Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Untitled

Material archived from the Mountain Meadows massacre Talk page. (June – October 2006 approximate)

Freece Quote

Does anyone know if Freece would be in any position to know what is going on? My reading is that if this individual was "in the know" he would be the most quoted individual regarding this massacre and he is certainly not. I question that this is a reliable source and really is one person repeating rumors to their son. Does anyone have any other information? Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether Freece had any first-hand knowledge, but I doubt it. (If he had, I think his writing would have showed up more prominently in sources like Brooks and Bagley.) I don't see that the quote adds much that isn't already covered in the article other than providing an estimate of the Baker-Fancher company's wealth. The company had a lot of property, but $300,000 is surely inflated. The Mountain Meadows Association Web site has posted the depositions by the victims' families regarding property losses. Going through them real quickly on my calculator, I'm getting a number more like $30,000. The other bit of misinformation in the quote is saying that Dame "cried out, 'Israel, do your duty.'" The more authoritative books by Brooks and Bagley conclude that Dame was at Parowan during the massacre and didn't arrive until the next day.

Because of the repetitiveness and misinformation I'd recommend dropping the quote. (Also, 1907 is a bit late to be regarded as "contemporary" public perception.) However, I'd also recommend adding something to the section on "Reasons for massacre" mentioning the Baker-Fancher Company's property as a possible motivation. The section on "Contemporary public perception" could add information on reporting of the massacre by California and national newspapers and magazines when the event was first reported, and again when the case broke open prior to the Lee trial in the mid-1870s. Bagley includes some material on the news coverage. BRMo 03:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I am in basic agreement with your assessment. I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't a kneejerk reaction on my part. I was not familiar with it and the timing was so far removed that I doubted its worth. I still think it amounts to rumors from someone who did not have first hand knowledge and thus not a reliable source. Brent if you want to take the first crack at integrating what you can, I will reivew it. If I did I am more prone to just delete the whole thing and move on. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I propose retaining the substance of the addition as Freece was a faithful church member in Utah at the time. Mark Twain was not. His quote is only included because of his fame. The Freece quote should probably supplant the Twain quote for this reason, as it is a source closer to the events than Twain. The Freece book is available from rare book dealers such as abebooks.com, or it can be googled as the whole thing was published on Usenet in about 2001. Just search for "Letters of an apostate Mormon to his son". I have both books, Twain's and Freece's and I trust Freece above Twain. You should read some of his descriptions of BY preaching in the Temple! What a character he was.... :-) I would trust someone who sat in the Temple, was LDS and on the spot, over a cranky old man like Twain any day. The book was not widely available when I got mine, costing over $50 and only one was available, so the Brooks' book may not have been aware of the source. Nobody knows everything except our Heavenly Father. Nirigihimu 16:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

both quotes are long and display a strong POV, and if I could be so bold, probably tell us more about the authors than the massacres. As neither were eyewitness, legal, or historical accounts, I would suggest summarizing the ideas contained in the two quotes as "public perceptions and/or speculations about the massacre". We could then selectively reduce the length of both Freece and Twain quotes, and maybe include a summary/quote from the national press at the time. WBardwin 20:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect Freece is going to be the best source available, as the article clearly states that a lot of things were destroyed and covered up. That much is clear. Freece was in Utah at the time and was faithful to the Church at the time. He was in a position to receive and transmit information that others were not. As for POV, it is very hard NOT to be POV when discussing a massacre of innocents. There is solid information to be gained, and just because it is contained in a document that has some POV, is no reason to start chopping it all out and replacing it with something like "A bunch of people died." I am not aware of =any= national press quotes from the period; we are talking Utah 150 years ago, not the age of the internet and cell phones. If you can find quotes, have at it, but for now, Freece at least, needs to stay. As I said, Twain is just there because he is a famous writer.Nirigihimu 16:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys are missing the point. The section heading is "public perception". Mark Twain's fame and position at the time, make his views relevant otherwise they would not be. The fact that Mark Twain was propagating his 'strong POV' is evidence of what the nations POV was. Mark Twain would tell you himself never to trust him, but that doesn't mean you can't trust him on being straight forward about his views. For the same reason "someone who sat in the Temple" in 1907 would not be a good source for general public perception. They would be a good source for what "faithful" "temple members" at the time believed. Mormons at the time were not part of the general populace they were a largely isolated and clanish religious sect. Sqrjn 19:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Paiute involvement?

The introduction mentions that "some" Paiutes were involved in this massacre; however, there is no supporting evidence or cites that support this. (The traditional story is that the attackers were white settlers disguised to look like Indians.) Does anyone have material to support this claim? If not, then it should be removed. -- llywrch 17:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, see the court records of the trial of John D. Lee as well as Juanita Brooks work on this. Both point to the Mormon militia paying piutes or playing on the hate between the piautes and other white groups to assist in the massacre. -Visorstuff 18:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In my reading on the MMM it seems that Paiute involvement is comparatively minor, being restricted to small desultory demonstrations in support of the actual attack and complaining about not getting enough of the spoils. No one claims Piaute involvement in the actual massacre, as far as I am aware. While the Piaute involvement should be mentioned, I question whether it should be so prominently placed at the start of the article, leaving the impression that the Piaute were full partners in what happened. This event has much more to do with Mormon history and Utah history than it does to Native American history, and a disservice is done by mislabelling it.taxpro.ea 23:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think it is not a black eye for the paiutes at all - but shows how the euro-americans manipulated them. Paiutes were not found to be responsible in any of the hearings, the guns were fired by the Mormon militia (as mormons didn't love to supply the natives with guns), not the paiutes, but they were definitely there and helped detain the fancher party. Remember that this event came on the heels of the walker war - and mormons were friendly, but still skeptical of the native groups in the area. -Visorstuff 23:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if the comments you just made were in the article. As it stands the first sentence includes the Piautes as part of the attackers and the narrative mentions that the Mormon negotiators blamed the attack on "out-of-control Piautes" without ever noting the inaccuracy of the charge! I think you have made my point; the opening is a distortion of history. There is no shred of evidence (to my knowledge) that Piautes killed anyone in this encounter, but that is the clear implication of the article. Buried in the middle, the last paragraph of "Who ordered the Massacre?" expresses one writer's opinion that the Paiute involvement was minor, but nowhere in the article is any statement resembling the one above that "Paiutes were not found to be responsible in any of the hearings". I find it strange that all the exculpatory comments are in the discussion and none in the article! taxpro.ea 00:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

agreed. 24.23.24.230 19:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Update

I came here looking for a citation for some information Duke53 requested about Pauite involvement. All I found was: "Whether Mormons or Paiutes initially attacked the party on Monday is debated."

followed by a footnote with:

Some feel Paiute Indians initiated the attack (perhaps with Mormon encouragement). Others believe that Indians were never involved, and that, from the beginning, the attackers were Mormons disguised as Indians. (Oral tradition among Paiute tribe holds that all its members refused the Mormons' request to participate. Other accounts, including Maj. Carleton's 1859 report presented before Congress and Lee's 1877 Confessions, assert Paiute involvement). Brevet Maj. Carleton of the US Cavalry made a report in 1859 that was submitted in the Congressional record in 1902, detailing his investigation; he noted the different accounts of the attack, including those holding the Indians solely responsible. His own conclusions were accounts that blamed only the Indians were extorted lies. While noting uncertainties, his conclusion held the Mormons and Brigham Young primarily responsible and advocated immediate action against them. He also showed a dislike of Mormons in general, stating the following:

"The expenses of the army in Utah, past and to come (figure that), the massacre at the Mountain Meadows, the unnumbered other crimes, which have been and will yet be committed by this community, are but preliminary gusts of the whirlwind our Government has reaped and is yet to reap for the wind it had sowed in permitting the Mormons ever to gain foothold within our borders."
— Maj. Carleton's report May 1859.

I don't see why this has to be buried in a footnote, perhaps we can expand this info to a full paragraph and add it to the disputed facts section? Currently the footnote is weasel-worded and doesn't state who is actually arguing, so sources will need to be provided. --Lethargy 21:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Kidnapped

I agree, the term is POV. The children were ORPHANS in the middle of the DESERT. Would the mormons have been more valiant if they had just left them there? If their parents had been killed FOR THE PURPOSE of getting possesion of the children, then I would say it was a kidnapping. Their parents were murdered for other reasons (we can argue all day over what those reasons were), but I don't think anybody has ever put forth any evidence that the mormons killed the party members because they wanted to steal their kids. The mormons took the children into their homes. If they hadn't, they'd have had 17 more murders on their hands.Dr U 05:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The US Govt actually paid the families who took the children into their homes money for expenses incurred in doing so. It hardly sounds like the contemporary perception of those acts was kidnapping.

That being said, 1 child WAS witheld from authorities and raised in a mormon family. THAT might qualify as a kidnapping. Dr U 05:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You make it sound like the mormons were helping the children out by killing their families and bearing them off. It was part of an effort to cover up a crime, its not like they put the children on the next stage coach east to arkansas. It wasn't until the US Army showed up and demanded their return that they were released.

Kidnapping is not a POV issue it has a clear definition. kidnapping n. the taking of a person against his/her will (or from the control of a parent or guardian) from one place to another under circumstances in which the person so taken does not have freedom of movement, will, or decision through violence, force, threat or intimidation. Murdering a parent and taking the child is clearly kidnapping it was then and it is now. Orphan sounds like their parents abandoned them or gave them up for adoption. Sqrjn 00:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

There were no stagecoaches to/from Utah those days. There was no FBI to identify and track missing persons. Utah was at war, and even mail to/from the rest of the US was disrupted. When the army did come for the children, those caring for them were paid for their efforts, and they received kind mention in Maj. Carleton's report to Congress. No matter how badly you wish to smear Mormons for not abandoning those children to die in the desert, it appears that in the eyes of even the most outspoken mormon critics of that time period, these were not considered kidnappings.Dr U 00:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Carleton would have been happy burning the rebel mormons to the ground and hanging the lot of them [as you seem to have misrepresented]. Sqrjn 09:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Your language is really unacceptable, and represents a breach of community policy. [Thank you for referring to original documents as it helps improve the effort]. Just yesterday you were claiming Carelton was Mormon militia, and that no mormons of the period claimed Pauite participation in the massacre. For all his hatred of mormons, Carleton never did claim the kids were kidnapped, did he? More careful study of that document reveals that he contradicts himself with regards to the childrens care "She (Mrs Hamblin) at least deserves kind consideration for her care and nourishment of the three sisters, and for all she did for the little girl, "about one year old who had been shot through one of her arms, below the elbow, by a large ball, breaking both bones and cutting the arm half off."" [The original documents also indicate] that the PHYSICIAN who examined the children when they were picked up by the army noted them to be in better health than most children in the area. Dr U 13:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sqrjn, I am pleased to make your acquaintance. You may not have been aware that personal attacks are expressly prohibited at Wikipedia and are considered a serious matter here. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks so that you can more effectively assist in the goal of creating an encyclopedia. It may also be helpful at times to Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. Of course this admonition also applies to Dr. U as I have made clear by applying WP:RPA above. Tom Haws 15:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Civility like History seems to me to be a relative exercise, as far as [how I spoke to] Dr.U, I will of course bow to Haws good sense. Sqrjn 23:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

For what its worth, Sqrjn, I think that the latest changes you made (with the exception of the one quote that perhaps we can agree to disagree on and let consensus settle) are very helpful, and add a lot to the article. According to my wife, I am occasionally donkey's backside. Peace. Dr U 11:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. As you see I have applied Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks again. Tom Haws 16:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This one makes me laugh. Parents are murdered in the wilderness leaving several children under the age of six. Do you leave them in the wilderness to die or do you care for them? If you care for them are you kidnapping them? This is probably some of the worst POV editing I have seen in a long time. Taking them against their will? Who has a will at the age of six when there is no one to care for them? Their parents were murdered and they could not care for themselves. Please explain how the families that showed compassion to the orphaned children were kidnappers! Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I will be reverting the term back to kidnapping only because that is what it was; they certainly weren't orphans until they were killed by the Mormon party. Did anybody read my definition: In criminal law, kidnapping is the taking away of a person against the person's will, usually to hold the person in false imprisonment (confinement without legal authority? This case certainly fits every aspect of the description. It was kidnapping short and sweet, do not try to sugarcoat it. The way it is written now is POV. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Duke, you must misunderstand the historical record of the event. The children in question were never murdered. Their parents and older siblings were killed. They were the only survivors of their party. All were under the age of six years and unable to care for themselves. Please explain how orphans under the age of six, unable to feed themselves were kidnapped when different families took them in and cared for them? You also have a limited understanding of the law. The Mormons could have been accused of criminal abuse for ignoring the welfare of these orphaned children had they not cared for them. Who exactly had legal authority for the children after the deaths of their parents and siblings? Who else should have taken care of these orphaned children? Your statement is not logical and does not hold water from any perspective. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I never said that the "families that showed compassion to the orphaned children" were the kidnappers; the kidnappers were the murderers who made these children orphans. No matter how you choose to paint it these children were kidnapped. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that is your point of view. Please answer the questions. Repeating your position over and over does not make it correct. I would encourage you to seek mediation immediately because this will be easily remedied with input from neutral sources. One cannot kidnap underage children whose parents and legal guardians are dead. It is a stupid statement and does not have merit. Who kidnapped them? When? Nothing about the statement is supported by facts; it is supported by your POV only. Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I would also appreciate exactly what was wrong with my language prior to your last revert! Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

COEUR D'ALENE, Idaho (AP) - As the man accused of kidnapping two children and killing their family waits in a jail cell for a federal indictment to be handed down, he still holds what could be a bargaining chip: An encrypted laptop that may contain more horrors.

Duncan, 43, pleaded guilty Monday to killing three people _ Brenda Groene, her 13-year-old son, Slade; and her boyfriend, Mark McKenzie _ so he could kidnap Shasta Groene, then 8, and her 9-year-old brother, Dylan, for sex.

But federal prosecutors have said they intend to charge Duncan with kidnapping Shasta and Dylan, and that they expect to seek the death penalty. Court documents allege he repeatedly molested the pair.

There goes your theory that children of murdered parents can't be kidnap victims. I suppose that this means that your understanding of the law is the limited one. [1] ... Your edit did not call it kidnapping, which it clearly was. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The difference in your example is the the murderers were not the caretakers. Mrs. Hamblin did not participate in the murder of the families; or do you have some information that every major historian that has ever written on the subject overlooked? In reality, none of the women involved in caring for the children participated in the murder of the children. Mrs. Hamblin son may have participated, but she did not. This is your second warning to keep your emotions out of it; focus on the facts. We do not write articles to take a POV, but just report what experts have stated and the historical facts of the situation. You are "painting" with too broad a brush. Were all the caretakers kidnappers? Do you have any expert that support this position? If not; change it back to my last language proposed; it was neutral. Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

perhaps a compromise would be to state that the group was kidnapped and all were murdered, except for the children who were then raised by local mormon families. That way you satisfy the word "kidnapped" and keep NPOV. Incidentally, of all the charges brought against Lee, kidnapping was not one of them. -Visorstuff 19:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"Incidentally, of all the charges brought against Lee, kidnapping was not one of them". I would hazard the guess that with all those charges of murder they had against him that charging him with kidnap would have been overkill. The children were kidnapped because their parents were murdered. I never said that the 'caretakers' kidnapped anybody; the murderers did the kidnapping. I am still waiting for help in getting this settled. Sorry that I don't know all the secrets of Wikipedia yet.Duke53 | ^Talk 20:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Visor is an admin with a long history of being neutral. If you have a question; he may be of assistance. And no, the government at the time would not have withheld a claim as serious as kidnapping against a Mormon. I think you know that is a disingenuous statement. It is not appropriate to ignore facts just because they do not support your position.

Also, Duke, you have added a POV tag without any explanation. The tag specifically says to see the discussion page. Do you have any other complaints or reasons for posting the tag other than this issue. If not, or if you do not respond to this request, I will remove the tag for lack of support. The explanation should have specific corrections or reasons for posting the tag so that other editors can take corrective action of discussion can take place and dismiss the tag. Cheers, Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the entire article is POV in spots. Not to insult Visor, but I am going to ask for a completely neutral admin to get involved in resolving this once and for all. Visor has been involved in the talk page and the article. I want someone who 'doesn't have a dog in this fight'. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You will find the process significantly more productive if you have more specific reasons for the tag rather than just feelings that the article does not meet your specific tastes. The sooner you are able to point to specific issues the quicker they can be addressed.

I would almost say that the tag is more a reaction to my tagging, with specific comments on the discussin page, of the section on survivors. I will assume good faith on your part, but such an open-ended statement is not productive and does not really meet the bounds of a POV tag. You may want to put some additional work in this. Tags are an important tool on WIKI and they should not be used haphazardly. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"I would almost say that the tag is more a reaction to my tagging ... ". Odd, that's exactly what I thought when you added a 'personal attack' warning to my talk page, exactly seven (7) minutes after I added one to your talk page. All I did was parrot back your statement of 'limited understanding' of the law. Remember, "Tags are an important tool on WIKI and they should not be used haphazardly". That cuts both ways. Duke53 | ^Talk 23:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest other trusted admins to weight in including User:Alai and User Wesley. Neither are Latter-day Saint, but have made a great contribution to religion articles in general. They seem to be able to cut through much of the POV that religious groups and their detractors have.

Incidentally, Lee was tried and convicted of multiple charges aside from murder. Same with today, when one is arraigned, mutliple charges are brought forward. In this case, murder, treason, abuse of position in military, abuse of position with indian affairs and even theft were charges, but not kidnapping. -Visorstuff 23:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You. I will wait to see if the {[helpme]} tag system actually works; if I haven't received help within 24 hours of posting it I will try a different tack. I was not trying to insult anyone by my phrasing (about a neutral party) but it seems like I may be the only non-Mormon involved in this, at this time. Also, just because someone is not tried for something does not mean that they didn't do it. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I've always thought that WP:NPOV goes hand in hand with WP:V and WP:NOR. Wikipedia is supposed to summarize information from reputable, verifiable sources. If the historians who have studied the massacre have written that the children were kidnapped, then that is information that may be appropriate for the article (preferably with a citation to the source). On the other hand, if it simply represents the editor's own interpretation of the events, then the assertion isn't verifiable and really doesn't belong. I've read most of the sources cited in the article and don't recall any of them having said that the survivors were kidnapped, but if such a source exists and can be cited I think it would be ok to include it in the article. BRMo 00:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Wise counsel. I agree with what you have said and think that it is an accurate reflection of WIKI policy. This will just take a little time. New editors with strong opinions need more space initially to learn the policies of WIKI and the meaning of appropriate, NPOV, referenced editing. This is a public, paticipatory process and can be tedious and difficult. I am the first to admit that I do not easily tolerate what I view as POV editing. I need to be more patient and allow new editors more time. I often forget that nothing is permanent on WIKI and editors come and go. What is needed now is comments from more editors before arriving at a concensus and then move on. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I told you that I was seeking mediation for this matter; that page says that it will be 5 - 7 days before anything is done. I will protest any 'consensus' activity done before the mediation takes place. Other (new) editors may be adding their input to this also. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

My vote is for kidnapping. In a nutshell, The Mormons had countless opportunities to return the children to their relatives but refused all. When confronted with question of the whereabouts of the children, they were deceitful. On the afternoon of 9/11/'57, Bishop Klingonsmith murdered the Gentile walking next to him on killing field at Mountain Meadows, took custody of the small children, and delivered them to the Hamblin house some distance from the massacre. When Bishop Lee arrived on the scene, according to Mrs. Hamblin( the first plural wife of Mr.Hamblin), he bartered the children by two to the white persons who were there at the time. A few of the opportunities to deliver the children to relatives or other Americans. A-The Mathews & Tanner freight wagons that ran from SLC and San Bernardino. They traveled through the massacre site & brought news to CA that the Mormons bartered with the Indians for the children. B-The Duke Train was held up a few miles north of the Meadows during the siege by Mormons warning of Indian troubles. After the massacre, the train was encouraged to hire Mormon interpreters and guides. The train was led well around Mountain Meadows by participants of the massacre. C-Martial Law. B. Young provided that a noncombatant could obtain a pass and travel freely through the territory. D-Garland Hurt, Indian Agent, heard rumors of a massacre. The Indian sent to investigate claimed the Mormons killed all except 15 children. Young offers Hurt an escort and carriage out of Utah. A few days later an army is sent to murder Hurt but he escapes to FT. Bridger. E-Ackerman & Morgan, former teamsters for the army at FT. Bridger , spend Christmas and the month of January in SLC., receive a pass from Young and travel with postal carrier to San Bernardino. CA reporter is disappointed not receiving the Desert News. Oregon & California Trails: Emigration to did not stop because of the problems in Utah. Emigrants traded with Mormons on a portion of the trails.

The Children: Evidently the Fed thought the Indians had the children and sent Indian Agent Forney to find them. He had some problems with the locals on the way and was given a hand by the frontiersman Lynch. Later they met Federal Marshal Rogers. They went to the Meadows, observed the carnage, then went to Sana Clara to see Hamblin. He claimed to know nothing but with a pistol held to head, he located thirteen children. They paid and waited for clothes to be made for kids and three days later visited Lee about stolen property. Lee knew nothing so they go for a visit with Haight & Higbee, unfortunately Lee vanished along the way. Their knowledge of the affair was the same as Lee's but suddenly three children appeared for a total of sixteen. In a search for Lee the marshal hears of another child which Hamblin retrieves. So the whole group traveled to SLC including Mrs. Hamblin in care of seventeenth child. Along the way Hamblin tells of another kid being held by the Indians. For expense money and money for the care of the seventeen for the past years, he would fetch the child. A few months later Forney received a letter from Hamblin stating that he found a white child with the Navajos but it was too sick to travel.

So why didn't the murderers send the kids or provide information to the relatives or the Americans? The freight & Duke trains headed for CA, a carriage offered to Hurt, a letter with the postal carrier to CA, a notice in the Desert News, the army at Camp Floyd, FT. Bridger, FT. Hall, emigrants on the Oregon & California Trails, they certainly didn't lack opportunity. Tinosa | ^Talk

Kidnapping -NO. I say kidnapping should be removed as non NPOV unless one of the following is produced: 1. Quote that states officials pressed or considered pressing kidnapping charges against one or more of the perpetrators. 2. Quote that any of the investigators at the time of the act considered this kidnapping. 3. Logic for how the word adds to the article. 4. A quote from somebody, outside of Wikipedia, who has studied this subject at length and considers this kidnapping

The article already paints the perpetrators as sick, evil and twisted people by sticking to what is believed to be facts. Why add inflamatory conjecture? It implies the authors of the article have a personal vengence about the issue. Not acceptable for Wikipedia IMHO.

The argument that the Mormons had plenty of oportunity to return the children to a variety of government posts is irrelevent. It is well known that at this time, there was a mistrust between Mormons and Non-mormons; expecially the U.S. Government. Hence the name, the Utah war. It's obvious why even well meaning people would not have delivered the children to the government or passing travelors. 03:21, 24 October 2006 User:Davemeistermoab

Kidnapping -YES murdering parents and carrying off their children is kidnapping no matter how you look at it. Choosing to commit a lesser crime of kidnapping rather than murdering infants, does not mitigate the seriousness of the lesser crime.

Under the current federal kidnapping statute, kidnapping is assume to have occurred anytime a non-parent takes unauthorized custody of a child for 24hrs. Black's Legal Dictionary

Kidnapping, which is a criminal offense, has been variously defined both at common law and under the statutes, and in general usage means the carrying away of a person by unlawful force or fraud and against his or her will, or a person's seizure and detention for the purpose of so carrying the person away. Kidnapping of a child occurs from any taking of physical custody without parental rights or consent. Corpus Juris Secundum, legal encyclopedia

People who would minimize a crime like this make me sick. Sqrjn 04:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What a wonderful lawyer you are! Please enlighten the rest of us on the responsability of a stranger to those in imminent danger. Did adults owe anything to children under the age of six who survived the massacre of their parents? I actually do not care to hear any diatribes, rather just provide a simple answer. Should the surrounding residents have abandoned the children or should they have been cared for by those same residents?

Also, just so that you and I understand one another, people who sensationalize, misrepresent, and lie about history I find to be repugnant. I find they don't care about truth, but about their personal agenda. They tend to be dishonest people that feel driven to slander people long dead that can not defend themselves against the stupidity of the living. Now that we have gained an understanding of one another's position, let's leave off the stupid comments that have nothing to do with the article. Cheers! Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sqrjn,

Using that as a standard the orphans of Hurricane Katrina were kidnapped by FEMA. In a more general sense using that defination anybody who cares for an orphan for more than 24 hours is guilty of kidnapping, even a caring neighbor or school teacher or police. I do not agree with your logic. Davemeistermoab 16:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Did FEMA cause those children to become orphans? The murderous attackers of the massacre were the kidnappers of the children at Mountain Meadows. Nobody here that has called it a kidnapping has called the caretakers kidnappers. The caretakers received these children into their homes because somebody else kidnapped them. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You stretch credulity of your position. It does not matter who took care of the children, they provided needed care! I think you even see the stupidity of this position and yet you stick to it without any ability to defend yourself. This falls in the provence of having an axe to grind and not even trying to write a historical article. More than anything else, I pity you. Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not care in the least who took care of the childen; I only care about the fact that they ere kidnapped prior to being cared for. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Duke53, you seem to need to reread the policy on personal attack; you have a remarkable lack of understanding. Senseless and misappropriate use of warnings only serves to make you look as if you lack the intelligence necessary to use them or that you think that you can intimidate other editors with your misuse/abuse of WIKI policy. Please refrain from all abuse of the system and spend your time reading policy before attempting to post further warnings. I will not be intimidated by such pathetic attempts at intimidation and ignorance. Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe legally and morally someone who kills a child's parent, but has not desire to kill the child has a duty to turn themselves and the child into the nearest State authority.

FEMA would not be kidnapping children, because the Gov't has the power to act In Loco Parentis. Someone who has just murdered a childs parent has no such power.

"Surrounding residents" i love how you mormons keep trying to minimize this everyway you can. The surrounding residents were all complicit in the massacre. There men made up the milita who did the killings, and their families assited in the coverup. Sqrjn 18:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You believe that as soon as someone committs a crime they are morally obligated to turn themselves in to the authorities? Can you show me criminals anywhere in world throughout history that maintained this degree of morality? Further, would you please show me another religious group that was so thoroughly persecuted, run out of every state in which they lived, and then did not seek revenge against those who bragged about being invovled in the murder of their prophet. Revenge is never justified. These people should have left the group and turned the other cheek. However, it does help understand the mindset of those invovled without attempting to forgive their actions.

At the time of this massacre there was not such thing as FEMA; the Federal government was not even an active force in the region. Further, the area was not highly populated. I am not aware of any society at any time in history where the wife and children knew everthing their husband did. In fact, quite the opposite, when men/individuals do something for which they know is wrong they seldom broadcast it to the world. I can imagine that something as heinous as this would not be openly discussed as to who did what, when, and each individual invovled. The most you can say is the some assisted in the coverup and not everyone. My concern is just stating facts without coloring the issue. Conversely, little duke seems committed to only paint the worst picture. To me the logic is laughable; 17 children have seen their parents murdered by armed men. If the individuals had left them and they starved to death you would accuse them of even more heinous acts. The fact that the children were spared and care provided is now grounds for calling it kidnapping is a joke. It is not history, it is simple, rather crass, anti-Mormon propaganda.

You Mormons? Sqrjn, please attempt to demonstrate some degree of objectivity. You have done so in past; now is a time to do so again. Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider, this is the last warning of this type that I will issue on this page; if you continue with the name calling and personal attacks I will ask that you be blocked from editing. No matter how you choose to paint it, kidnapping is kidnapping; kidnapping definitely occurred at the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Choosing to commit a lesser heinous act (i.e., not slaughtering them as their parents were slaughtered) does not make it any less a crime. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop with the incessant whining and the misuse of warnings. I encourage you to immediately pursue a request for a block of my actions. I have never been blocked and I would like a formal review of my actions and yours. I welcome this; as the old saying goes, "either put up or shut up".

You use warnings in an attempt to intimidate others. You misuse them. You attempt to strech their meaning to ensure that everyone cowtows to your POV. I reject the misuse of warnings and your actions specifically. You have yet to understand the meaning of a personal attack. Please review the policy and see to be coached by a skilled Adminstrator.

As you have noticed on my talk page, an admin could only say you have "half" a point; in other words, my words do not fully meet the definition of a personal attack. I should not have said you lack the intelligence to "whatever"; however, my other comments were harsh becuase of your complete rejection of cooperation or compromise with any editor that disagrees with your postion. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"You attempt to strech [sic] their meaning to ensure that everyone cowtows [sic] to your POV. Au contraire ... you expect to push the LDS POV down everyones' throats without any resistance; not going to happen. Very generous of you to ask me to "pursue a request for a block of my actions" since you have already seen my request for that fron Ben Aveling on his talk page. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we stop the reversions on Kidnapping. Are we just at absolute odds. Is there anyway we can agree or compromise. Kidnapping means what it means, but its always possible an alternative term can be acceptable and mean the same thing. Sqrjn 22:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote request

"On 1961 April 20, the LDS Church posthumously reinstated Lee's membership"

This seems like a rather significant event, which might deserve more than a sentence, but before that happens, what has the source (Bagley, p. 361) actually written about this? The original version had a different date, so perhaps there is more than one source for this information as well. --Lethargy 20:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"Temple worker Merrit L. Norton had presented the family's request, and on April 20, 1961, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve authorized the restoration of Lee's membership and temple blessings. Norton was baptized for his dead grandfather, and on May 9 Apostle Ezra Taft Benson officiated in the endowment and sealing ceremonies at the Salt Lake Temple." (Bagley, p. 361) BRMo 04:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

So it was a baptism/endowment for the dead, rather than just saying "he's a member again", which I thought it meant. It was approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, so it wasn't one of those names (e.g. Adolf Hitler) that have been submitted that shouldn't have been (see Baptism for the dead). The current wording might be incorrect, since all the quote says is that it was approved on April 20, but it wasn't necessarily done that day. --Lethargy 19:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

---

The Utah Education Network[2] says this: "1961: Lee reinstated as a church member. This was largely because of Juanita Brooks. Lee’s family had been pushing to have him reinstated for many years". I don't know much about UEN but this how they are described: Utah Education Network in partnership with the Utah State Office of Education and the Utah System of Higher Education. This is from a lesson plan that they have online. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... that doesn't really have much that we can use to expand it. Perhaps the current source (Bagley, p. 361) has more, but I don't have a copy on hand to check it out. --Lethargy 02:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it really wouldn't be much in the way of 'expanding' it, since his reinstatement is not mentioned there any longer. Is the UEN considered a good source? Some folks may believe that his being reinstated has some significance in this article, since his excommunication is mentioned prominently. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It is probably a fine source, but what is (or was) there is probably more reliable. Both would be fine IMO. --Lethargy 02:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel that whoever deleted it should then revert their deletion. I did not delete it, so I won't be reverting it. p.s. aside: If I lived in Utah I would hope that this group that is creating lesson plans with the State Office of Education would be a little better than "probably a fine source". Duke53 | ^Talk 02:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I could add insults about the State Office of Education, but I won't. :-) It was deleted by Tinosa with an edit summary of: "Lee's involvement with the Mountain Meadows Massacre ended 3/28/1877, the day of his execution. His religous affiliations in 1961. ???" --Lethargy 02:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyedits to children

I think the resolution of this issue is fairly straightforward if we do so neutrally - and made copyedits in furtherance of that:

1. State the facts - there were 17 children alive after the attack, they were raised by x. The army returned them to their families.
2. Quote contemporaneous records about the event in support of the different views

I reduced Carleton's quote on the state of the children because 1) he was not a witness as to how they were brought to the home; and 2) it did not support the theses of the paragraph. --Trödel 03:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There isn't the slightest bit of neutrality in the edits you made. It is strictly pro-Mormon POV as it is now written. I (obviously) can not get any help from admins on this matter (I asked in two different places). If you are so sure that you are correct why don't you ask for help from a neutral party; a review by outsiders would finally settle the debate over this kidnap. If I knew the procedures better then I would probably get results. You all seem to be so knowledgable about all things WP, why don't you get an independent opinion? Duke53 | ^Talk 03:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what neutrality means - it means to simply state the facts. If it is to be described as a kidnapping, then (unless it is not disputed) it must be attributed to a specific person/group. Like "Descendents of x describe the ordeal of x and the other children as a kidnapping" but, of course, that would need a specific references as it is not generally agreed upon. That is what neutrality means - if you think it is pro-LDS to stay the things that are written on this page - you are sadly mistaken - and that you can't get support to include non-neutral adjectives suggests that you should take a careful look at what you are advocating. --Trödel 05:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't pretend to tell me what I 'understand'; what is there now is almost word for what is written in most of the pro-Mormon (and official Mormon) articles I have read the past few days about this massacre. I also notice that there is no mention of the small children who were slaughtered there, which was proven when the gravesite was disturbed. After lying about the massacre for so many years, I don't expect the LDS church to be any more forthcoming with the truth. I believe that you may have not read the comments on this page written by other editors who also agree that it was a kidnap; very presumptious of you to make the edits when it was far from being settled here. The part that really gets me is that since part of the truth eventually came out about Mormons slaughtering these people, you all are fighting so hard to not have the murderers portrayed as kidnappers. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC) p.s. I also discovered that FAIR and FARMS are not 'peer reviewed' in the same manner that other scholarly journals are subjected to (anonymous editors do the review); the 'peers' who review their articles are employees of the journal or the LDS church. Therefore I am taking anything sourced through them with a grain of salt.

I don't believe my edit made any change to information about the children that were killed. Much is not known about MMM - much is assumed, and there is much finger pointing. That it is a tragedy is undeniable, I wish it never happened. Since it is such a contentious issue, we need to be extra careful in describing the tragedy, and attributing things appropriately. If you identify the language I copyedited:

• Seventeen young children were not murdered in the massacre. These children were distributed to local Mormon homes for care. All but one of the children were returned to their families in the east by the US Army.

as being "pro-mormon" I am not sure what you mean. I would say the same event, described by one of the Mormon settlers of that time would be more like:

• Seventeen young children were rescued by Mormon settlers. The children were lovingly cared for and excellent families were carefully chosen from amongst the community to provide the best care possible. The US Army, without warrants, forcibly entered into the homes of the pioneers, who had been driven and beaten west by prejudice and hate, and again, trampling their constitutional rights, and took children thought to be descendents of those killed in Mountain Meadows and forced them to return east.

As you can see, this version uses adjectives to cast the settlers a certain way. Contains parentheticals to unrelated events to engender sympathy in the reader for the settlers, etc. This is the way the copy read before my edit - it contained adjectives which were sympathetic to a specific viewpoint and parentheticals calculated to create sympathy for that viewpoint.

If the "pro-Mormon" and "official Mormon" accounts read more like the first, then it is probably because of the desire amongst modern LDS Historians to 1) accurately describe what happened, 2) describe what is known, and 3) not mindlessly regurgitate unsubstantiated accusations.

The events are shocking by themselves, we don't need to insult the reader by saying "be shocked" through non-neutral writing. They will be shocked just as I am and you are by man's inhumanity to man.

Finally, as far as peer review goes, I believe our prior discussion involved Dialogue, which is peer reviewed anonymously. --Trödel 06:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Finally, as far as peer review goes, I believe our prior discussion involved Dialogue, which is peer reviewed anonymously". From reading about people who have been part of the process of peer review at Dialogue, there are differences between their version of peer review and the classical style. Editors at Dialogue know both the writers' identities and the reviewers' identities; their definition of anonymity comes into play because the writers do not know the identities of the reviewers. In a true peer review the editors do not know the identities of the reviewers either. Duke53 | ^Talk 23:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Trödel, it is a novel concept to just simply state the facts of history without any "spinning" or POV "coloring". However, as you can see, just stating facts seems to be unacceptable when editors insist on only their POV, regardless of history, being made.

Duke53, one way to achieve your objectives is to find a reputable source and quote that historian. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Attributed quotes to historical figures should not be deleted from the article period. Doing so only serves something other than truth. We've had a long debate on Carleton and his obviously strong feelings. But his thoughts are extremely relevant regardless of your feelings about him or his views. Stating a quote is stating a fact. The quote is a historical fact. You can search for a "reputable source" that you agree with and include it if its also from a contemporaneous source. But I think you're just searching for something that matches Your POV and deleting anything that doesn't. Sqrjn 22:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Kligensmith, Higbee, & Lee, massacre participants and caretakers of the Christian children. 1-Kligensmith took pocession of a small girl, "babe at the breast". 2-Higbee took pocession of the oldest boy. John Calvin Miller. 3-Lee took pocession of Christopher Carson Fancher. (1&2 Kligensmith 1875 testimony.) (3 Brooks Chapt.9) Lee's ransom for caring for Fancher: horse,bridle,blanket($150)paid to the indians for boarding,clothing & schooling 48 weeks @$2.00/week ($96.00). ...more... Let's not forget Hamblin, the man who knew nothing of the children until a pistol was held to his head. Hamblin received $600.50 for the care of Sarah, Rebecca and Louisa Dunlap from Sept. 10, 1857-April 17, 1859. Hamblin was paid $318.00 for expenses he incurred in hunting one of the children who survived the massacre. From Dec. 1, 1858 to June 30, 1859 another $350.00 and from Aug. 1, 1858-April 18, 1859, $1,693.20 was paid him for board, clothing and schooling for children saved from the massacre. $2,961.78 was Hamblin's take. So what was the worth of the 30 pieces of silver that Maj. Carleton wrote about in 1859? Tinosa 14:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting that the sources you are quoting from calls the money "care" for the children. Do you have a reference for "ransom" or is your choice of word? On WIKI, facts are reported and not one's personal editorial. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Tinosa i dont get your point. 30 pieces of silver is a reference to the bible. Carleton is comparing the mormons ransom to judas' blood money. I'm putting Carleton's quote back in. But feel free to include the actual amounts, with a cite. Sqrjn 05:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyedits to monuments

I think it is worth noting (in the article) that Young had his followers tear down the first cairn that was erected as a monument to the slaughtered victims. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Brooks gives the source of this story as "a legend in the writer's own family" (her grandfather, Dudley Leavitt, as retold by three of his sons). She writes, "Brother Brigham read to himself and studied it [the inscription] for a while and then he read it out loud, 'Vengeance is mine saith the Lord; I have repaid.' He didn't say another word. He didn't give an order. He just lifted his right arm to the square and in five minutes there wasn't one stone left upon another. He didn't have to tell us what he wanted done. We understood." On the other hand, in the following paragraph Brooks presents contradictory evidence from "later travelers who refer to it as standing." She quotes Lorenzo Brown, went past the monument in May 1864 (3 years after Young's visit) and provided a detailed description of the cairn, cross, and inscription. I don't think a story described by its source as a family legend meets the WP:V criterion, so I've deleted the story. BRMo 04:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West 1847-1896. Bigler states the same; is he not a credible author? Apparently those men kept journals; are journals not considered credible sources? Duke53 | ^Talk 04:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Did Bigler cite a source? Since he's quoting Dudley Leavitt (Brooks's grandfather and the same person that she cites as the source of her "family legend"), I suspect Bigley's source is Brooks. If Leavitt had recorded this event in a journal, letter, deposition, or other contemporary document, surely Brooks would have cited it, rather than describing it as a family legend. BRMo 05:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Mormon Apostle Wilford Woodruff's diary, Mormon President Brigham Young visited the site of the Mountain Massacre: "May 25 (1861)... The pile of stone was about twelve feet high but beginning to tumble down. A wooden cross is placed on top with the following words, Vengeance is mine and I will repay saith the Lord... Pres. Young said it should be Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little." This was taken from his journal; are we to believe it? . Duke53 | ^Talk 04:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Woodruff's diary is a contemporary source, and I didn't see any reason to question it. In fact, I believe it was my edit that added the information that Woodruff's diary was the source cited by Brooks. There's a lot of legend and folklore about the massacre (on both sides). The better historians have tried to focus on contemporary information, such as diaries and letters. I do not think the article is improved by including folklore that is contradicted by contemporary sources. BRMo 05:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Editing journals

Are we now allowed to edit out quotes because we think it promotes a POV? That is what is happening: "13:13, November 8, 2006 Trödel (Talk | contribs) (remove non-neutral adjectives -)". This is a factual document; if this continues then we can probably expect edits to other journals and diaries that are quoted here and in other articles. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please! I am not sure if you are trying to bait me or what - That is exactly what happens in other articles all the time - it is called Editorial Judgement. When writing an encyclopedia you try to keep things concise - you use quotes from sources and paraphrase them or make other editorial decisions using proper markup: "[not included in original quote] ... and then we skipped stuff." --Trödel 04:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not accuse me of anything; it's really odd how the quotes are edited. Don't flatter yourself; what gives you the idea that your thoughts and words are important enough to me that I would bait you? Your 'editorial judgment' might not be somebody else's idea of editorial judgment. If I make wholesale edits to the Mormon apostle's journal don't you think there would be some quick reversions? Play fair ... there is no real easy way to make a bunch of murderous kidnappers sound decent, but some editors here keep trying to do just that. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

More not less. Historical quotes are good, limiting them to sanitize their POV is wrong. If the quotes are to long or irrelevant a cite is appropriate. Trying for a neutral article is essential, but you do this by presenting as much of the truth as possible. People are not stupid they know that historical figures, like everyone else has a POV. Sqrjn 05:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In an article about a conteniuous issue - using extensive quotes from one POV is giving undue weight to that pov. --Trödel 12:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

So who decides if its undue? you? me? When is it too "extensive"? if you dont like it add something to balance it out. lets do more research. The carelton quote is hardly overlong there are already several longer, more 'extensive' quotes in the article.

Chopping up quotes creates a much greater risk of biasing an article than adding more. How do you skew a quote? you quote it with too little context. Sqrjn 22:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for massacre

I just reverted some edits made to the section "Reasons for massacre" by Sqrjn, and in my comments I said we should discuss and try to develop some consensus. I see that some changes may be needed to the two paragraphs, but I'd like to see us try to discuss what changes are needed and and hopefully avoid an edit war. Here are my comments:

• Was Brigham Young governor of the territory at the time? My understanding is that President Buchanan had appointed a new governor who was on his way to the territory, but Young had not yet been officially notified of the change (I'm not sure about unofficially), and at any rate, Young was continuing to act as governor during this period.
• Had Young been informed of the army's purpose? I believe the answer is no and that historians of the massacre, such as Brooks and Bagley, have thought this was relevant in explaining the reasons for the massacre.
• Were the Mormon experiences in Missouri and Illinois relevant in explaining the reasons for the massacre? Again, historians such as Brooks and Bagley have agreed that it was. Maybe the word "persecution" is controversial, but I consider it factually accurate that the Mormons were driven from their homes, losing property and lives.

On the first two points, I would hope that adding a bit more explanation would suffice. On the last point, I would strongly object to removing all reference to the Mormon conflicts in Missouri and Illinois, but there may be room for substituting more neutral language. BRMo 15:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"He believed this army could renew the persecution the Latter-day Saints had experienced in New York, Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois prior to their arduous journey west."

"Also, the emotional legacy of the murders of Joseph Smith and others in Illinois in 1844, mob action in LDS settlements, and the Mormon War of 1838 in Missouri, in which Governor Lillburn Boggs had ordered all Mormons to be exterminated or driven from that state, led Mormon settlers to be antagonistic and on alert."

The above two restored sections are both extremely POV, the second is most probably OR. What many editors here fail to recognize is that the Mormons brought a lot of the 'persecution' on themselves by their own actions; others refer to it as retaliation rather than 'persecution'. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree that the word "persecution" can be considered POV. Would "violence" be an acceptable substitute? (It is verifiable that the LDS had experience violence, and it seems to me to be a word that avoids assigning blame.)

On the second sentence, I am having trouble seeing why you consider it "extremely POV." The murder of Joseph Smith, mob action, the Mormon War in Missouri, and the extermination order are all facts that are verified in histories written by both LDS and non-LDS authors. The authors of histories of the Mountain Meadows massacre have all emphasized this history as an important part of the background for the massacre. For example, Brook (p. 3) writes, "To understand properly the Mountain Meadows Massacre, one must know something of the stormy history of the Mormon church." She then covers this history in some detail in her first chapter (pp. 3-14). On p. 31, discussing the situation in the southern part of the territory, she returns to this history, "Most of the people who had been called to the south had been with the church through the persecutions of Missouri and Illinois; Tarleton Lewis, the bishop of Parowan, had been wounded at the Haun's Mill massacre and survived only because the mob thought he was dead. Others had lost relatives and friends in that tragedy and longed for an opportunity to avenge them." Although I don't have Bagley at hand right now, my recollection is that he also reviewed this history. It seems to me that since the major historians of the massacre agree that the conflicts in Missouri and Illinois are part of the reason, it is verifiable and can't be considered original research.

By the way -- someone needs to archive the older discussions on this page. BRMo 19:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Let us not forget that Sidney Rigdon introduced the term "extermination" into the dialogue (07/04/1838):

" ... it shall be between us and them a war of extermination, for we will follow them, till the last drop of their blood is spilled, or else they have to exterminate us: for we will carry the seat of war to their own houses, and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed".

This should then be included in this article. His speech sounds a lot like a declaration of war; he should have been a little more careful in what he asked for. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC) [3]

That is not correct. From my reading "Extermination" was a common phrase on both sides of the isle, I've found a couple references of the Missouri strugle as the "War of extermination" before it was codified on October 27, 1838. It has its origins from Missouri state government executive order 44, signed by then governor Lillburn Boggs. It's most famous phrase is, "The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace". Sidney Rigdon (not Rugdon) was arrested on October 31st, 1838 under the guise of this order. Although from the wording it is clear exterminate did not mean kill, more forcibly removed, people were killed in the enforcement of this order. Signey Rigdon most likely meant extermination in this same context.

For the record, executive order 44 was still legally binding until June 25, 1976. On that day it was rescinded and a government apology was issued by then governor Christopher Bond. Admittedly legally binding is probably not the best word as any self-respecting judge from the civil rights era on would have ruled the order unconstitutional were the issue before his/her court.

Davemeistermoab 02:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying: 07/04/1838 was before 10/27/1838; Rigdon's speech, which was approved by Smith mentions 'extermination' was delivered on 07/04/1838, months before the Extermination Order was signed; the speech was later printed and distributed by the church. So the 'origins' seemed to have started in Rigdon's speech ... he issued the challenge and Missouri upped the ante. No matter what he 'meant' , extermination is what he said. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC) (oh, it's A - I - S - L - E, not isle)

Yes, I'm well aware July comes before September. My point is that I don't think it is safe to say Sidney Rigdon was the first to use "extermination" I'm not saying he wasn't. But I'm saying the fact that you've found a quote before that time does not prove he was the first. It was apparently a common word to use in the conflict. Also, I don't think it appropriate as the context of "extermination" is not clear given the difference between its common use today and the apparent use at the time. It would likely cause more confusion than resolve. At a minimum if the quote is added context and proof of relevency should be included.

Davemeistermoab 06:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Rigdon's July 4 speech is quoted in the article on the Mormon War. For it to belong in the Mountain Meadows massacre article, we have to ask whether any recognized historian has argued that Rigdon's speech has a role in explaining the reasons for the massacre? That's the standard under Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. BRMo 03:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways; if you want the Mormon war included as a possible 'reason' for the massacre, you have to have the possible 'reasons' for the Mormon war. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as an issue of what I want or don't want. The issue is what do historians of the massacre discuss when they discuss the reasons for the massacre. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is supposed to summarize the published findings of recognized experts. BRMo 04:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is supposed to summarize the published findings of recognized experts". I don't know where you got that, but please point it out for us in WP policies; in fact, I just went through the sections of what WP 'is and isn't' and nothing remotely like that is stated. The opposite is true however: be bold . Duke53 | ^Talk 08:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

From WP:NOR: "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source." "In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by university presses; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals published by known publishing houses." "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read the primary source material for themselves."

From WP:V: "The policy: 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." BRMo 09:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Common Sense "Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. If you use common sense when editing, you are unlikely to break any rules". Common sense tells us that the abduction of those children was a kidnapping. Duke53 | ^Talk 09:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Use common sense - The same essay says, "Invoking the principle of 'Ignore all rules' on its own will not convince anyone that you were right, so you will need to persuade the rest of the community that your actions improved the encyclopedia." In this case, a number of editors are unpersuaded that kidnapping can be established by an appeal to common sense. Wikipedia operates by building consensus. BRMo 15:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice". Is not calling this kidnapping a kidnapping eccentric? We shall see if ever we get outside intervention. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You have pretty much summed up how others feel about your proposed edit in this situation. Please share with us your thoughts, which have been asked several times before and never answered. Would it have been better had the Mormons simply left these children in the wilderness? Why? I look forward to your enlightened response. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Several questions I Have. (1) When the Americans, who had been under siege for five days, loaded the children, the wounded, and their weapons into the two wagons, driven by two Mormon teamsters under the supervision of Lee, did they say (A) we'll see you in a few minutes or (B) we'll see you at the Pearly Gates? After the massacre, the children were delivered to a farmhouse where Lee "went through the form of selling or bartering off all the children by two", according to the investigation of Federal Marshal Rogers. Dr. Forney, the Superindent of Indian Affairs, reported that "The children were sold out to different persons in Cedar City, Harmony, and Painter Creek." The question is 'how much was a child worth?' Lee submitted a bill to Forney for a horse, bridle, and $96 for one young boy. Was that typical of a child's worth?

When LDS President Young, visited the Southern Utah Counties in 1861 to investigate the cotton crops, did he ask about the newly acquired seventeen cotton pickers? Tinosa 17:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Tinosa, if you don't stop, then people are going to think that the acts of these humanitarians were a bad thing. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Relevant policies

I beg both of you to please read the following (emphasis added) as well as the linked policies. Another thing that might help here is the essay, Writing for the enemy.

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one... Readers are left to form their own opinions.

[...]

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed. (from The neutral point of view)

Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he 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 Saddam'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. (from Let the facts speak for themselves)

---

...We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. We should present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail. (from Fairness of tone) |} Everyone who has edited the article knows the massacre and the creation of orphans who are then raised by those accused of killing their parents are bad things. And just because a few Wikipedians that you view as being "pro-CJC" are attempting to enforce the policies does not make them wrong. Just as the editors here are not claiming that admitted biases do not mean you shouldn't be contributing to this article. The point is to create an encyclopedic article, and those that care about the issues are the most likely to write about them. That is why the policies exist to help the article, in the end, be neutrally presentated and reflect our mission which is to create an encyclopedia. --Trödel 20:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits are made, sources are properly cited ... what's the problem? Policies are being followed; this article is no more important to me than an article about Duane 'Dawg' Chapman or Starland Vocal Band. Each deserves factuality if Wikipedia is ever going to be taken seriously.

The edits made to this article are facts that cannot be ignored; some times the truth hurts. Some editors here would like to edit quotes and only one side of those quotes. That is bias and POV. In order for people to 'form their own opinions' both sides must be presented in total.

Talking on this talk page is different from editing the article ... some would have only their comments be recorded; not likely to happen. Comments on talk pages aren't held to the same standards as comments on article pages. This article is much improved and more encyclopedic since some new editors have become involved in editing it.

Also, other editors here don't mind that folks with other biased opinions are allowed to edit this article either; though we will continue to insist that it is factual and NPOV. We will not be 'swarmed' or bullied away from our right to edit it. This is no place for any 'company line'. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

??NPOV??

Previously, on this dicussion page, I ask a series of questions and received not one answer. Interesting!

One question. One time.

Wikipedia,The Mountain Meadows massacre/Who ordered the massacre?/The following is attributed to Sally Denton. "She also notes that it would have been nearly impossible for the chiefs to travel nearly 300 miles in 6 days to begin the attack on September 7." (P158&159)

Before I return my "AMERICAN MASSACRE" book to the library, would someone tell me where I can find the above quote.

On page (158&159) of the book "AMERICAN MASSACRE" she says "Church officials have steadfastly maintained that the chiefs left that day in time to travel nearly three hundred miles to marshal their warriors, and begin the massive attack on the Arkansas pioneers just six days later."Tinosa 01:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Aha ! "I ask a series of questions and received not one answer". Interesting! The crux of the matter ... finally! I too have asked many questions but the M.O. around here is to ignore them and later ask a question and badger you to give an answer. When my questions are answered I will be more forthcoming with answers (except for one editor who I will never answer about anything; he lost any credibility he might have ever had by making up false accusations against me). Duke53 | ^Talk 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the Mountain Meadows massacre. It's about a group of people, Mormons with no morals, who murdered over 120 California Emigrants who were Methodists and had wealth. The article is "not" about a tarred & feathered, polygamist, magic man who was driven from every town he lived, "nor" an adulterer who was gut-cut by a jealous husband.

When should the time line begin? http://www.somis.org/$3.JPG Tinosa 03:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Since it is not obvious what is clear to me I will attempt to copyedit the article using "unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides" to demonstrate the language I am referring to --Trödel 21:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of biased editing

Whats clear to me is that you honestly believe you are being unbiased, its equally clear that you are mistaken. I think you'll find it difficult to find 'cold, fair, analytical' language for a massacre and human tragedy. In fact "massacre" is a fairly charged word, why arn't you hot to change the title. I nominate "the unforunate event involving death of humans at mountain meadows" instead. Sqrjn 07:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Scratch that 'unfortunate' is POV, death is kinda strong too. How about just "Event involving life termination of humans at mountain meadows." Sqrjn 07:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You're failure to see that the use of charged adjectives is different than properly describing something as a massacre shows that you do not understand the policies quoted above. Thank you for providing evidence that I'm more interested in a neutral POV, than in pushing whatever POV you think I'm trying to push --Trödel 14:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense, I didn't provide evidence for anything. My estimation of you continues to drop. Seriously though how is massacre different than kidnapped? They are both "charged adjectives". They both also accurately describe the events, so I will contine to use them. I don't think I accused you of pushing a POV, I accused you of being self-deluded. I said that I think you honsetly believe you are being unbiased.

Please explain to me, exactly why kidnapped is inappropriate? Why is it unacceptably charged, whereas massacre is not? Honestly and directly engage this question I think we will all benefit. Sqrjn 16:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try:

massacre: to kill unnecessarily and indiscriminately, esp. a large number of persons[4]

kidnap: to steal, carry off, or abduct by force or fraud, esp. for use as a hostage or to extract ransom[5]

There is no serious dispute that at least one of the definitions of a massacre applies - there were a large number of humans killed (although the fact that the children under 6 were not killed argues against indiscriminately); however, there is dispute about how the children were taken and treated - accusations of ransom, etc. Kidnap is also used as a legal term to describe a specific crime; however, the references in the article show that some of those caring for the children do not meet the definition. Additionally, the motive for not killing the children is unclear - whether it is for the express purpose of getter a ransom, or to use the children as a hostage; or out of some type of realization of the horror of the act stopped them from killing the most defenseless amongst the victims. Thus kidnapping to me is not-neutral. PS - this isn't the only word that needs to be changed in the article - the whole thing is a mess of violations of neutrality policy. --Trödel 17:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

kidnapping is the taking away of a person against the person's will, usually to hold the person in false imprisonment (confinement without legal authority) for ransom or in furtherance of another crime. We can play dueling dictionaries forever; let's get an outside mediator in here to review this issue. Again, nobody has said that the people who ultimately were the caretakers of the children were the kidnappers; the kidnappers were the murderers of these children's parents and other siblings. Some editors here seem to think that since the caretakers didn't kidnap the children that kidnapping couldn't take place; that is simply not true. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is excellent, finally a discussion of definitions. Please see my definitions from legal sources, somewhere above in this morass of discussion.

Trodel I take your main problem with use of kidnap to be that it does not apply to all those involved especially those who cared for the children. How about describing the children as "kidnapped by the mormon militia". I think you'll agree that your definition at the very least clearly applies to them. The children were abducted by force, regardless of their abductors motive. I also believe there is a strong argument that definitionally the caretakers were complicit in the crime at least as accomplices after the fact and would also be properly termed kidnappers, however that position needs a cite. The carelton quote already in the article supports this position. Sqrjn 18:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sqrjn, I am just desolated that poor, pitied Duke got his feelings so damaged that he is unable to engage in discussion with such lowly inidividuals as myself, but you seem to be of his opinion and may be able to respond. It is at least worth a try; however, I will understand if you choose not given that a response will end this weak discussion about kidnapping immediately. Please answer a few questions: Would it have been better had the Mormons simply left these children in the wilderness? Why? Did the evil Mormons save the children by taking the children from the wilderness and place them with families? I look forward to your answers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider you are obnoxious and rude, but i'm happy to answer your question yet again.

it would not have been better if the mormons had left the children in the wilderness, that would have been murder. I do not see why you think this is some sort of arguement about kidnapping, its irrelevant. Yes kidnapping is a lesser crime than murder in my mind. So what? How do the actions of the mormon militia not constitute kidnapping in your mind? It meets both the legal definitions I contributed and the standard dictionary one that Trodel put forward. Explain. Sqrjn 22:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sqrjn, would you please take the lead in requesting arbitration (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration) on this issue? Enough is enough ... we are getting accused of unwarranted edits by the same peoplw who are rushing to revert themselves; outside intervention is the only resolution to this, I'm afraid. My attempts to get mediation have been ignored, mostly because of the lack of mediators, I believe. You seem to know the ins and outs of WP better than I. Thank You. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I just think trying to cut the fine line is going to be difficult and make the article hard to understand and unnecessarily wordy, when a straight forward sentence will work. --Trödel 22:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sqrjn, you incessantly bring up that it is kidnapping for a situation where if the Mormons left the children it would be murder. It is not logical to call them kidnappers for providing assistance to the children who were left without parents or without anyone else to care for them. This is called spinning or gross violation of WP:NPOV. The choice was simple for the Mormons, murder the children along with the parents, which is obvious they did not do, or provide assistance. Providing care is not kidnapping no matter how many times you and Duke say that it is. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverting the mention of kidnapping

BRMo, this will continue until it is resolved by an external faction. There has been no consensus on this matter. You should not have removed the part about the children who were slaughtered during the attack; according to WP policy you don't delete, you ask for a source. You seem to want to quote the 'rules' so you sould have known this one. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what incident you are referring to, but you are completely wrong about the policy:

The policy: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

In other words, he can remove unverified stuff if he wants. Of course, it is probably more polite to just request a source, but it is not necessary. --Lethargy 20:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What a horrible job of editing this is

Welcome to Wikipedia, where scholarship is always trumped by persistent PoV and... whatever. This article is unorganized, sloppy, almost incomprehensible to anyone yet unfamiliar with the topic and it seems to me, deliberately so in order to obfuscate and bury the historical record. Here is the fact, with zero doubt or ambiguity in the documented record: The pioneers were isolated, besieged, tricked and then murdered in cold blood by Mormons acting under strict and clear orders from church leaders. Their property was distributed among the murderers and their families. The surviving youngest children were kidnapped (instead of being murdered with their parents). There is some rather compelling evidence of rape (by John D. Lee), but no proof. There is no documented evidence BY ordered the attack but he certainly contributed to the circumstances which precipitated it and certainly made efforts to deflect responsibility away from SLC and the LDS. Lee without a doubt was guilty of conspiracy to mass murder and as a mass murderer bereft of moral credibility, the statements he made before his execution years later carry little weight.

Siege section

The last two paragraphs, as well as the mention of the 1859 rock cairn in the Siege on September 7–11 1857 section seem out of place. This section should describe what happened on those days, not what happened years later. I'm not sure if this can be merged elsewhere or if it belongs in its own section. Suggestions? --Lethargy 22:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Like most of the article, it's been fragmented by the edit warring. All it needs is a rewrite. Gwen Gale 21:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Using Google

When I asked for a source cited on another page this is the message I got:

"Rather than citing one of those for your specific question about the value of the notes, I did a very quick Google search and found that a $1 Kirtland Safety Society note sells for approximately $2450.00 [2]. Mormon Americana sales outpace what is written in this article. Not sure why you didn't do that yourself? -Visorstuff 23:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)"

I believe the guy is an admin; why would that be okay to do on another page but not here? Duke53 | ^Talk 23:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea, perhaps he meant you should have googled it and found the source yourself, which doesn't seem appropriate, but I am unfamiliar with the incident. In this particular case however, I did try searching Google, but the newspaper articles referenced in the (unreliable) pages I found[6] seem to have been archived or are just difficult to find. The only one I found was South Utah city nixes Lee statue, which doesn't support all of the statements in the article. --Lethargy 23:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

These are the references cited (for the entire article) on that page:

• Adam, Dale W. Chartering the Kirtland Bank. BYU Studies 1983, Vol. 23, No. 4, p.467.
• Bitton, Davis. The Waning of Mormon Kirtland. BYU Studies 1972, Vol. 12, No. 4, p.455.
• Hill, Marvin S., C. Keith Rooker, and Larry T. Wimmer, The Kirtland Economy Revisited: A Market Critique of Sectarian Economics. BYU Studies 1977, Vol. 17, No. 4, p.389.
• Ludlow, Daniel H., Editor. Church History, Selections From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Deseret Book Co., Salt Lake City, UT, 1992. ISBN 0-87579-924-8.
• Partridge, Scott H. The Failure of the Kirtland Safety Society. BYU Studies 1972, Vol. 12, No. 4, p.437.
• Sampson, D. Paul and Larry T. Wimmer. The Kirtland Safety Society: The Stock Ledger Book and the Bank Failure. BYU Studies 1972, Vol. 12, No. 4, p.427.
• Tanner, Jerald and Sandra. Mormonism, Shadow or Reality by ]], Chapter 35. Utah Lighthouse Ministry 1964, ISBN 99930-74-43-8.

Which one of them do you suppose gives a 2006 value of the notes? As I said, if it's good enough to do over there, it is going to have to be good enough over here . I have also been told that just because a source isn't 'easily' accessible, or if it's archived or 'difficult to find' doesn't mean it doesn't diminish the value of the source. I asked for a source weeks ago and they haven't provided it. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right, being archived doesn't diminish the value of a source, it just makes it impossible for a third party to cite that source if they have never read it. I don't know what each of these sources say, and I don't know which ones were originally used. If you can remember which sources you used, please cite them. BTW, I did find one more link which hasn't been archived:John D. Lee Statue Still Looking For A Home. --Lethargy 00:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what they do say ... it is what they can't say: the newest one is 14 years old. How can they be used as a source for something's value in 2006? Duke53 | ^Talk 00:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In reviewing the statement in question of Visorstuff, the context is that there were references already in the article and Duke53 was contesting. Visor was saying he verified that the data was correct by doing a goggle search; Duke could have done the same thing and realized that the sources already provided were correct. Duke's issue, it appears, he wanted the exact page numbers rather than just the document name and author. See Talk:Kirtland Safety Society. Always better to understand context before accepting statements. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and add the {{facts}} tag back for now, but I'll also try to find those articles. --Lethargy 23:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: there are copies of several articles at findarticles.com, (e.g. [7]) which we can cite. Unfortunately, they like to sneak in popups and annoying ads, so we should try to find the originals if possible. --Lethargy 00:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet more problems with this article.. What did Maj. Carleton actually say?

Yet another problem with this article. What did maj. carlton actually say. The article first quotes him as saying:

"Here lie the bones of one hundred and twenty men, women and children, from Arkansas, murdered on the 10th [sic] day of September, 1857."

Yet with the recent edits at the bottom of the article it is stated: Here 120 men, women, and children were massacred in cold blood early in September, 1857. They were from Arkansas. No explanation is given for the discrepency.

This article is getting worse by the minute...

"At the base of the monument, facing north, an engraved granite slab was placed with the words".

"Here 120 men, women, and children were massacred in cold blood early in September, 1857. They were from Arkansas".[35]

That is the inscription from a monument; I don't believe anybody ever said that it was a quote from Carleton. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Um. Yes it does. Read both paragraphs. Both claim are these are the words as inscribed by maj. Carleton on the base of the monument. Which is correct?Davemeistermoab 06:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

According to a copy of the report this is what he said: "Here 120 men, women, and children were massacred in cold blood early in September, 1857. They were from Arkansas."[8]. I don't know where the second one came from. Duke53 | ^Talk 07:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Outside intervention

By now we should realize that neither side is going to stop reverting over the 'kidnap' / 'no kidnap' issue; if the 'no kidnap' faction is so certain that they are correct, why haven't they asked for outside intervention in deciding this issue? I attempted twice to get outside help, but apparently did it incorrectly; nobody from outside came to help. I will continue to revert until this issue is resolved once and for all. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have requested that this page be protected. Hopefully some ouside intervention will be forthcoming.Duke53 | ^Talk 23:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If you continue with your incessant reverts, you will be blocked. Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Storm Rider ^(talk 23:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Its really unfortunate that they froze the page after your last reversion Storm Rider. I had made some additions and clean-ups in the rest of the article, when you use Revert think about the fact that you are affecting the entire article and not just the contested point. Sqrjn 02:23, 17 November 2006 UTC)

I think I will go the mediation cabal and ask if someone would be interested in mediating the conflict on this page. What will stop is the incessant fighting over the term "kidnapping" and other editorializing that you and Duke insist on. If I am dissappointed with anyone, it would be you Sqrjn; you know better and have learned the benefits of compromise and working with other editors. The fact that you pander to Duke, and his objectives, defeats the ability of anyone that has a conflicting position (i.e. those who seek to just state facts without spinning), to participate in a progressive manner. The one objective that has been completely forgotten is to produce an informative, encyclopedic article. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection on Article

So what's up Centrx? Is this a temporary freeze? A brief cease fire before a resumption of hostilities? Have you opinions on the issues we've been discussing? Are we gonna try and resolve any of those? Sqrjn 02:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I have made a request at the Mediation Cabal, what happens from here depends upon a mediator accepting the challange of working with current group of editors to this article and the issues involved. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, hey, hey, I just found out that Duke53 actually got the article protected. What an CAPITAL idea. Well done! However, it was funny that he told Durova that I somehow was aware of his request and was being disingenuous for asking for a protect; what can I do when others think I am omniscient! Sorta wierd that he would think so highly of me. I think I am actually flattered. Duke you have made my day; grazie mille. Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, okay

I have requested that this page be protected. Hopefully some outside intervention will be forthcoming.Duke53 | ^Talk 23:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Its really unfortunate that they froze the page after your last reversion Storm Rider. I had made some additions and clean-ups in the rest of the article, when you use Revert think about the fact that you are affecting the entire article and not just the contested point. Sqrjn 02:23, 17 November 2006 UTC)

I think I will go the mediation cabal and ask if someone would be interested in mediating the conflict on this page. What will stop is the incessant fighting over the term "kidnapping" and other editorializing that you and Duke insist on. If I am dissappointed with anyone, it would be you Sqrjn; you know better and have learned the benefits of compromise and working with other editors. The fact that you pander to Duke, and his objectives, defeats the ability of anyone that has a conflicting position (i.e. those who seek to just state facts without spinning), to participate in a progressive manner. The one objective that has been completely forgotten is to produce an informative, encyclopedic article. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So what's up Centrx? Is this a temporary freeze? A brief cease fire before a resumption of hostilities? Have you opinions on the issues we've been discussing? Are we gonna try and resolve any of those? Sqrjn 02:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I have made a request at the Mediation Cabal, what happens from here depends upon a mediator accepting the challange of working with current group of editors to this article and the issues involved. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, hey, hey, I just found out that Duke53 actually got the article protected. What an CAPITAL idea. Well done! However, it was funny that he told Durova that I somehow was aware of his request and was being disingenuous for asking for a protect; what can I do when others think I am omniscient! Sorta wierd that he would think so highly of me. I think I am actually flattered. Duke you have made my day; grazie mille. Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Emphasis above mine. :) I wonder where I would get the idea that you were aware of the protection ('freeze') ?Duke53 | ^Talk 01:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that you edited someone else's comment for clarity, spelling or grammar. As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc., please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks, Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You assume that I and everyone else reads every edit on the talk page. Additionally, you must have also assumed that everyone feels your edits are so noteworthy they would be impossible to miss. BIG WAKE UP CALL --- not everyone, including me, reads every edit. Your continued editorializing is an excellent, and repeated example, of you never assuming good faith of others. Your efforts to reformat the talk page in such a way as to portray your POV as important also breaks additional policies. You might want to re-familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV. Cheers and happy, continuous editing! Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

To all other editors

It is very difficult to assume good faith when somebody writes the following (WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement talk page):

""Fish, I saw you removed your name from the LDS community group; that is unfortunate. It is true that article topics founded in relgion are quarrelsome; LDS/Mormon related articles are particularly so. However, to be successful you can not take things personally. I know that we have a gadflys [sic] (read obnoxious anti-Mormons with no objective in producing excellent articles, but only in grinding down their pathetic little axes), if I had my way editors of that ilk would be allowed to work with a coach for a period of time and then their case reviewed. If they continued in their POV editorializing, they would then be banned forever. They serve no purpose and produce nothing positive. It is one of the significant downfalls of producing a public encyclopedia; one must just accept it comes with the territory. Take a breather, reconsider your decision and then come back. I hope you will find the wisdom in doing so. Peace. Storm Rider (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)"

(emphasis above is mine) Now, wouldn't almost anybody view this as a personal attack? I'm wondering what the rest of you folks think. p.s. Time stamps don't lie. :) Duke53 | ^Talk 05:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No, a personal attack would be talking about a specific person. Was the singular or the plural used? One could have assumed you just overlooked it, but you corrected my misspelling so you must have been aware. Also, have you and Fish had a conflict? If so, on what article? Who was I addressing? How does that apply to this article? You might want to understand the context of the comment rather than stretching everything to be about you. ANOTHER WAKE UP CALL, the world is not about you, Duke53. Wikipedia is not about you and you are not a blip on my activity on Wikipedia. I am curious how you seem to follow me around checking my edits...appears you are stalking me. Stalking others will get you banned; this will serve as a warning. Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, to other editors

A few points to consider:

• "Sic is a Latin word meaning "thus", "so", or "just as that". In writing, it is italicized and placed within square brackets — [sic] — to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, or other preceding quoted material is a verbatim reproduction of the quoted original and is not a transcription error". I am not aware of any corrections I made to anybody's 'misspelling'. Copy / paste works just fine.
• Could someone explain what a 'watchlist' is for? It is not stalking. :) Wikipedia supplies this tool to us precisely for the tracking of items that are of interest to us.
• A personal attack occurred; I never said it was against me. Better use of the language would probably have pinpointed exactly which editor it was intended for. (my guess would be that it was meant for Dev920). Some editors have a record of using personal attacks against many people; if they don't want them where the entire WP community can always see (and cite) them, I would suggest using E-Mail or a telephone.
• It is certainly obvious how some editors feel about other editors who don't share the same beliefs on certain subjects: "read obnoxious anti-Mormons"; "they would then be banned forever", "They serve no purpose and produce nothing positive:, etc. This can't be ignored when NPOV enters into the discusssion; seems that those editors might be the ones with "an axe to grind".
• I am getting awfully tired of being 'threatened' with bans; if anybody has the necessary items and info for getting me banned, I say go for it; it will get interesting. I will not be threatened or bullied or swarmed into abandoning any articles; get used to it, I will be here (and in others that are gaining my attention).
• Unfortunately the time stamps on Wikipedia leave very clear evidence as to what times and dates posts are made; follow the dotted lines to see whether I was telling the truth. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So, Duke53, you self identify as an "obnoxious anti-Mormon"? Interesting self image. WBardwin 01:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)?

No, I don't; if you bothered reading the entire thread it is very clear that I was guessing that the editor being referred to was Dev920. Maybe you did read it but didn't understand; nice try. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)