Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Untitled

Material archived from the Mountain Meadows massacre Talk page. (May 4-18, 2007 approximate)

Pretty good article

In anticipation of the upcoming film, I have taken a look at this article. Overall it looks pretty good but there are some areas that I question. I can think of two right off the top: 1. the "Nauvoo Legion" reference in the first paragraph. Despite the cite, I think that it was not the Nauvoo Legion that did the murders but, rather, ordinary citizens some of who may have been former (or maybe even current) members. But it was not organized as a Nauvoo Legion action and did not follow the course of a militia action. 2. The article says that there is no evidence Brigham Young ordered it but there is a question about the cover up. (or words to that effect). I have no idea about his participation in a cover up, but I recall reading that not only is there no evidence he ordered it, but in fact, he expressly ordered against it.

There may be other areas that need review. I intend to take a look. --Blue Tie 13:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[Re-?]Welcome aboard, Blue Tie.

A German-American childhood friend of mine's father's unarmed family members were massacred by Russian soldiers at the end of World War 2 - yet was this done by the Russian Army? I myself dion't know the answer to such questions. However, in the present case, I relied upon such cites as MacKinnon's. (Incidentally, MacKinnon's a regular participant at timesandseasons.org these days, despite his own thoroughgoingly Scottish-American Presbyterian faith, and maybe can be persuaded to justify labelling guerilla actions of Legion officers Higbee/ Haight/ Lee with the military disciplines imposed on the local privates at the MM as being under the auspices of the territorial militia. ...E/g, as the premiere historian of the Utah Expedition of 1857, perhaps he can explain why, despite Buchannon's pardon of the Nauvoo Legion and of Mormon officials for acts of rebellion during 1857, the prosecution of Lee for the atrocity went on? So, are unsanctionable acts perpetrated by the armed forces in general or only by "individual" perpetrators? --Justmeherenow 18:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I would further add that the rider sent to Salt Lake mentioned in the article did return with a letter from BY instructing them not harm the emigrant train, but it arrived to late. An earlier incarnation of this article did mention this but it started an edit war and was removed about December/January time frame. The reason for the edit war is some historians are convinced the BY's letter contained code words that covertly approved of the attack. While I will admit BY's letter is a lot less pithy that I would expect a letter with the point of "NO --STOP-- LEAVE THEM ALONE" should be. I'll even admit the letter is bizarre, but to say it contained codewords is conspiratorial. Either way it doesn't matter because, again, the letter arrived too late anyways. I still feel this should be in the article but would want some one else to review the wording to avoid further edit wars. If nobody objects I could work on this this weekend. Davemeistermoab 18:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I would understand the killing of people in a war zone by uniformed soldiers of one of the opposing forces in a combat action to be a war death at the hands of that military unit. I would not, however, consider it a war death at the hands of that military unit if it were contrary to that unit's rules of engagement and if it was not conducted under that unit's command and control system. For example, in Japan, US Soldiers sometimes rape and kill Japanese girls. This is not a killing by the US Army because it was not conducted under that unit's rules of engagement nor was it administered under that unit's command and control system. In Iraq, members of the US Military raped a woman and killed her whole family. It was, in fact, an official squad of the US Army. However, they did not operate upon that unit's rules of engagement and did not take orders from the military directing this action. So, I would not say that the US Army raped that woman and killed her family. I would say it was the individuals who did that. In the case of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, there are further complicating factors including the fact that some of the alleged participants were not (as I understand it) members of the Nauvoo Legion. That some were or that some used to be is not the same thing.

I think that Brigham Young's letter should be in there. It is a very important part of the history. If there is some sort of reliable verifiable source that can describe the code, that should also be included. But, I think, if that were the case, JDL would have mentioned it in his trial. --Blue Tie 01:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Juanita Brooks documented that the massacre was organized by the militia. Lee was the highest ranking officer at the site (a major), but he was in regular communication with Colonel William Dame and Lieutenant Colonel Isaac Haight. BRMo 03:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason I have not made any edits is because I want to check my facts. I will be looking at Juantia's book again (and others) as soon as I can. However, as I understand it, as late as the day of the massacre, Haight gave a military order that the train of immigrants was not only to be unmolested but protected. Later, Dame was angry with Haight that they had not been protected. Thus, the military command channel, from what I can recall, did not contribute to this. But I have to check my facts because this is all memory for me. I suppose, at least under relatively modern standards, Haight and Dame could be blamed for failure to exercise sufficient control. In modern military organizations, commanders get some sort of hit, even if it is just a bad OER and they would be in line for that. But, that is applying more modern standards to the issue -- which any reasonable historian would tell you is invalid. Anyway, I think that if the Commander of the Nauvoo Legion gave direct orders not to molest but to protect the immigrants, it is wrong to say that same military organization did the deed. An example that I think is an extreme example is command of William Calley, Ernest Medina and the My Lai Massacre. In this very weird case, a whole military platoon killed somewhere between 350 and 500 women, children and old people. Analysis by the Army after the event observed that several factors led to a break-down of the proper chain of command and military discipline. Despite the fact that it was an act that was ordered by the platoon commander, under ambiguous orders from the company commander, the massacre is not said to have been conducted by the US Army but by soldiers in the US Army. There is a difference. Furthermore, I believe that with regard to My Lai, the only people who participated were soldiers. I do not think that is true for Mountain Meadows -- not everyone was a member of the Nauvoo militia. (One other difference: The troops at My Lai hated their commander and thought of killing him. I add this parenthetically because it is interesting but not relevant to our discussion).--Blue Tie 14:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

My caution would be to keep the following in mind when working on an addition or re-write. So far it's served me well and kept most of my additions from launching edit wars (knock on wood):-)

• This article is about like an abortion debate. Both sides have so much passion that you need to make your edits with a lot of care and with the other POV's in mind.
• No matter how good the source you use is, there are 2 out there somewhere that contradict it
• With so much contradictory information, the absolute truth will never be known. People on both sides believe that someday a smoking gun will be discovered that vindicates their position, but I doubt it. I believe that even if a letter from Brigham to John D Lee is discovered while demolishing some old building in Cedar City, it will probably raise more questions than it answers.

Just my $.02 Davemeistermoab 17:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Its ok for there to be contradictory information. NPOV deals with that matter. but I cannot see how there could be a pro or con massacre pov. What pov's are there?--Blue Tie 17:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course nobody is pro-massacre. But there are different POV's as to who is responsible and their motives.Davemeistermoab 18:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahh.. sorta like Conspiracy theories. They surround many historical incidents including the attack on the world trade center and notions that somehow the government bombed the Oklahoma City Federal Building. I think wikipedia policies are used in those cases. --Blue Tie 18:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't believe me, just go through the history of this article. In earlier incarnations this article has gone from saying the MMM was purely a local event where the Fanchers provoked the locals (and implying they got what they deserved) to Mormons wanted to annihilate and plunder the party because of their wealth. No, I'm not kidding. Just peruse the history long enough and you'll find both arguments presented. As far as OKC, well, that's another topic that interests me. I don't believe the government conspired but I do believe they did a CYA operation to cover incompetence. We can discuss that somewhere else.Davemeistermoab 19:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it was a local event, but one which was influenced by wider events. I do not think that the Fancher Party provoked the people who killed them, but I accept that the people who killed them may have believed that they were provoked. I seriously doubt the stories of the Fanchier party's bad acts in other locales, but .. maybe.. I do not know for sure. I do believe that the killers wanted to annihilate them, but I do not believe that they wanted to plunder them for their wealth -- to me, that is almost silly. It is odd that people would become either so hate filled or paranoid (they could be almost the same thing) that they would kill people who were no threat to them, but in isolation and with limited, perhaps false communication, such things do happen. --Blue Tie 15:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Baker-Fancher train?

Ahh Geez. While collecting the "minor" additions for this article discussed above. We have yet another problem. With the recent addition of "baker-fancher" train this article now contradicts itself and its sources. Taken literally, Baker was one of 2 initial leaders of the train, but then later Baker joined the train, and then when they arrived in Utah the Baker train joined the train.. and it was called the Baker-Fancher train see (link to an article which clearly says train was NOT called the Baker-Fancher train http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/arkansasemigrants.htm ).....

AAAAUUUUUGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!! 20:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OK Calming down, I think the best thing to do is state they went by both names in the section currently called "Baker-Fancher party" then avoid playing favorites from that point, referring to them as "the party, the train, or the emigrants" from there on unless clarification is required. Davemeistermoab 21:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody show me

how to make a sandbox page for a possible article about those connected with the siege? I'd tried to just throw a feeble alpha version out there but it got speedied for its shortcomings of listcruft :'^( --Justmeherenow 01:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You can do it as a sub page of your userpage or talk page. 04:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --Justmeherenow 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Content Disputed

OK Someobody flagged this article as neutrality disputed, yet they did not leave a comment as to what they want to dispute??? I move to immediately delete this tag. If somebody has a beef with the article, fine. But to flag it as neutrality disputed without even mentioning what is their beef? How can anybody fix the article if we don't know what's broken.Davemeistermoab 04:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Red user, no comments on the talk page, article replete with citations, the tag is unsupported by any sort of WP policy and I rm'd it. Gwen Gale 12:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Carleton's Report

As you can see from the history I've been parsing Carleton's report and sourcing parts of the article. I believe all my edits were uncontroversial except for the rape source. Feel free to revert or discuss that one.

My purpose in doing this was to read the report again to confirm or deny that "scathing" is an appropriate word. (It is suggested it may be OR above). OR it may be, but I don't know what else to call it. In his conclusions he accuses the mormons as "They are an ulcer upon the body politic. An ulcer which it needs more than cutlery to cure." It only gets worse... So should scathing stay, or do we need a different word to describe the report? Davemeistermoab 14:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The term scathing was not OR but came from one of the cited sources. However, I've NPoV'd it entirely to deeply critical. Gwen Gale 16:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, language is important to me. It is one of the reasons I will occaissionaly use profanity; at the moment it is the very best descriptor. Carleton was not just merely deeply critical; he had gone far beyond that position. It would be similar to assessing Hitler as having a dispute with the Jews. Using Hitler as a backdrop is an obvious overstatement given his actions, but if Carleton were to have been in a position of power the result may very easily have been the same. Scathing is appropriate; he hated the Mormons and would have preferred their utter extermination. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I also think scathing is more helpful. I shall put it back. Vitrolic is not at all NPoV as it tends to lay criticism back upon the one expressing vitrol. If Carleton disliked Mormonism that's by the bye, he saw much lingering evidence of a horrific mass murder and indeed wrote a scathing report about it. Gwen Gale 16:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the adjective go from scathing to vitriolic to strongly critical in the hour since I left this comment. Of the 3 I like scathing the best. I concur, deeply critical doesn't quite do the report justice. But vitriolic implies the report cannot be trusted to me. IMO he makes his hatred of Mormons very clear but that hatred was most likely inspired by the lack of co-operation and obvious lies he experienced trying to investigate, not to mention the gore of the massacre itself =-) Davemeistermoab 17:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to say again that scathing was the word used by an independent, cited source to describe his report, it was not OR by a WP editor. Gwen Gale 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; let's stick with scathing. If one feels like it must absolutely must change, then acrimonious or caustic would work. Heck, let's get a Thesaurus and just pick. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was mentioned above that Scathing fit but wan'ts from an independent cited source - Thanks for the reminder Gwen. I do think that Carletons animosity towards the Saints prior to the investigation should be mentioned. --Trödel 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the source for "scathing" and how does wikipedia obtain the opinion that it was scathing? Isn't the rule that wikipedia does not hold opinions but quotes the opinions of others? Right now it is wikipedia holding the opinion. Also...I do not see the need for any such adjectives. I think that they are inherently pov. Suppose I found a quote that declared the report was dishonest? Should I add, "dishonest," prior to scathing? Just leave those adjectives off and it makes things less contentious and more neutral. --Blue Tie 00:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. I also do not like adjectives as a rule, but the do serve a purpose. At some point common sense does take priority over policies. I wouldn't demand a source for "green grass" or "non-mormon superintendent" because of an adjective. I have not seen one fair minded person who has read the Carleton report describe it as just "critical". I don't think scathing is controversial at all. Dishonest challenges the veracity of a respected report, and I would demand an equally respected source that accuses Carleton of dishonesty. Scathing does not challenge the veracity of the report, only describes its tone. The tone of the report IS scathing, excoriating,.... (thesaurus please) Davemeistermoab 03:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the things about common sense is that it is not necessarily common. I would point out that by implication you are suggesting I do not have common sense, but I think that I do. I wouldn't demand a source for green grass unless the color were important to the article, because this is universal perception and things like "wet water" are covered by policy. This however is different. A report is not automatically scathing. I would expect a source for "non-Mormon" and would want to see how it was relevant to the article.

To me it is not an issue as to whether "scathing" is controversial or not. To me it is an issue of wikipedia articles being written in a bullet-proof manner per policy, particularly NPOV. I would point out that NPOV is not negotiable and cannot be overridden by consensus. And in that regard, here are the policy writings that inform my view on this:

"NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."

"Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. Facts (as defined in the A simple formulation section above) are not Points Of View (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to build a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to Wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little bit of ground work can save a lot of time in trying to justify a point later."

"Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it."

"For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true."

"A different approach is to substantiate the statement, by giving factual details that back it up: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." Instead of using the vague word "best," this statement spells out a particular way in which Doe excels."

"There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But statements of this form are subject to obvious attacks: "Yes, many people think so, but only ignorant people"; and "Just how many is 'many'? I think it's only 'a few' who think that!" By attributing the claim to a known authority, or substantiating the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems."

"A special case is the expression of aesthetic opinions. Wikipedia articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have tended toward the effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia; we might not be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest guitar player in history. But it is important indeed how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate."

"Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves".

"Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It is important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognized authority)."

The word in question is not cited or attributed, is a value judgment of someone's work, is expressed as an opinion of wikipedia -- not as the opinion of someone else and that it not a fact but an opinion. Thus, it does not meet the conditions of the absolute and non-negotiable standards set forth in NPOV. I think that case is pretty strong. So what utterly strong and compelling case is there for adding this unattributed opinion to the article? How does it provide value? Indeed, with this one word we find the requirement to add a segway conversation about Carlton's biases coming forward. I really would like to avoid creating a section about Carlton's biases, but it becomes necessary per NPOV to give both sides if we give one side. That would be a distraction to the article. I say remove that one pov, unttributed word "scathing", avoid talking about Carlton's biases and keep the article simpler, NPOV and more bullet-proof. How is the word "scathing" so valuable that it is worth violating policy, encouraging segway conversations in the article, and making the article weaker?

Meanwhile, if it is not attributed, the {fact} tag is appropriate. It is an unreferenced opinion and is OR. --Blue Tie 12:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[Unindent]

I find your characterization of the use of the adjective scathing as a "policy violation" to be disruptive and abusive. As I have amply shown, I'm more than willing to settle on another adjective but any reasonable reader would agree that his report was indeed scathing. Meanwhile this is already one of the most densely cited articles on Wikipedia. Moreover, as I have said above, I'm sure this adjective was taken from an independent source and is not the OR of a WP editor. Please stop trying to intimidate other editors with hollow references to WP policy pages and if you don't like the word, please come up with another. Gwen Gale 12:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not find it disruptive or abusive to seek to have standards and policy applied to wikipedia articles. I do not think any adjective is necessary. As the policy says "Just report the facts". That it is scathing is not a verified fact, it is a judgment. If you are sure that this adjective was taken from an independent source then let's say that "Carlton issue a report that was described by SOURCE as scathing". Please stop making personal attacks and please assume good faith. As for a different word, I think no word is better than any other word. Just remove it. It makes the article better. There is nothing about the word that is so valuable or necessary to the article that we should negate the NPOV policy. A link to the report is sufficient and let the reader decide on the nature of the report if they are interested in characterizing it. --Blue Tie 12:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you doing here? I already asked you to come up with another word if you don't like scathing. Gwen Gale 13:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am explaining why no word is preferred to another word. Yes you asked for another word and I am saying why any unsubstantiated opinion should not be put into wikipedia. Was that unclear? But if you insist on another word, I would use the word "written". --Blue Tie 13:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say you're mistaken. Gwen Gale 13:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You do not believe it was written? I could validate that I think. --Blue Tie 13:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trolling this talk page, thanks. Gwen Gale 14:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a personal attack. I request that you assume good faith and remove that unpleasant comment. If you remove that comment you should also remove this request so that none of this appears on the page and it is forgotten. --Blue Tie 23:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I said it in good faith. You've been misrepresenting both the article content and WP policy. Gwen Gale 00:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing items or otherwise editing article talk pages is a WP 'no-no'. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually that is not true. You can remove your own comments, particularly if you are doing it to preserve a good atmosphere and remove personal attack. I believe I can cite policy on this if you are interested. --Blue Tie 00:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

So far as mentioning his documented animosity towards Mormonism, I'm ok with it but would suggest not overplaying his personal opinion because a) Mormonism was even more polarizing back then than it is now and b) he'd spent time picking up the skulls of babies from their mothers' arms, hardly something which would steer anyone towards, for lack of a better way to put it, an NPoV. Gwen Gale 18:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion.

Change from. Carleton issued a scathing report to the United States Congress, blaming local and senior church leaders for the massacre.

Change to. Carleton issued a special report of the heinous crime to the United States Congress, blaming local and senior church leaders for the massacre.

See. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/carletonreport.html Tinosa 14:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the "special report". It is verifiable and npov. I do not disagree that the crime was heinous, but I think adding that word is not in keeping with NPOV. Here is the policy cite that I would use to support that:

Let the facts speak for themselves

You won't even need to say XX was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list XX's crimes, and cite your sources. Remember that readers will probably not take kindly to moralising. If you do not allow the facts to speak for themselves you may alienate readers and turn them against your position.

Hence, NPOV policy says that we should not label things this way. Just let the facts speak for themselves. --Blue Tie 00:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"There are other heinous crimes to be punished besides this. (7th paragraph from the bottom of the special report)Tinosa 01:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Tinosa- good effort but I still think scathing report sounds and fits better. I was wondering if "Carleton issues a report scathingly blaming local and senior mormon leaders for the massacre" would pass muster. What do you think?

Blue Tie- please calm down. Assume good faith. Everybody who has chimed in here has expressed the same goal, to have a good article. Flooding the page with wikipedia policy does not help. We've all read them. If you feel a refresher course is in order a link will suffice. Also I would remind that one of the pillars of Wikipedia is to be bold. Under that heading of be bold is a writeup which essentially says, follow policies, but don't let them get in the way of making the article the best you can. You don't like scathing, fine. But everyone else but you has offered replacement statements. I would encourage you to do the same. Read the report and think of the best one or two sentence summary you can. Present that here as an alternative instead of just criticizing the honest efforts of others without suggestions of your own. Davemeistermoab 01:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not know how to be calmer than I am. I am nearly asleep! I would be pleased not to quote the policy if I had a firm assurance that the contents were really considered. I do not have that confidence. Actually, I have offered replacement statements. Is it, possibly, you who needs to calm down a bit and really read what I have posted? --Blue Tie 02:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Truce on the Rapes and Scathing???

OK. I just got back from the gym and while doing a few laps came up with some ideas on how to compromise on the Rape allegations and scathing. When I get them on paper I'll post them on the article. I honestly believe this will be an improvement. All I ask is nobody revert for 24 hours. If consensus is that this is not an acceptable compromise, I'll revert them myself. Davemeistermoab 05:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not editing the article. But I hope you notice, I am not contesting the wording of the rape issue. To me the wording is not the issue. It is the source which is not reliable. We should not use it. If you have some compromise position, I would like to have a sense of why an unreliable source is acceptable at all?--Blue Tie 11:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC) NB: I see that the text is greatly different than the last time I looked at it. I have problems with the following statements:

They were later found with their throats slit by an adopted Paiute son of Jacob Hamblin. -- He testified that he saw their throats cut but he also testified that one had been cut and the other had been shot. I tend to doubt that the Indian Chief would have cut the throat of his victim. I believe that J.D. Lee cut the throat of his victim. If they were both killed by Lee then I would not be surprised that both of them had their throats cut. But, I cannot think of a source that directly accuses Lee of both murders.

Basing from interviews he conducted, Carleton speculated that at least one of them was raped. -- The reference that is included in the article does not support that statement.

One historian interviewed a woman in St. George,[57] who reported rumors from her childhood that eighteen-year-old Ruth Dunlap, after being taken to Lee, reportedly fell to her knees and pleaded, "Spare me, and I will love you all my life!" then both girls were raped before they were killed.[58]. --The woman interviewed was not reported as having said this quote. Plus this "Historian" (he was not an historian) is a bad source.

I also noticed the minimization of the Indian participation is further emphasized in the Questions section. But there is no part of the article that provides an insight into the possible large degree that they participated.--Blue Tie 12:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've misattributed the "Spare Me" quote, woops. That can be easily fixed if the agreement overall this version is more appropriate. The Carleton attribution is not inaccurate. Carleton does not mention names but he also mentions getting his information from Albert Hamblin (amongst others). It is vary safe to say he is talking about the same women. It also agrees with Gibbs rendition from a 30,000 ft. view.

I was hoping that by placing the section in a disputed section and having next to Brooks that would make it clear that Gibbs account is disputed. But apparently that's not enough. You are stubborn about coronating sources you like and finding any reason to discount sources you don't like. I don't think that is healthy. I will admit Gibbs has problems, but I don't believe he did anything intentionally misleading. My take is he pieced together what happened from the best information available to him. Remember at 1910 he is one of the first books to cover the subject, and has provided some of the oldest known photos of mountain meadows, if the dates are believed some 10 years before his book was published. The fact that cameras where hard to come by in 1900 (the first camera for the "general public", the kodak brownie box, would be brand new) so getting those photos was not easy and probably meant lugging cumbersome equipment in by horseback (no automobiles either). So again, to me that shows he had a genuine interest and took this work seriously and was not some fly-by-night "expert". He admits he found disfavor with the mormon church and left giving him a POV on this issue, but doesn't seem to be on a witch-hunt to me. His anti-mormon comments are par with what most people say who have left the mormon faith to show their non-belief(putting prophet in quotes, etc.)Davemeistermoab 14:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Just my $.02.

I think it is a bit harsh to describe me as stubborn about coronating sources I like. How could that be since I really do not like any of the sources? But some are more respectable than others. I do not "find reasons" to discount sources I do not like. That whole concept is a failure on your part to assume good faith. I absolutely assure you that my only desire is for this article to be NPOV and Bullet Proof. The use of bad sources does not make it that way. One difference between us is that you do not think he did anything intentionally misleading. I do not see how he could have possibly made these errors by accident. But, if it is that he did it by accident, that makes his account even less reliable. Because that would make his errors of fact entirely random. But if, instead he erred on purpose, his errors would have a specific bias and so anhy evidence he presented against that bias would be more compelling. But if he was just generally a bad chronicler, then nothing he said can be used without some sort of strong corroboration. I have no doubt that he had a genuine interest. Are you aware of his passion on this matter? But interest or even passion does not make him reliable. I do not particularly care that he had a pov. Everyone does. It is his reliability that I have questioned. It is possible that his pov affected his reliability, but even if it did not, he is unreliable. --Blue Tie 00:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The attributions have gotten a bit muddled over time, they can be fixed. I could go on about why I believe Gibbs is credible enough on this but I shan't: He's a verfiable source, his wider account does generally fit with other accounts and even Carleton does hint stuff like this happened. If someone wants to add a published citation, say from Brooks as above, which questions his take on what happened to the Dunlaps, I'm more than ok with that. Gwen Gale 15:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, I above stated that "all I ask is that nobody revert the changes for 24 hours"... I wanted to get consensus. So much for my input I guess. Also you still have the "Spare Me" quote miss attributed.

Davemeistermoab 16:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Pls note, I wasn't finished editing when you posted the above, I think the attributions are ok now but if not, they can always be shifted about to fit. Gwen Gale 16:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I didn't agree to that. I don't think changing the article's structure is helpful. The sources cited conform to Wikipedia policy and I've added Brooks' dispute of Gibbs' account about rape. If anyone has more verfiable citations to contribute either way, please add them. Gwen Gale 16:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, meanwhile I've always been open to another word for scathing. To end this, I've put in Carleton's own words (heinous crime) from his official report, as was suggested above earlier. Gwen Gale 16:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I like your solution Gwen, if that is the one I just read. I think your solution is NPOV and Bullet Proof. --Blue Tie 00:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't like metaphors like "bullet proof" but I know what you mean :) Gwen Gale 01:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation needed?

With regard to Gibbs, we may need mediation. I feel very strongly that though the source is "verifiable" as Gwen likes to point out, it is not a reliable source. It is badly impeached, at least in regard to this incident. Apparently others do not agree, but I thought that Dave's move to a separate section was a strong move in the right direction. Now it has been reverted. I am more in favor with Dave's move than the current version. Do we need a mediation on this? I would like to hurry. --Blue Tie 00:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You're the only editor who has been hammering away at trying to remove this documented content from the article. Whether or not you like what the source says, whether or not you think the source is credible, the source conforms wholly with Wikipedia's sourcing policy, which has mostly to do with verifiability of the source's existence, independence and published origin. We can extend Brook's dissent in the article if you like and if you can find other dissenting citations by all means, let's put them in. Aside from that, I don't even agree with you that Gibbs is unreliable. His extended account generally fits the documented record. You've already shown above that you've misread the Gibbs text. I could go on about this but there's no need. Ask for an RfC if you like (that would be the first step before mediation) but the source complies and I've since added another supporting citation dating from 2003. Gwen Gale 01:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I really wish you would assume good faith. I entirely agree it does not matter what I think of the source in general. But I have shown that it is unreliable. Any unbiased observer would be able to say "Yes that source has serious problems with reliability". It does not meet wikipedia standards for reliability either. You can stop describing the source as verified. I have already conceded that we can verify what Gibbs said. You do not need to revisit that. But remember, my objection, all along, was not verifiability. It was reliability. That is where the discussion should focus. You say he is reliable. I say he is not. The difference is, I have backed my views up with extensive evidence. You have given your opinion. Which is the stronger case? And actually, Mediation comes before RfC per the RfC page. I would be very happy if another supporting source that did not rely on Gibbs could be used instead. If so, I would say lets rely on that source entirely and not on Gibbs. I will review your added source to see if that is possible. --Blue Tie 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you actually have access to that source you quoted? Can you read the reference and make sure that this is not a secondary retelling of the Gibbs account?--Blue Tie 01:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am unable to verify this new source as being in existence. Do you have more details about that source? The cite must be good enough that the reference is verifiable by others.--Blue Tie 01:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't search for the author or the title. Look here. Gwen Gale 01:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did, or thought so. According to this diff which you label as "add another citation (2003) supporting Gibbs' account", the source is "Lee, James Ward, Massacre (2003) ". I am unable to find that source. Your google search did not help because it was for a different author and title. --Blue Tie 01:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you refer to the current version of the article? The author cited by the article is Sally Denton. Here's the diffGwen Gale 01:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Was Denton using Gibbs? If so, this is not a different supporting citation but rather a copy of the same thing. (I do not have Denton. Reviews I read of her book were pretty bad, indicating she did a poor job with the facts. so I did not buy it).--Blue Tie 02:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a very controversial topic for some folks. Reviewers tend to trash the sources they don't like. Meanwhile it seems to me you wouldn't be making a fuss about these independent, verifiable sources if you liked what they had to say. Gwen Gale 02:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I believe some people probably like the book. I was just explaining why I do not have it, that's all. I am unable to comment directly and I have not. (Have you seen me comment on her book even once?) I still have the question about whether Denton was using Gibbs? Do you know? --Blue Tie 02:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Lots of this article's citations have threaded interdependencies. WP policy wouldn't support skiving them all away for that so your question has no pith. Gwen Gale 02:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC

Sure it does. If it is merely a recitation of a bad source, it is not better than the bad source. Or are you of the opinion that a lie can come closer to the truth by repeating it? --Blue Tie 02:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please try to refrain from sophistry, thanks. It's disruptive. Meanwhile the only evidence you've shown about Gibbs is that you've misread the text. Gwen Gale 02:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I take it from your responses that Denton was quoting Gibbs. You are wrong about misreading Gibbs. If you have not paid attention, others have agreed with some of my readings, and I have refactored those that I agreed were misreadings. The majority of the specific issues I raised still exist and are accepted as legitimate readings. Gibbs is an unreliable source. --Blue Tie 02:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I never said Denton was quoting Gibbs. Anyway this is now going in loops. Please find some independent, verifiable published citations to support your PoV. Gwen Gale 02:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Unindent. Gibbs is an unreliable source. I have used an independent and more reliable source to show that. I asked you if Denton quoted Gibbs. That is all I was asking. Do you have the book to look it up? --Blue Tie 03:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaken. I do suggest you think long and hard before carrying on with this attack on verified, independent sources. Gwen Gale 03:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What am I mistaken about? And again, it is not relevant that it is verified. The issue is reliablity. Why are you ignoring the point? --Blue Tie 03:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I already said you're mistaken and truth be told, I'm not ignoring anything. Gwen Gale 03:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. You have completely ignored the discussion and gone to ad hominem now. A terrible approach. You should know that that request was denied for lack of any evidence or good cause. It appears you are not interested in a serious meeting of the minds on this matter. --Blue Tie 03:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the logs expired before they could get to it. This is the same as your earlier pattern of vindictive, badgering behaviour. Please stop wikistalking me, please stop trying to remove verified, independent sources from the article, thanks. Gwen Gale 03:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A link to a current Mountain Meadows blogpost

where, concerning the 1990 reconciliation ceremony in Cedar City, annegb writes: "It’s possible that as I sang 'A Balm in Gilead' I was doing so as a family member of both the murdered and the murderers" - a family secret annegb learned of from a cousin who'd "stunned (her) with his assertion that his great grandmother had been a child of the Arkansans who’d survived."

His apparent honesty was drastically contrasted with the reluctance of other family members to discuss this rumor. They did admit they’d heard it, but became almost defensive about it. One cousin, whose mother, my grandmother’s sister, has done much of the family history on our line, told me he’d heard that story. He, too, had encountered defensiveness when he’d brought it up. He told me that his grandfather, along with other men from Cedar, became concerned at the talk about violence toward the Arkansans, so they hitched up their teams and wagons and left town. They went up on Cedar Mountain and gathered wood for a few days, thus avoiding any participation in the massacre.

--Justmeherenow 17:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

We have so little source material on MMM and what we do have sometimes seems thin because Mormon families, especially those related to the mostly ordinary Mormons who followed orders and participated in the massacre, didn't talk about it for more than a century. Indeed, one can find many accounts of books and diaries being burned across the decades, by successive generations, of the topic being altogether banned in many homes. Never mind what the LDS leaders themselves did in terms of spin and records destruction. For the most part these were everyday family folks who trusted their leaders and their faith only to be drawn into the mass murder of civilian men, women and kids. The wonted reactions of their families was rational: Any involvement in MMM was simply erased from oral and written family history. Gwen Gale 17:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)