Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Untitled

Material archived from the Mountain Meadows massacre Talk page. (March - May 2007 approximate)

Link to 17Feb2007 news article regarding debate among historians?

See article. --Justmeherenow 17:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This shows how the LDS continues to deny responsibility or involvement:

But it wasn't until 1870 that Brigham Young fully understood that local LDS Church members "were sent to bury people (from what they believed was an Indian massacre) then forced to participate in the massacre under (militia) and church discipline," Alexander said.

To the Deseret News' credit though, al least they quote a dissenting historian immediately after this. Anyway since this conflicts with the source material so starkly I don't think it's very helpful as a source (but very helpful for talk page context, thanks for the link!) Gwen Gale 17:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This 6Feb2007 KSL segment(print version here) has soundbites from Bagley and John Eldredge from the then recent "board meeting of the Utah Westerners," whatever that is. And KSL goes on to report that three of the the eight historians and history buffs at the meeting believed Young knew of the MMM beforehand (with an additional vote among them saying he didn't know but condoned its severity), while all eight believed Young participated in a cover up. (+4fun;^).) --Justmeherenow 18:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Just, you seem to propose that all Latter Day Saints and the Church need to take responsibility for the massacre. A novel proposition. I suppose you also think that all white people need to take responsiblity for slavery? That the actions of a few are the responsibility of everyone is not a standard used often in history. Is it something you feel strongly about? If so, the entire history of the world would need to be rewritten. What is fact is that there is no conclusive evidence proving everyone who was responsible for the massacre. That is fact and there is not a historian alive that can say otherwise. We can surmise and guess, but not one historian is so strident in their accusations as the stand you take. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The "taking responsibility" comment wasn't mine but Gale's! However I think you're right to the extent any critic of societal structures (and especially me) is more anarchist than establishmentarian. (But I easily switch hats and pragmatically describe great benefits to societal structures as well!) Anyway, concerning my criticism of the article, I merely believed it erred where the Missouri Wildcat rumors section was imbalanced by its not being set against the mirror of rumored suspicions of conspiracy against Young. (But the article has rectified that a good deal with details of Young's parlays with the Native tribes.) Yet again, you're right, no one knows who was ultimately culpable. For my own belief, I tend to think Young did NOT order the massacre if for no other reason than that it would be counter productive to massacre the train outright; however I do believe Young ordered the Legion to facilitate the various trains to be robbed. However when several Fancher men managed to leave the sieged train only to have a couple of their number killed by Legion men, with a witness returning to the sieged encampment-- well, maybe, then, local authorities felt a need to kill all witnesses so as to keep the LDS colonists' complicity secret? But that's the most positive spin I could come up with from the accounts. Which speculation agrees with that of "FARMS historian" Sessions', that I'd read after I'd come to the same guess, too. --Justmeherenow 05:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Pee ess here's a current LDS blog post re the Church of England's recent apology for its associations with the slave trade. --Justmeherenow 22:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Then on April 5 at a "sibling" LDS blogsite, the not-antogonistic-to-Mormon-faithful historian Briggs said: "At the rededication at MM in 1999, there was no statement of regret or apology, and it caused a significant backlash among some on the AK side. This September on the 150th anniversary, I’m hoping for some official expression of regret. It would be a sign of our honesty, integrity, and maturity." --71.250.235.199 01:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Question re one of the references

Does anyone have a copy of this book 1857: An Arkansas Primer To The Mountain Meadows Massacre by Lynn-Marie Fancher and Alison C. Wallner, according to this website it was published in 2006, but I can't find it on Amazon or any of the large book sellers. --Trödel 16:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a benign rules breakage, should ParkerMMM's book not have gotten back from the printers yet? Speaking of websites, the other day a Generation Next forefather of LDS blogging, Kaimi Wenger (instrumental in naming it the Bloggernacle on this very day - March 23 - in 2004), mentioned a presentation this weekend by Robert H. Briggs to discuss MMM's causes. (And the most current comment in its string is by Ardis Parshall, a (Salt Lake Tribune columnist and) historical sleuth lauded by MacKinnon in his "scholar's memoirs" piece in Dialogue.) --Justmeherenow 16:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC) And then the curator of acquisitions for the LDS Museum of Church History responds to commenter larry --Justmeherenow 13:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC) (whih larry wouldn't be (Pulitzer/Oscar-winner) McMurtry?) --Justmeherenow 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Trodel - I may have access to a copy - let me check to see if I can track it down. -Visorstuff 22:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't worried about any potential rules breakage, but more interested in getting my hands on a copy; however, if the author of the book is quoting their own work as you suggest, they should know that Wikipedia discourages referencing your own work, but posting it on the talk page and allowing others to put it in the article. My quick perusual suggests their is no need to remove the references, because I think the concensus here would be to put them in. --Trödel 18:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think the consideration at hand remains only whether Fancher/Wallner (2006)'s status is published or not? My reading of the O/R policy page has it encouraging rather than discouraging contributors' quoting from their previously published researches, referencing them as any other editor would in the third person, except in cases where this would likely produce controversy (such as, for example, situations where sourcing is almost entirely from self-referenced materials). --Justmeherenow 16:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I apolgize for simplifying the standard - it would have been better to say that "Wikipedia urges published writers to use caution in citing their own work." The guideline (Conflict of Interest) and policy (NOR) language is:

"You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page whether or not your citation is an appropriate one, and defer to the community's opinion." Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Citing oneself (emphasis added)

and

"This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest." Wikipedia:No original research#Citing oneself (emphasis added)

I would say that the use of the word "may" does not indicate encouragement (compare, for example, using "should" or "can" instead). "May" impies one can do something but use good judgment. Therefore, one should be careful, fully disclose one is citing one's own work, not rely exclusively on one's own work, and be sure the work is published before referencing it. --Trödel 19:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Trödel.

(Still, ParkerMMM has satisfied most the policies' jots 'n' tittles. Which is to say "they'd" presented "their" calling card as an emigrant families historian whose edits were really fully supported in their original version by "their" own 2006 Primer....Plus there's no trace of enemy-militia-to-Mormons Missouri Wildcats; the GoldRush-era California census has cattledriver/wagontrain master Fancher in Cali: whom Sheets reveals was never termed colonel - blah blah! Well, so, anyway, since Davemeistermoab had suggested various main articles develped - I suppose along the line of those for John D. Lee, Parly P. Pratt, for stuff otherwise buried in footnotes - I dumped the stuff ParkerMMM had already verified on the talk page into a rambunctious fork that, due its editors believing its topic not all that distinct, was really a proposed version for a section about gathering Arkansans.:^) --Justmeherenow 00:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

np - I hadn't seen the calling card earlier - thx --Trödel 16:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, this is a example of WP:IAR - whether the rule was broken or not is irrelevant because the concensus is that it is a valid reference that improves the encyclopedia and would reach concensus to be added. --Trödel 16:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

J. Cradlebaugh

CRADLEBAUGH, John, (1819 - 1872) (Biographical Directory of the United States Congress) http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000850

United States Office of Indian Affairs Papers Relating to Charges Against Jacob Forney. Yale Collection of Western Americana, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. JOHN CRADLEBAUGH (1819-1872)

"Born in Circleville, Ohio, on February 22, 1819, John Cradlebaugh attended Kenyon College and studied law in Oxford, Ohio. After being admitted to the bar in 1840, he was appointed United States associate justice for the district of Utah on June 4, 1858. He arrived in the territory on November 1, and began active prosecution of those responsible for the violence in the region.

In March of 1859, Cradlebaugh held his first term of court at Provo, convening a grand jury to hear evidence of Mormon criminal activity. The jury failed to indict anyone. Cradlebaugh dismissed the jury and continued the investigation under his authority as sitting magistrate. Accompanied by a small detachment of United States troops and by a deputy marshal, Cradlebaugh visited the southern part of the territory, including Mountain Meadows. During this investigation, Cradlebaugh met Superintendent Forney returning from his own investigation of the site, accompanied by the surviving children of the massacre. The judge and his deputy marshal interviewed Indians and settlers in various encampments until the marshal and troops were recalled under instructions from the Department of War, effectively curtailing Cradlebaugh's investigation of the affair. Based on his observations and other evidence, Cradlebaugh concluded that Forney had abused the powers of his office. In September 1859, Cradlebaugh contacted the Office of Indian Affairs regarding his suspicions. His accusations launched the Office's official investigation into Forney's conduct, and led to Forney's dismissal.

Cradlebaugh was subsequently appointed to preside over a judicial district that included Carson Valley. He became a key actor in the creation of the Territory of Nevada, and was eventually elected delegate to Congress, serving from 1861 Dec 2 to 1863 Mar 3. During the Civil War, he enlisted as a Colonel in the Union Army. He was wounded at Vicksburg in May 1863, and was honorably discharged from the military in October 1863. He returned to Nevada, and settled in Eureka. He ran unsucessfully for United States Senator, and engaged in the mining industry until his death in 1873. Cradlebaugh was interred in Circleville, Ohio, in 1879." http://webtext.library.yale.edu/xml2html/beinecke.forney.con.html#a8first

Speech of the Hon. J Cradlebaugh, of Nevada in the House of Representatives. February 7, 1863: "UTAH AND THE MORMONS" http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=063/llcg063.db&recNum=798

In Article reference section, see Stenhouse & Waite Tinosa 23:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Paiute Involvement

I've long felt the Paiute denial of invovement should be included in this article in some form. I made what I believe to be a fair attempt to do so. If anybody has any objections please advise. Davemeistermoab 05:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A short excerpt

From a conversation elsewhere on-line that's among historians who seem read up on the massacre

(larry): Richard O., Don't you think Mormon teachings such as Blood Atonement and oaths to avenge the blood of the prophet contributed to this mentality where violence in the name of religion was acceptable? These tendencies werfe heightened by the reformation - which had a profound impact impact in Southern Utah. Couple this with news of a coming war and it's a recipe for an atrocity - the largest in American History prior to Oklahoma City.

(Richard O.): Larry you raise some interesting issues, but I think that Kaimi [Editor's note: Kaimi Wenger had mentioned Wounded Knee's and the 1921 Tulsa race riot's casualties. --Justmeherenow] helps bring some needed perspective. My tendency is to think that fire and brimstone retoric from the pulpit usually far outstripped fire and brimstone behavior. Some of the data I'd like to see addressed: How did the murder rate in pioneer Utah compare with surrounding states and territories? How did the execution rate compare with surrounding states and territories? Per capita statistics for these would be interesting. Was MMM horrible? Yes. But were Mormons universally and consistently violent or was the MMM an aberration? Statistical answers to the above questions might help answer these questions. Do you have the statistics?

And then, also, Dialogue's MacKinnon has mentioned the apologists-helping info that from his study of Utah Expeditionary troops, Young's fears about horrible carnage at their hands had been completely valid and MacKinnon mentioned that the "Bleeding Kansas" period was happening at this very same time. So I guess the point is that when you look at the frontier, even places where there's no is no factor of millennialist Mormonism involved, you still get commensurate - perhaps more? - vigilanteism, wars, skirmishes, violence. Anyways, I think we should put more warp and woof of what's agreed to among historians as to causes in our article (and then also link to wherever is Wikipedia's article concerning the causes of atrocities and massacres in general)? --Justmeherenow 15:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, re the MMM: Towards an understanding of "violence as culturally conditioned" Briggs posted this suggested reading list:

• Bellesiles, ed. Lethal Imagination: Violence & Brutality in American History (1999)
• Brown, Richard Maxwell, ed., American Violence (1970); Strain of Violence: Historical Studies of American Violence and Vigilantism (1975); and No Duty to Retreat: Violence & Values in American History & Society (1991)
• Courtwright, Violent Land: Single Men and Social Disorder from the Frontier to the Inner City (1996)
• Demaris, America the Violent (1970)
• Dickson, Ulster Emigration to Colonial America, 1718-1775 (1966)
• Dray, At the Hands of Persons Unknown: The Lynching of Black America (2002)
• David Hackett Fischer, Albion’s Seed : Four British Folkways in America (1991)
• Gilje, Rioting in America (1996)
• Grimsted, American Mobbing, 1828-1861: Toward the Civil War (1996)
• Griffin, The People with No Name: Ireland’s Ulster Scots, America’s Scots Irish and the Creation of a British Atlantic World, 1689-1764 (2001)
• Hollon, Frontier Violence: Another Look (1974)
• Grady McWhiney, Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South (1988)
• Nisbett & Cohen, Culture of Honor: The Psychology of Violence in the South (1996)
• Rust, Radical Origins: Early Mormon Converts & Their Colonial Ancestors (2004)
• Richard Slotkin, Regeneration Through Violence: The Mythology of the American Frontier, 1600-1860; The Fatal Environment . . . 1800-1890; and Gunfighter Nation [the 20th century]
• Szasz, Scots in the North American West, 1790-1917 (2000)
• Waldrep, “The Language of Lynching, 1820-1953,” in Bellesiles, ed., Lethal Imagination: Violence & Brutality in American History (1999)
• Webb, Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America (2004)
• Wyatt-Brown, Southern Honor: Ethics & Behavior in the Old South (1982); and The Shaping Of Southern Culture: Honor, Grace and War 1760s-1880s --Justmeherenow 12:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

2 Unsourced claims

2 requests for source have sat on this page for a long time now. It's my preference that if no one can/is wililng to source the statements that they be re-worded such that no source is required.

Here are my proposals

• "He and Hamblin went to Mountain Meadows"

I think by removing "and Hamblin" the statement is pretty solid with the sources already present in the article.

• "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..."

This one I'm not so sure about. Is the source requested because of the people named? or that they were transported to Salt Lake first before re-uniting? Does anybody know, is the person who requested the source still here? If it's "Salt Lake", it doesn't add value anyways. The new sentence could read like this:

Meanwhile Forney and Governor Cummings directed Hamblin and Carleton to gather up the surviving children from local families after which they were united...

If it's the people mentioned do we shorten it to just say Carleton? Thoughts?

Davemeistermoab 14:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with rm'g these references to Hamblin and Forney until we have a reasonable source. I accepted these AGF as assertions pending support, which has not shown up. Gwen Gale 15:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Gale, One problem. You deleted one sentence that was not tagged as cite requested and left one that was tagged cite requeste in the article. Was this intentional? I'm going to presume it was a mistake. If I missed your intentions feel free to revert.

Davemeistermoab 01:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Davemeistermoab 01:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You may want to go back into the edit history - as I believe those statements were sourced at one time. In any case, they are correct. -Visorstuff 04:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath

MMM-aftermath-Timeline.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forney (Indian agent): given instructions by Mix to retrieve the children. Campbell (US Army): given orders by General Johnston to escort the army payroll from Santa Clara, protect the Southern trail, and investigate the MMM. Carleton (US Army): given orders by General Clarke to deliver the army payroll to Santa Clara and "bury the bones" at Mountain Meadows. Tinosa 16:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Day of the week mentioned in the lead sentence

Is there a reason for this? This doesn't appear to be standard format for lead sentences with dates in them. I brought this up before but never really heard back. Is there a religous significance, ect here? Thanks!--Tom 19:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Gwen you say this has been discussed "many times", all I could find is this [1] Is there anywhere else you discussed it? This discussion looks like we should leave the day of the week out. Again, please advise if there is a significance to that day of the week. Anyways thanks, --Tom 23:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Why have you been deleting this accurate content? Gwen Gale 01:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because its accurate does not mean its appropriate for the article. Again, if there is a REASON for its inclusion, great lets add it. If not, it appears that date standardization does not include mentioning the day of the week in the lead sentence of articles. Thanks, --Tom 12:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom, since you're an advocate standards, may I suggest you spend your energy having administration change all of Wiki to ISO 8601( the international date standard). Tinosa 15:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. --Tom 17:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom, you also might want to learn the difference between its and it's. Meanwhile several editors have, over a long period of time, been accepting the inclusion of this accurate information as appropriate to the article. As an editor, I think it adds helpful context to the narrative. I still don't understand, however, why you insist on deleting this verified information from the article. Please stop edit warring over it, thank you. Gwen Gale 17:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"it adds helpful context to the narrative" ok, finally, we are getting somewhere. Any other reason(s). I am all ears. Was that so difficult, geesh, --Tom 18:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because it's/its been there awhile dosen't really mean much. Just becasue its accurate dosen't mean much. Why won't you just asnwser the question I have been asking for awhile now??

Whats the agenda here, still??--Tom 17:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What is your agenda? Why are you edit warring over this verfied information? Gwen Gale 17:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My agenda is to stop people like yourself who obviously have an agenda to push. why else would you keep adding this material without ANY justification. I know that you think you OWN this article, but really! --Tom 18:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:3rr, thanks. Gwen Gale 18:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? --Tom 18:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can't answer that yourself, I humbly suggest you start here first. Gwen Gale 18:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should try Wikipedia:Introduction. --Tom 18:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this trivial issue is turning into a low-frequency edit war. It's very silly, IMO. But maybe with some good-faith discussion we can resolve it. I've looked at a few other WP articles dealing with events on specific dates, chosen as they occurred to me: 1994 San Marino Grand Prix (current featured article), Battle of Normandy, Loma Prieta earthquake, Battle of Bad Axe (an article about another massacre), and Sand Creek massacre. Only the Loma Prieta article mentions the day of the week, and its relevance to the article subject can be readily seen -- the day of the week affected the traffic patterns and thus the number of casualties. In none of the other articles is the day of the week mentioned.

Mentioning that the Mountain Meadows massacre took place on a Friday is no more informative than mentioning what phase the moon was in at the time, or who the king of Prussia was, without some further tie-in to the article's contents. Gwen Gale has hinted that there may be some relevance, perhaps related to the Mormons' Sabbath observance (I am extrapolating here from her comments). Do any of the cited works draw such a connection? If not, I suggest that we drop the mention of Friday as it's currently just a bit of irrelevant data that leaves the reader looking for a nonexistent connection. Other thoughts? alanyst ^/talk/ 16:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Alanyst, well said. I want to know WHY is is SO important to have the day of the week mentioned in the LEAD sentence?? If it has relevance to the event, great, flesh it out and then it should stay. If it has NO relevance it should go. Gwen has said that it adds context. OK, I guess, but in what sense?? I really don't care that much about this article, I don't even know how I ended up here, but this has turned into a edit war , why exactly? I am into "standardization" and having articles flow in a similar fasion as pointed out above. Anyways, --Tom 17:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we please have a truce to this childish edit war? At least until the vandalism edits slow down or until some action like a staw poll can be taken. I've spent 2 days now combing through edit histories to remove real vandalism but _ahem_ someone is clogging the edit history with an edit war over the word Friday. If that's the biggest problem with this article I move it be nominated for Featured Article status =-)

Thanks Davemeistermoab 14:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dave, I have tried to stay cool but this is really bugging me. WHAT is the significance of mentioning the day of the week in the LEAD sentence? If the folks who insist on reinserting it would just come clean with what their agenda is, or why its SO dam important, this can end. Is it religious? Is is , I don't know? Whatever it is, just spell it out and then we can ALL move on. Gwen said "it added context". Everybody else has said sqwat. Just because it may be a fact means didlee. The height of the grass at the time of the massacre was approximately 2 inches, should this be added? I have NO horse in this race. I edit alot of articles dealing with the Middle East and Jewish/Arab issues. I thought those folks could be stuborn and militant but this takes the cake. At this point, all I want to know is WHY!! WHY in the name of all that is right do you folks want to add the day of the week to the LEAD sentence of the article. Seriously, at this point its more about curiosity than anything else. Thanks! --Tom 14:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

An example of the day of the week in the lead sentence of an encyclopedic article.

Attack on Pearl Harbor (1941)

The Japanese surprise attack on the U.S. Navy's base at Pearl Harbor and on Oahu in the Hawaiian Islands on "Sunday morning, 7 December 1941", destroyed much of the American Pacific Fleet and brought the United States into World War II.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS http://www.answers.com/topic/attack-on-pearl-harbor

It seems the MMM ocured "Friday afternoon, September 11,1857". Tinosa 18:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tinosa. It's clear that some articles invoke the day of the week and some do not. It looks like Wikipedia's version (Attack on Pearl Harbor), at least, contains some information that makes the day of the week significant. The relevant quote from the article:

He was also able to discover that Sunday was the day of the week on which the largest number of ships were likely to be in harbor [...]

Can we agree that we should mention the day of the week if there is supporting material that demonstrates its relevance to the Mountain Meadows massacre, and that we should not mention it if there is no such material? alanyst ^/talk/ 18:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason for the inclusion of the day of the week because it has no significance. However, I don't really care if it is included. Friday has no meaning for LDS, their doctrine, worship, or anything else. It is similar as stated above that the grass was two inches high and the future President Lincoln only drank tea that morning. It may be factual, but it is wholly without significance. Would it be acceptable to those concerend to enter the date later in the article? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I never even heard of this event until recently (thats what I enjoy about this project), but if I wanted to learn more, the DATE (not day of week) would be very important contextually, so I would think it belongs front and center as it is now. Anyways, thanks for comment.--Tom 20:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Copy of text recently reverted

I actually think this is worthy to be in the article, but the lead sentence has such as horrible POV problem that I felt the need to revert before the rebuttles begin =-)

Meantime, the effect of the bad conduct of this emigrant company while passing through the southern "Mormon" settlements and the adjacent Indian tribes had culminated in a great excitement among the latter, and of anger and resentment among the former. It was customary for the local leading men at Cedar and from the smaller settlements in its vicinity to gather in a council meeting after the close of the regular Sunday services of the church, to consider questions of local community interest. At such a meeting on the 6th of September the question concerning the conduct of, and what ought to be done with, the Arkansas emigrants was brought up and debated. Some in the council were in favor of destroying them, and others were not. Finally, and largely through the influence of Mr. Laban Morrill, it was "unanimously decided" in that council to suspend all hostile action relative to the emigrants until a message could be sent to Brigham Young to learn what would be the best course to pursue. The next day James Haslem, a resident of Cedar at the time, was sent as such messenger to Governor Young. A few hours after his arrival in Salt Lake City, Haslem was dispatched with the following message from Brigham Young, "Go with all speed, spare no horse flesh. The emigrants must not be meddled with, if it takes all Iron county to prevent it. They must go free and unmolested."

Davemeistermoab 21:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Poisioning Wells, Haun's Mill Massacre, etc. a suggested re-write.

I just reverted a dubious edit that claimed there was evidence that the "Fauncher" party poisened wells and included participants in the Haun's Mill Massacre. While that is BS that there is evidence they Fanchers poisened anything. There were certainly stories that people believed there was poisened. And some partipicants did justify their actions as Vengence for Haun's Mill. The article in its current state mentiones none of these. I would propose they be added, if nothing else, to address them in a proper form so edits like the one I just reverted don't get re-added.

Here is a suggestion at a re-write, please advise on your thoughts:

The Fancher party may have been joined by a group of eleven miners and plainsmen who called themselves "Missouri Wildcats,". There is debate on weather the Missouri Wildcats stayed stayed with the slow-moving Fancher party after leaving Salt Lake City, or even existed. Either way, rumors of the Missouri Wildcat's bad conduct circulated throughout the territory. The most severe accusations included: poisoning wells, bragging of participating in the Haun's Mill Massacre, bragging about mormon persecution in Missouri, and threats to return with an army to wipe out the mormon population.. Some accounts further claimed that Wildcats bragged they had the gun that "shot the guts out of Old Joe Smith").

Though even the existence of the Wildcats is questioned other factors are known to have antagonized the local population. 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.

Davemeistermoab 20:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. After reading the sources cited, I'm not stating anything that is not stated in the sources, So I'm going to be bold and add it. Any gripse, you know what to do....

Davemeistermoab 20:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I added this, but it apparently wasn't enough to satasfy everyone. I've reverted the "Provocation" paragraph twice now. That's enough for me. What does everybody else think? I still think this paragraph must go in its current form "provocation" has serious POV issues and this pargraph claims evidence exists but sites no sources.

Davemeistermoab 03:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the "Provocation" paragraph. A John D. Lee Web site was added as a source, but it does not cite any of its sources. BRMo 04:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The Rape Accusation Revisted

I notice the Rape accusations have been removed by an anon. editor today. Judging from the number of times I've seen this removed and re-added I would say this is the most controversial content on the page. (well aside from using the word Friday in the opening paragraph =-)(come on is it really that important)). I have mixed feelings on this topic.

• Con: The evidence the rapes occured is not solid
• Pro: Neither is the evidence for a lot of other claims made on this page

Either way, What I find difficult to believe is the absolute refusal of some people to accept that someone capable of massacre would be also be capable of rape. So I guess I'm inclined to say the rape accusations are appropriate. I will attempt to re-add them but water the language down such that it is less likely to be reverted. If anybody objects feel free to discuss or revert. Davemeistermoab 02:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing Shirts reference

Shirts is repeatedly cited, but all I see is Shirts 1994. What's the full reference? Looks like it was deleted. 70.92.84.1 11:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)May 1, 2007

It's there, and I just checked the web link referenced is still functional. See the references section sorted by last name.

Davemeistermoab 20:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Again we see the blindness and meaness of religion.

Misleading use of edit summary

In this edit, Tinosa claimed to undo revision 127059070, but in reality, the user reinserted non-encylopedic information despite ongoing discussions in the talk page about its relevancy (or in this case, apparent lack thereof). I will therefore remove these edits and ask that they not be added without sufficient demonstration of how they add to the reader's understanding of this article. Thanks. HokieRNB 17:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Hokie, sounds very reasonable. Also, that user has repeatidly blanked his/her talk page. I have revert it a few times. Cheers! --Tom 17:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Parley, Eleanor & Hector Triangle

According to the Jared Pratt Family Association, Eleanor was not divorced from Hector McClain when she married Parley Pratt. Of course, if the content of the article is valid who would blame her.

Eleanor McLean and the Murder of Parley P. Pratt by Steven Pratt 1 http://jared.pratt-family.org/parley_histories/parley-death-stephen-pratt.html Tinosa 01:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Most interesting. Thanks. The article seems to be well cited and researched (though I didn't take the time to check out the sources cited). Yet one more example of how complicated this is and not the simplistic event many want it to be.Davemeistermoab 04:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

YIKES!!! I've been working on a way to "correct" the article as I do believe this source. The problem is how do you do that without dragging the article down an interesting but irrelevant tangent. I also don't want to eliminate the quote used in the footnote currently as it does succinctly summarize the situation (even if not 100% correct). It's like we need footnotes on our footnotes. When I finally get something in that works, the next person to revert it is going to get one in the face =-)Davemeistermoab 17:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)