would also be taken). Instead of it being called kidnapping it was called "capturing" or "taking captives".

However, in these instances of "captivation", the individuals were also made to be slaves of the capturing party or they were literally locked up in prisons. Now, I know of some instances of poor treatment of the kids from the MMM (whether it was intentional or simply a matter of circumstances in rural 19th century Utah, I'm not sure), but it did not amount to slavery from what I can tell, and they were not imprisoned. So, this might not fully fit the normal expectation of "captivation".

Captivation would be closer to the right word -- though perhaps not perfect, but it is very much a term that comes out of the 19th century and does not read correctly in modern language. I am not sure we have a word any more for this type of thing, done by one group to another, which we do not see in modern civilized America or Europe. There may be no "appropriate" word and only the description of the act can suffice.--Blue Tie 23:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"Captive" was the term used during this period (and still used by historians) when "white" children were taken and held by Indian tribes and individuals. Some of these individuals were sold as slaves (as were Indian women and children in the same situation) and some were adopted into families and communities. I would support the use of "captive" here. WBardwin 23:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the experts who have investigated, studied, and written about the subject at length do say that those poor little children were bought, sold and traded, but since they don't explicitly refer to them as 'slaves' I suppose that this was just an alternate method of 'caring for' them. Duke53 | ^Talk 23:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Bytebear, No concensus will be reached on this point. This argument is 2 years old (that I know of) with the same players not moving an inch. It's an emotional hotbutton; facts and logic be damned. I regret not just ignoring the point, knowing it would go nowhere. I should have known better. Davemeistermoab 00:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Logically speaking, these children were kidnapped and held as slaves. Period. There isn't enough whitewash in the entire world to cover those facts.Duke53 | ^Talk 00:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Tho Duke gives an impression he champions the issue mostly to kvetch about the "middle ground" nature of Wikipedia (not that there's anything wrong with that--Blue Tie so often rends his garments concerning subtle distinctions going the other way!...), if it is reeeally important to find consensus a compromise could be fashioned to use sourced descriptions of "bartered" etc w/o invoking "kidnapping" per se? --Justmeherenow 00:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see how the kids could be kidnapped if their parents were killed and they had no home to be "napped" from. I'd say it was more like, the militia assigned them to guardians, who like any guardian, made them do work around the farm without pay. COGDEN 01:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"JIM CROW" or "OLD CROW"?

KIDNAPPED? (Brooks p.140-141) "8 to 10 children sold to the whites". "2 children in his house" neither would kneel for prayers. "would swear like pirates"

KIDNAPPED? (message of the president p.79. J. Forney) "The children were sold out at Cedar City, Harmoney, & Painter Creek"

KIDNAPPED? (message of the president p. 15. Capt Campbell) "The infants were taken to Ceadar City, where they were either sold or given away to such of the Mormons who desired them"

KIDNAPPED? (brooks. Appendix XI/Valley Tan. Rogers) Rachel Hamblin-"Lee went through the form of selling or bartering off all the children by two".

KIDNAPPED? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinosa (talk • contribs) 03:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC) (Sarah Francis Baker. Bagley p 237) "'They sold us from one family to another"

KIDNAPPED? (Cadlebaugh Speech. John Sorrow) "Oh I wish I were a man. I know what I would do; I would shoot John Lee; I saw him shoot my mother. I shall never forget how he looked."

Mann. Those Lemonite infants were lucky to have been napped!

Well, Mr Duke, try a few edits. Within a week an editor who fiddles will convert your edits into unrecognizable fabble unless they accepted by the bro"HOOD". Good luck!12.72.173.73 01:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Tinosa

And that's all you have to do. The quote from Sarah Baker is included in the article and speaks for itself. I would have no problem adding more of these quotes. In fact I see the last one as adding value for showing the children's feelings towards the killers of their parents. No editorial comment required, again the quote speaks for itsself.

No intelligent person would continue reading an article about Hitler that stated "Hitler was an EVIL man", the article would be instantly discredited as written by idiots for idiots. Any article about Hitler by a self respecting author would state the known facts and let the reader figure out for themselves how evil he was.

For this article. State some of the children were sold to locals. State the locals were compensated by the federal government. State the children hated living with the locals. Let the reader draw their conclusions. Intelligent ones will, non-intelligent ones will stop reading at the 3rd paragraph anyways. Nobody wants your conclusions (i.e. they were kidnapped) rammed down their throat. I don't know why this is such a hard concept to grasp. And yes, kidnapped is a conclusion after reading those quotes. it is not the conclusion everybody will reach. Davemeistermoab 02:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"I don't see how the kids could be kidnapped if their parents were killed and they had no home to be "napped" from". Oookay then ... people must have a home and two live parents to be eligible to be kidnapped. But wait a mo', these children were transients on their way to their new homes and they would have had parents if they hadn't been slaughtered by murderous thieves. Silly children to put themselves in such a situation.

Would you happen to have a 'reputable' source showing that your criteria must be met for it to be considered a kidnapping? TIA.

ETA: Since you brought up Hitler (Godwin's law, anybody?) is it safe to say that we should be thankful that the Gestapo were guardians of all those children whose parents had been exterminated? <sarcasm> I have been upset for years that they didn't pay those kids, but am starting to realize that they were just following protocol in all things kidnapping </sarcasm>. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah It's cliche, but it makes the point. So can the cliche "if it walks like a duck..." if used appropriately. Stated with another analogy, a good author doesn't have to state he is using sarcasm. A good author uses sarcasm and the intelligent readers get it.Davemeistermoab 03:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is from a previous entry on this page: "Sarcasm, irony, innuendo, or any other ploys are excellent in face-to-face repartees. They are much less understandable in writing. I know that I can write well enough ... what I was unsure about is the intelligence of the readers here. After reading some of the crap on this page I have a better idea about that now, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke53 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Reminder and request

For several months, we have worked on this article in relative harmony. Yes, there have been disagreements, but the name calling and impertinent comments were held to a minimum. I strongly suggest we cool down the rhetoric here. A talk page is supposed to be a place to try out ideas and to hash out differences. Value judgments about people's statements on this page are provocative and not very helpful. You have a perfect right to think anything you like, but are requested by Wikipedia to remain civil and refrain from attacks.

Provocation may be given on this page by some editors, but those who are truly interested in editing this article do not have to respond. We have lots of work to do on this article. There is major editing needed throughout to work on tense, grammar, fact checking, and cohesiveness. Articles written by a group always need coordination to keep the "story" flowing smoothly. This to me is our task here. Pointless discussions about opinion get us no where. I actually believe this may be the intention of the provocateurs who have joined in the fray (again) recently.

This is a sensitive subject for an article. Over time, this article has expanded, and move to a fact-based and documented entry. It is not perfect, but recent changes have been held to a fairly high standard based on reliable and recognized (academically) sources. The editors involved have diligently checked multiple books, government documents, and online church records. Where possible, we have replaced polemic or apologetic sources with more balanced ones. I respect the work done to this point and would work again with many of these folks on other articles. Although we probably have different cultural, educational and religious backgrounds and biases, this has not interfered in the work we have done recently.

So:

• I intend to continue editing in a collaborative mode.
• I choose to ignore discussions that take us away from editing for substance.
• I want to contribute where I am strongest and will respect other's strengths and talents.
• I choose to continue asking for comments on the talk page and not engaging in edit wars over minutia.
• I will not be run off by personal attacks of a few troglodytes.
• I choose to set limits on my behavior when it comes to responding in kind to those who attack me personally or my writing.

Yes, it is all about me. Wikipedia articles are something I enjoy writing, editing, and reading. I believe in the collaborative nature of humankind. I am not in this to take abuse or become involved in combat. I can't control how others respond to me or situations, but I can choose how I respond. Wikipedia has methods of dealing with disruptive editors. It may be slow, but it can and does work. There are those watching this article who know some of the players and will call us on boorish or brutish behavior. So on with the editing, there is lots to do. --Robbie Giles 13:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"You have a perfect right to think anything you like, but are requested by Wikipedia to remain civil and refrain from attacks" Odd that you would follow that statement with this: "this may be the intention of the provocateurs who have joined in the fray (again) recently".

An agent provocateur (plural: agents provocateurs) is a person assigned to provoke unrest, violence, debate, or argument by or within a group while acting as a member of the group but covertly representing the interests of another. In general, agents provocateurs seek to secretly disrupt a group's activities from within the group.

I'm guessing that you are allowed to think anything you like, but also are permitted by Wikipedia to label other editors and make personal attacks. Feh. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC).

No I am not free to behave as I have asked others not to. I am bound by the same (self-imposed) code of conduct. Only I can control how I choose to respond, and I do choose to follow the Wikipedia guidelines. But I actually prefer the French etymology of the word provocateur which means "one who provokes." I did not, in fact, use the term agent provocateur. --Robbie Giles 03:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Our MMM article five months ago

While an artist can capture an essential likeness in a few masterful strokes, a bumbler will conscientiously peer at our model and dab and redab yet miss something essential. (In whatever genre: I'm sure there are "expert" primitivists and not as good primitivists?--along with competing ideas of aethetics; but be that as it may-- ) Sometimes we look at our latest effort and compare it to what we had and ask, Is what we've done an improvement? So if we scrape off five-months of dribble-drabble from our Em-em canvass, will its underlying strokes applied by predecessors actually be more representive and suggestive of our topic's essentials?

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.

Fancher party

In the spring of 1857 approximately forty families of European ancestry, mostly from Marion, Crawford, Carroll, and Johnson counties in Arkansas, assembled into a wagon train at Beller's Stand, south of Harrison, Arkansas for the purpose of emigrating to southern California. This group was initially referred to as both the Baker train and the Perkins train, but after being joined by other Arkansas trains and making its way west, was soon called the Fancher train (or party) after "Colonel" Alexander Fancher who, having already made the journey to California twice before, had become its main leader. By contemporary standards the Fancher party was prosperous, carefully organized and well-equipped for the journey. They were subsequently joined along the way by families and individuals from other states, including Missouri.

Travel through Utah

They arrived in Utah Territory in July with over 900 head of cattle but were running low on some supplies and reached Salt Lake City on August 3 1857, only days before Mormon leader and Utah Territorial Governor Brigham Young had declared martial law in response to potential hostilities with the United States government. Under orders of President James Buchanan, United States Army troops were advancing toward Utah, resulting in what would later be called the Utah War.

The Fancher party set out on the northern route to California, but because of the lateness of the season turned back and took the southern route, which led them into southwestern Utah. The Mormons they encountered along the way were suspicious of Gentiles and most declined to trade with them for several reasons, including Young's declaration of martial law, his orders discouraging the trading of food with immigrants and his orders forbidding people from traveling through the territory without a pass, which the Fancher party did not have (the train's leadership may not have been aware of Young's declaration of martial law since it was not made public until a reissue on September 15 ).

The wagon train may have been joined by a group of eleven miners and plainsmen who called themselves "Missouri Wildcats," some of whom reportedly taunted, vandalized and "caused trouble" for Mormons and Native Americans along the route (by some accounts claiming they had the gun that "shot the guts out of Old Joe Smith") and stories of this spread through Mormon communities. However, it is uncertain whether the Missouri Wildcat group stayed with the slow-moving Fancher party after leaving Salt Lake City, or even existed. Either way, popular Mormon leader Parley P. Pratt had been murdered in Arkansas a few months earlier (by the ex-husband of one of Pratt's plural wives) and news of his death had only recently begun to arrive in the area. These rumors, martial law, threats of war and limited supplies all likely influenced individual Mormons who didn't sell food to the Fancher party.

Cedar City meetings

As the Fancher party approached Mountain Meadows, several meetings were held in Cedar City and nearby Parowan by local LDS ("Latter-Day Saints") leaders pondering how to implement Young's declaration of martial law. They decided to "eliminate" the Fancher wagon train, but hesitated and sent a rider to Salt Lake City (a six day round trip on horseback) for Brigham Young's advice. Meanwhile, organization among the local Mormon leadership reportedly broke down.

Mountain Meadows

The hungry, somewhat dispirited Fancher party found water and fresh grazing for its livestock after reaching grassy, mountain-ringed Mountain Meadows, a widely known stopover on the old Spanish Trail, in early September. They anticipated several days of rest and recuperation there. On September 7 the party was attacked by a group of Native American Paiutes and Mormon militiamen dressed as Native Americans. The Fancher party defended itself by encircling and lowering their wagons, wheels chained together, along with digging shallow trenches and throwing dirt both below and into the wagons, which made a strong barrier. Seven emigrants were killed during the opening attack and were buried somewhere within the wagon encirclement. Sixteen more were wounded. The attack continued for five days, during which the besieged families had little or no access to fresh water or game food and their ammunition was depleted.

On Friday, September 11 two Mormon militiamen approached the Fancher party wagons with a white flag and were soon followed by Indian agent and militia officer John D. Lee. Lee told the battle-weary emigrants he had negotiated a truce with the Paiutes, whereby they could be escorted safely to Cedar City under Mormon protection in exchange for leaving all their livestock and supplies to the Native Americans. Accepting this, they were split into three groups. Seventeen of the youngest children along with a few mothers and the wounded were put into wagons, which were followed by all the women and older children walking in a second group. Bringing up the rear were the adult males of the Fancher party, each walking with an armed Mormon militiaman at his right. Making their way back northeast towards Cedar City, the three groups gradually became strung out and visually separated by shrubs and a shallow hill. After about 2 kilometers, all of the men, women, older children and wounded were massacred by Mormon militia and Paiutes who had hidden nearby. A few who escaped the initial slaughter were quickly chased down and killed. Two teenaged girls, Rachel and Ruth Dunlap, managed to clamber down the side of a steep gully and hide among a clump of oak trees for several minutes. They were spotted by a Paiute chief from Parowan, who took them to Lee. 18 year old Ruth Dunlap reportedly fell to her knees and pleaded, "Spare me, and I will love you all my life!" (Lee denied this). 50 years later, a Mormon woman who was a child at the time of the massacre recalled hearing LDS women in St. George say both girls were raped before they were killed.

All of the Mormon participants in the massacre were then sworn to secrecy. The many dozens of bodies were hastily dragged into gullies and other low lying spots, then lightly covered with surrounding material which was soon blown away by the weather, leaving the remains to be scavenged and scattered by wildlife.

Surviving children

Approximately seventeen children were deliberately spared because of their young ages. In the hours following the massacre Lee directed Philip Kingensmith and possibly two others to take the children (a few of whom were wounded) to the nearby farm of Jacob Hamblin, a local Indian agent. Later, under the direction of Jacob Forney, the non-Mormon Superintendent of Indian Affairs for Utah, the children were placed in the care of local Mormon families pending an investigation of the matter and notification of kin. However, some accounts relate that Lee sold or bartered the children to whatever Mormon families would take them. Sarah Francis Baker, who was three years old at the time of the massacre, later said: "They sold us from one family to another."

Aftermath

The Pauites reportedly received a portion of the Fancher party's significant livestock holdings as compensation for their part in the massacre. Many of the murdered emigrants' other belongings (including blood stained and bullet-riddled clothing stripped from the victims' corpses) were brought to Cedar City and stored in the cellar of an LDS warehouse as "property taken at the siege of Sebastopol."[7] There are conflicting accounts as to whether these items were auctioned off or simply taken by members of the local population. Some of the surviving children subsequently claimed to have seen Mormons wearing their dead parents' clothing and jewelry.

In 1859, two years after the massacre, Brevet Major James Henry Carleton arrived in the area to investigate. He and Hamblin went to Mountain Meadows where they found women's hair tangled in sage brush and the bones of children still in their mothers' arms. Carleton later said it was "a sight which can never be forgotten." After gathering up the skulls and bones of those who had died, Carleton's troops buried them and erected a rock cairn inscribed with the words, Here 120 men, women, and children were massacred in cold blood early in September, 1857. They were from Arkansas, along with a cross bearing the words, Vengeance is mine. I will repay, saith the Lord.

Meanwhile Forney and Governor Cummings directed Hamblin and Carleton to gather up the surviving children from local families and transport them to Salt Lake City, after which they were united with extended family members in Arkansas and other states. Several Mormon families claimed and received financial compensation from the federal government for the children's care and even protested that the amounts paid were insufficient although the conditions some of the children lived under were severely criticised.

Carleton issued a scathing report to the United States Congress, blaming local and senior church leaders for the massacre, however years later only Lee was charged with murder for his involvement. Lee's first trial ended in a mistrial but he was convicted on re-trial and executed by firing squad at Mountain Meadows.

The causes and circumstances of the Mountain Meadows Massacre remain contested and highly controversial. Although there is no evidence that Brigham Young ordered or condoned the massacre, the involvement of various church officials in both the murders and concealing evidence in their aftermath is still questioned. Moreover, while by all accounts native American Paiutes were present, historical reports of their numbers and the details of their participation are contradictory.

Starting in 1988 descendants of both the Fancher party victims and the Mormon participants collaborated to design and dedicate a monument to replace the neglected and crumbling marker on the site. There are now three monuments to the massacre. Two of these are at Mountain Meadows. Mountain Meadows Association built a monument in 1990 which is mantained by the Utah State Division of Parks and Recreation. In 1999 the Mormon Church built and agreed to mantain a second monument. [8]

[9] [10].

A monument in Arkansas is a replica of Carleton's original marker maintained by the Mountain Meadows Massacre Monument Foundation.

--Justmeherenow 19:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In many ways I like it better, It is short, sweet, and to the point with sources for those wanting more information. It isn't perfect, (Blue Tie had an issue with the word scathing, I think its appropriate but concede BT's point of being original research.) Also the rape allegations are presented as a central theme when in fact they are a side issue to the massacre. It was also lacking some detail even a pithy article should contain.

The present iteration of the article went the other way. full of detail (some of it POV). Not pithy at all, with users who want a brief overview left to guess which paragraphs to skip. Which is better? As no 2 sources about the massacre agree about anything, I'm inclined to vote for a shorter version.Davemeistermoab 21:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That has also been my assessment for a while. The issue of "scathing" was, to me, not nearly as big a deal as the complexity of the article as it now exists. --Blue Tie 22:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

People who want a short overview can read the introductory paragraphs. As to being "pithy", I don't think that's necessarily a virtue when there's controversy as to what the "pith" is. The article should be encyclopedic, including the whole story, such as all major versions of what happened, who was allegedly involved, what were they thinking, and why they said they did it. COGDEN 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Kidnap - Rescue - Captive

In addition to resolving whether kidnapped-rescued-held captive, there are additional points that may help clarify it for the reader.

• The parents and families were murdered.
• The children were immediately taken by the Mormons who killed their family members, not by the Paiutes who participated in the massacre.
• The children (with one exception) were separated (or isolated) from their siblings and from each other, then given or sold to Mormon families.
• The Mormon "foster" families did not contact U.S. authorities about the whereabouts of the children until asked.
• The families of the surviving children in Arkansas and California were not notified by the people who held the children. Nor were they contacted by the local or state authorities in charge of governing Utah at the time. On the train there would have been diaries and letters telling the identities of the children, even if they were too young or traumatized to tell their "foster families."
• U.S. authorities investigating the whereabouts of the children were not given access to the children immediately, and in one case, a child may have been held by the family and never turned over.

We ought to be able to craft a paragraph on this topic which gives facts and leaves the reader to determine for themselves.

The surviving children were collected by the Mormons involved in the massacre and transported to the home of Jacob Hamblin. No children were taken captive by the Indians involved in the siege and murder of their parents. The children were separated from one another and given or sold to Mormon families in Southern Utah. (Mention sisters left with one family) No attempt to reunite the children with relatives was undertaken by any of the Mormons who took the children captive, nor by those holding the children throughout the region. They were held by these families until Federal investigators in Southern Utah called for their return in 1859. These investigators were told the children were retrieved for a price from the Indians who took them. Recounts by the children tell of no captivity by the Paiutes.

This is very rough, but something like could be written. To me, the biggest factor is that the Mormons never attempted to locate remaining family of the children. Accounts show that all goods were taken with the wagons. The reports of the aftermath do not tell of burned wagons, scattered papers, etc. The records probably remained until disposed of by the instigators of the massacre. (OK, that is supposition, but what I would do if I was trying to cover up my involvement.) --Robbie Giles 01:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite telling that this discussion about kidnapping has led to the following current statement about the incident:

"Approximately seventeen children were deliberately spared because of their age. In the hours following the massacre Lee directed Philip Klingensmith, Samuel McMurdy, and possibly J. Willis and Samuel Knight to take the children (a few of whom were wounded) to the nearby farm of Jacob Hamblin, a local Indian Agent. From there, the children were taken to Cedar City, where foster parents were found among local Mormon families".

Apparently my first comment about the murderers actually being kind and caring humanitarians (with the welfare of these little children as their first priority) was correct. Paragraphs such as this being included in the article virtually assure that it will never be seriously considered for 'Featured Article' status. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have any reputable references to support your kidnap proposition, please bring them to the fore. If not, then we necessarily must consider that your allegation is personal opinion, which may be valid for a personal blog, has no room on wikipedia. I know it is difficult, but we try to observe policy and remain neutral. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

While the current version re the mere finding of local foster families does seem to buttress only one side of the controversy, wouldn't Robbie's proposed wording above, concerning the surviving youths' "captivity" etc., be more NPOV? --Justmeherenow 12:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The concept of "giving" is interesting, but may be accurate. What was the exact process by which families received the children? How many were sold and what was the price? Were they acknowledged as slaves by the family and the community or something else? Did any of the children try to run away given their captivity?

I recommend using only language that is used by sources; to do more or less than that is POV and leading. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 14:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Stewart Van Vliet visit to SLC & BY declaration of war

The Stewart Van Vliet paragraph contains material that is not found in the Utah War article, and the damming allegation of a statement by BY to Van Vliet that Utah had declared war on the USA is highly suspect. The visit is historical, but is the declaration of war presented to Van Vliet truly supportable? This paragraph was added 31 August 2007 18:00 UTC by 12.72.172.240 (talk · contribs) and has remained essentially the same since. -- 159.182.1.4 19:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's supportable. I've edited it, and actually moved it down to a more appropriate location in the article. COGDEN 19:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

I did not participate in the discussion but the recent change Robbie did on the opening paragraph is good. --Blue Tie 02:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I found the initial sentence too long and difficult to read. I rearranged the information for clarity. — Val42 02:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)