Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Mountain Meadows massacre was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 20, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
October 30, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

revisionism, please prevent it.[edit]

It appears that people are trying to bury the lead of this article. This attack is a historical fact as is the fact that it was planned and executed by the Mormon residents of Utah. The word Mormon not appearing in the initial description combined with the naming of the Paiute Indians as being part of the attack makes it clear that some kind of revisionism is happening, or perhaps just bad editing.

FYI- Some of the attacking mormons disguised themselves as indians (Native Americans), hence the rumors that indians were involved.

Lets keep the lead clear on the fact that this was a Mormon attack. Don't allow anyone to "sanitize" this historical account. The Mormons own records after the fact indicate that it was there people who were totally responsible for this action. Jjk (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

You do realize that all of that, and more, is summed up in the third paragraph of the lead. Because of that, I don't see the long-standing version of the lead (the result of much discussion and consensus-building) as suffering from whitewashing or revisionism. All reports indicate Paiutes were present and participated in the attack. There is no historical question in the minds of legitimate historians that Paiutes were present. There is also no dispute that the massacre was planned and directed by local Mormons. Again, the Mormon connection and involvement is in the lead already. You were bold, I reverted, now per WP:BRD we should discuss and gain consensus before you re-do the edit. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Being as how the info-box is the briefest of summaries of the event, where one is expected to read the article for more information, I would choose to list Utah territorial Militia as the attacking party, as the most accurate label. For one, stating Mormons did it is true, but generalized and unnecessarily inflammatory. Mormon civilians were not involved (otherwise there would be thousands of attackers, not dozens). Similar examples would be Christians are raping and kidnapping girls to make them sex slaves or Catholics rape young boys. All of these statements are true, but generalized, inflammatory and would not be deemed appropriate statements in a credible encyclopedia.Dave (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's particularly inflammatory. The fact that it was performed by Mormons is the most well-known aspect of this incident, and the primary thing it's notable for. It obviously belongs in the first few sentences. --Aquillion (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The amount of hidden editorial comments in this article[edit]

seems a little much to me... I counted...there were at least 17 (more or less, depending on subsequent revisions, etc.) hidden comments. This practice of embedding so much hidden comment within the reading text would seem to be against the Wikipedia guidelines of MOS:DONTHIDE & MOS:COMMENT. I can't quite tell if it is all for spacing issues or what... So, I reverted the article to this version and am going through this hidden editorial comment-code to figure out if it is all indeed necessary. If anyone disagrees with my editing changes, please discuss the various issues here on the article talk page before reverting. Thank you, Shearonink (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so I went through the edit history & found the 20:33, 31 March 2009 edit that introduced the empty <!-- --> hidden comments and looked at diffs where the code was deleted and where the code was kept...and I don't understand why the code is within the article. These empty hidden comments seem extraneous to me so I have removed all but the needed editorial ones that contain instructions or pertinent comments. If another editor thinks this code should be restored, please explain on this talk page - thanks, Shearonink (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
AFAIK, they are just artifacts from an earlier era when there were multiple authors nit-picking over the wording of several details. This article has been fairly stable for the past 5 years, but back in the day this place was a war zone. Dave (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Thx for the reply. When I found the 2009 edit, there wasn't any particular reason given in the edit summary so I was thinking "artifact" as well... I thought the empty comments might have been for spacing or visual clarity when editing or whatever but there was no particular reason given by the editor in their edit summary or on the talk page at the time (yes I did look). I was trying to edit the page for content & looking at some possible POV/vandalism edits over the past several days - the empty hidden comments made it difficult for me to see what was actually appearing on the page, so I decided to delete them (and yeah re:editing battles on this particular subject...). Shearonink (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

An editor has repeatedly been adding multiple 'citation needed' maintenance templates to the lead section of this article. Per WP:LEADCITE it is not necessary for statements to have citations when the information and references appear within the main text. These changes need to be discussed on this talk page since the addition of these templates appears to be going against editorial consensus. Shearonink (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)