Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Untitled

Material archived from the Mountain Meadows massacre Talk page. (Jul 1 – Jul 7, 2007 approximate)

Today I made an extract of Utah conditions, then shuffled sections elsewhere around

--(with concern SS/s about Utah's early theocracy & doctines Ogden has researched, I especially tried to save most of the citations (but otherwise tried to fit whatever text to keep into just a sentence or three - maybe for directly under the lede).

Then I moved the original "Background" (pre-Utah SS/) to towards the end of the article (just before "Regrets") and most of the original "Theocracy" & its "Doctrines" SS/s likewise all the way down in "Scholarship"; then I reshuffled SS/s toward some kind chronological order for... (forces--victims--perpetrators--massacre) :^) --Justmeherenow 06:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I know your edits were just a stab in the direction you want to go, and not your final vision for the article, but we have about 14 or so top-level headings now, which really makes the article confusing. I have some experience getting a complicated Mormon history-related article ready for FA and front-page status (Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.), so don't think I'm just coming in here trying to fill the article with new material with no regard for the quality of the final product. There are a few principles of good writing we should adhere to as much as possible, which I think are absolutely necessary if we want FA status:

1. Events in the article should be roughly chronological.
2. The number of major headings (two equals signs) for content (not including references, notes, see also, etc.) should be limited to about 4-5 for this article. (In a normal article, I'd probably say 3-4, but this one is more complicated than usual.)
3. The article should have sufficient background and context so that it can be understandable by a sophisticated reader with little background in Mormonism. We can't assume the reader is familiar with such things as blood atonement, Mormon theocratic law, or elements of Mormon eschatology, etc., which are cited as the main motivations for the massacre.
4. Since this is a controversial article, we'll probably have to rely mostly on primary sources, rather than secondary sources, although we'll need at least a summary of the differences of opinion among the secondary sources.
5. The length of the article (not including footnotes, image captions, references, etc.) should be around 60-85k. I don't think we can do it for less than 60. We can manage the size by moving material to footnotes, if necessary.

COGDEN 18:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the rant

I apologize for the rant. I'm facing pressures and I guess they spilled over.

As a way of sort of putting content and due weight considerations into play, I had considered summarizing the some of the key reliable books on the subject. I was gonna start with Brooks and take.. say.. one sentence for every 5 pages or perhaps one paragraph per chapter to summarize the thoughts put in there. But I did not think it would be valued so I did not do it. Not sure I have time. What do you guys think? It seems that such summaries (and I think I summarized some smaller sources like other encyclopedias previously... in the archives now). If its not of value I don't want to do it. But I thought it would indicate the kinds of things that would appropriately be included and what sorts of things would just be too much detail for an encyclopedic article. --Blue Tie 01:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I also should add that the article has not gotten entirely worse. For example, it no longer says that the militia was the Nauvoo Legion. Even though that was a sourced statement, it was wrong because the "affectionate" term of "Nauvoo Legion" applied to the SL Valley militias. The militias in the south were separate and I do not think that I have ever read anything where they were called the "Nauvoo Legion". But the article no longer says that and I think that is an improvement. This happens to be one example of a thing that is "sourced" but its not really right. Its one of the things that sorta bugs me about the idea that just because something is sourced its ok. Sources can be wrong. The Bagley quote in the article about how there is no good information is probably appropriate in this regard (though I think it is more of a footnote to support a statement in the article rather than something that should be in the article directly). I think Juanita makes a similar statement somewhere, if I remember right.

And since I am just sorta going stream of consciousness here... another thing I saw that was POV by innuendo was the bit about the LDS Jury not convicting. No fair jury could have convicted on the evidence in the first trial. The second trial also had an LDS Jury and they did convict. So the adjective "LDS", pertaining to the jury is misleading pov.

That gets me to an area where I think all contentious articles can benefit. Avoid adjectives and adverbs to a large degree. They are usually judgments about the noun or the verb -- and even if they are sourced, it is an opinion that is being sourced not a fact. An example is the phrase that says "... is highly contentious". Highly is an opinion not a fact. The opinion can be expressed but it should be expressed as the opinion of some entity -- and that can get overly tedious with every adjective that people want to put in. So just avoid the adjectives and adverbs where they make judgments -- and sometimes even when they express a fact. For example, the LDS adjective is either unnecessary or misleading, take your pick, but probably both. --Blue Tie 01:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything you're saying, although at this stage, I'm not so concerned with having too much detail. We can always split off articles later. As to summarizing the major secondary sources, that would be great, but it sounds like a lot of work. Maybe an easier way to do it would be for all of us to take a look at the tables of contents, although for some books, the TOCs aren't very informative (like Brooks). I do think that a review of the secondary sources is a good place to look to make sure we are covering all the bases and aren't neglecting anything. COGDEN 02:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

THOSE stalwart Pioneers——drilled in "Le-gion"

Positions, kept at tasks of peace or war, in

Whate'er their village, trailside camp, or re-gion.

I suppose this started in Missouri's Zion?—

-

But made their name when building up Nauvoo

Then ferrying the rivers 'cross the plains,

Ascending heights to...look...way...off...in-to

The valley Brigham said for sure's the place;

-

Then past quicksand and cactus to fort Ce-dar

(Or e'en, 'fore that, to Harmony?)—ALWAYS

They kept the name Nauvoo with pride and esprit de

Corps (do pardon the adverbial phrase!)

--Justmeherenow 22:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Just read it again

And oh my is this an awful article.

Out of the first 3850 words, the article would greatly benefit by being reduced to fewer than 1250 words. It is seriously bloated with cruft and tripe. --Blue Tie 05:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

---

The background is out of control. Too much detail. Too much bloat. Too much cruft. And pov as well.

[Blue Tie's (-Ed.)] Comments and suggestions

This statement: due the eschatological importance Mormons gave to building up their "Zion" community, seemed to them of apocalyptic significance is unsupported. It is pov. I see no evidence of it in literature I have read.

This statement: Secure in their stronghold in the newly-settled, Western frontier only since 1847, these architects of a burgeoning theocratic society throughout the Great Basin still retained a collective memory looks overcooked. They were not secure. It was not a stronghold. Who says that they were architects of a "burgeoning theocratic society?" The statement should simply say: "The Mormons had been settled in Utah for only 10 years. Previously they had lived as a community in Ohio, Missouri and Illinois...." [-Blue Tie]

The section on their persecutions should be reduced to one paragraph of no more than 150 words. It is too long right now. [-B/T]

I think it's OK, at least as it is right now (Maybe because Ogden has shortened it since you posted your concern?), since, as Ogden said, not all readers looking up the MMM are going to be aware of LDS history. --Justmeherenow 21:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

We might be able to streamline, but I think we need more than one paragraph on persecutions. There are several persecutions that are directly and stongly relevant to the massacre, such as the murders of Joseph and Hyrum and the Mormon War, particularly the former. The reader needs to have enough background to know why Utah Mormons would be so irate about the Missouri Wildcats rumors, and they need to know the whole background about how the devastating murders of Joseph and Hyrum were understood to bring about God's vengeance against the United States. I don't think we can skimp on this critical background.COGDEN 23:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that these can/should be dealt with in a summary fashion. A mention of Haun's mill in a list of the things suffered might be appropriate but I do not think a lot of detail is needed. I can see more detail under a section that deals with theories and explanations. I can see some discussion about Joseph Smith and persecutions suffered by him, but mainly in the context of some of the cattle drivers calling their cattle by the names of people revered by Mormons, while they beat them and called them names. As for the need to describe how "the devastating murders of Joseph and Hyrum were understood to bring abotu God's vengeance against the United States", I think we can safely skimp and even skip this as not particularly critical to the background. It might be appropriate as part of a theory/explanation section. --Blue Tie 03:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

( ...When feds are just about to rein in "the Mormon Rebellion" and help harness its theocracy, for an Arkansan to drive a pair of yoked oxen satirically called by the names of Presidents Young and Kimball would seem to be merely political commentary? All I know is that if I were with the Fancher party and some Mormon men came a-calling, with their eyes on my cattle and a pre-conceived notion to look for a pretext to hang a conflict between the party and Indian tribes, I'm pretty sure I'd respond to the vibe with colorful and intemperate words myself!)

I just glanced at a S.L. Tribune article by Peggy Fletcher Stack that quotes Darius Gray about the documentary he co-wrote/directed as neither "bitter" or "sanitized." Anyway, even if Wikipedia's MM massacre article so far remains (/has gotten) kind of loose, maybe it does pretty OK on the neither-bitter-nor-sanitized score? --Justmeherenow 20:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The theocratic kingdom of God stuff

should be completely eliminated or reduced to one or two sentences. It is way overblown. If it stays in any form larger than one or two sentences, it should be put near the end of the article in a section discussing theories on reasons for things to have happened. Right now it is just all wrong. [-Blue Tie]

The Mormon teaching on theocratic government should be utterly eliminated. It is irrelevant.

The Parley P. Pratt paragraph used to be one sentence and it was entirely adequate. [-B/T]

The issue is not whether you think Utah theocracy is "overblown". I actually agree it's overblown (particularly as it relates to blood atonement and Danites). However, the theocracy issue is so notable, and so often discussed in any treatment of the massacre, that it needs extensive treatment in the article. The real issue is whether it's relevant, and whether it is treated as important in secondary sources. All the secondary sources have extensive treatment of this, especially the earlier secondary sources such as the early newspaper editorials. In the 19th Century, for example, you couldn't find a source about the massacre that didn't mention the blood atonement doctrine and the Danites, and ranting and raving about how Brigham Young was some kind of dictator. I don't think they were right, but the fact it was treated as so important means that we have to treat it very seriously in this article. And summarizing the Utah Territory theocracy is not something you can or should do in 1-2 sentences.

As to moving factual background material to the end of the article, that doesn't make sense because you're putting things out of chronological order, and it defeats the purpose of having background material at all. It's much better to say:

1. Utah was a theocracy where some Mormons thought they had a license from God to enforce theocratic law, and were taught to obey Priesthood directives without question, and here's why...;
2. Some Mormons massacred Arkansan emigrants, claiming they were enforcing theocratic law as discussed above—

than to say:

1. Some Mormons massacred Arkansan emigrants, claiming they were enforcing theocratic law;
2. Oh, and by the way, as you might have guessed, Utah was run as a theocracy when they did it, and some of them understood their role was to enforce theocratic law and to obey Priesthood directives without question, and if you'll let me take you back in time before

the massacre, let me tell you why they thought this...

COGDEN 00:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you on almost every point. I believe I can make a very good case that what you consider to be vital is a trivial .. minor thing... not worthy of mentioning here. But I am busy and I have my doubts that you are unbiased on this matter. It appears to me that this theocratic kingdom of god stuff is a hobby of yours -- something you feel strongly about. In my experience people with hobbies like that feel that their "thing" is vital, in all contexts. Presenting a logical case to the contrary has never (again in my experience) made a difference to people with such passions. Consequently, I do not think you will be open to the idea that your baby is ugly and I do not want to spend a lot of time goring your ox while not achieving any benefit to the article. I just do not have the time to waste. But if you are serious about writing a good article you will cut that crap to a minimum and place it later in the article. It is just not background stuff. It is at best, an aspect of a theory on why things happened. But not a fully supported theory. It was J.D. Lee's main excuse and so it has some traction there. Thats about it. --Blue Tie 02:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you can make a very good case to that effect, and I'd probably agree with you to some extent. But my point is that for purposes of Wikipedia, our arguments don't matter worth squat because all notable points of view have to be represented, and the theocracy angle is the single most notable and widely-discussed explanation of the massacre, followed by the economic angle presented by Sally Denton and some early sources (i.e., the emigrants were rich and the Mormons were greedy). As to my personal biases, I'm an active LDS church member who thinks the massacre was widely misunderstood. So largely, I'm working against my biases. But my philosophy is that presenting the best, most accurate information about the topic, together with adequate background, will hurt the LDS Church's position far less than hiding the ball and then having the anti-Mormon contingency regurgitate the sale blood atonement/Danites/dictatorship arguments that have been presented from time immemorial.

Since the theocracy info has to be discussed, its much better not to hide it at the end in a "theory" section that focuses on secondary sources. I've done a lot of work on controversial Mormonism articles, and I can tell you that in the long run, focusing on the secondary sources are not the way to go. Unlike mathematics/science articles, which I have also worked with, there are very few areas of consensus in controversial Mormonism articles such as this one. Thus, while the secondary sources are important, they are no substitute for the primary sources, which are incontrovertible. You can't argue, for example, that Lee attributed the massacre to religious and theocratic reasons. Since the vast majority of the secondary sources agree with Lee's confession, this is not something of minor significance. It's a fact that Lee and other the primary sources attribute the massacre to Utah Territory theocratic law. Therefore, before we explain this to the reader, the reader has to know what the Utah theocracy was. To show what it was, again, it's best to turn to primary sources, such as Brigham Young, who led the theocracy and whose statements are authoritative (and always quoted by the secondary sources). (Not that it matters, but so you know my personal bias in this regard, I think that the theocracy was the primary factor in the warped minds of Lee, Haight, and others, but that they grossly misinterpreted their role in that theocracy.) COGDEN 17:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If "our arguments don't matter worth squat", then your arguments that the theocracy info has to be discussed should be ignored as worthless. Or your logic about our arguments not mattering is bad. I would accept either position; which do you think is the right one? --Blue Tie 03:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If it were I making those arguments, I'd agree, but it's not: it's Lee and most of the other primary sources, as well as most of the secondary sources. The only argument I'm making is a policy and editorial argument that consistent with NPOV, we shouldn't give the sources short-shrift because we think they are overblown, particularly the primary sources such as Lee's confession. Indeed, we can't ignore primary sources even if secondary sources think they are overblown, although we can and should note that fact. COGDEN 17:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of hobby horses (lol: joke - kidding), I take it from your talk page commentary, B/T, that you're displeased with the way the article's heading? ;^) Unfortunately, how the game's played - you'll have to consecrate time to source that Utah's theocratic nature/teachings of 1857 had little to do with Haight/Lee's crime or allow opposing players' passions to color background stuff. --Justmeherenow 14:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably not from my talk page commentary but from this talk page commentary. Weirdly, you are saying that I would have to prove a negative, which is not a reasonable request, but despite that I would have taken time to source and discuss my views but I am informed that my arguments do not matter. That is a plain statement of what the long-term result would be even if it had not been stated openly. If I had any confidence that it would make a difference, I would support my view. I do not have such confidence. I believe that for whatever reasons COGDEN is intent on putting the article together in a way that ruins it and no one else (such as you) cares or else you agree with him in his or her objectives.

Previously I would have gone, done some study, presented my case in a detailed logical way. Having done that now on many articles including this one, I detect a pattern with 100% consistency, that when someone has some hobby or agenda to play out, I am unable to be persuasive, if I take an opposing view. I have tried being patient, writing from the perspective of the other person, seeking third party comments, looking for RfC's, appealing to logic, ... everything that wikipedia suggests. Zero success. Either I am an idiot to think that my reasons and processes are good or editors on wikipedia are too excited by their biases and hobbies for those methods to work. Either way, it is not a good use of my time to play that game; this issue looks just like all the other useless wasted times on wikipedia. Life is too short and wikipedia does not matter so much that I should waste it.

Presently the article is just horrible... one of the worst I have seen. (And it used to be much better). But COGDEN likes it. Apparently you do too. That amounts to consensus on wikipedia and I'm not interested in wasting time trying to change someone elses biased passions. But it is very disappointing that it is this way. --Blue Tie 03:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't judge the article yet, because it isn't complete, and there are still major holes and things that are inevitably going to be changed. I also hope you don't project your frustration from other articles onto this one. Maybe it would be helpful for you to outline your vision for this page. Personally, I'm very pleased that there are currently editors with several points of view on this topic, because that's how the best articles get written. The editors go back and forth, and eventually, something resembling a good article emerges from the mess. I've seen it happen on many controversial Mormon-related articles, and it can happen here.

I'll tell you right now the things that are important to me in this article, and which I think are necessary to get it into FA shape:

1. The article should proceed as nearly chronologically as possible. (Not entirely possible, because some topical stuff belongs together, but we can come close.)
2. The article should provide sufficient background to enable the reader to understand the key players' stated motivations as set forth in the primary sources. That means that the reader should know what Mormon leaders were teaching at the time about what the primary sources say were the basis of the massacre: the higher "celestial law" in effect in the Utah Territory as understood by the key players, the belief that one would be justified in following Priesthood leaders unquestioningly, no matter what the command, belief in vengeance against the United States, and the assumed fast-approaching Millennial showdown (as well as blood atonement and the "Danites", although I personally think these particular charges by the primary sources are overblown). Without sufficient background, the primary sources make no sense, nor does the massacre, and the article isn't sufficiently encyclopedic.
3. The article shouldn't be too complicated. It shouldn't have more than 5 top-level content headings (even that's stretching it, but I can't figure out a way to reasonably reduce it any further).
4. The article should focus on primary sources, with secondary sources used mainly to provide different perspectives and interpretations of the massacre.

COGDEN 17:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) I agree with the idea that it should be chiefly chronological. I would not think we need to be stupidly slavish on that matter, but generally I think chronological will fit best. I do not agree that the background should be as detailed as you apparently think it should be. I agree that the article should not be too complicated. However, I think that there is some degree of complexity involved in the actual timeline of events and I also think that a discussion of theories and reasons will be somewhat complex out of necessity. I generally like primary sources first and secondary sources -- second. But WP:PSTS says that wikipedia article should rely chiefly upon secondary sources, not upon primary sources. I think part of the reason for that is because -- as the policy says -- primary sources can be misused and interpretation of them is usually necessary -- thus requiring a secondary source. Wikipedia should not have any opinions or interpretations of its own. --Blue Tie 02:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Outline

Background

Mormons settled Utah Valley to be isolated from the US

Mormons then felt threatened by the US Government

War and siege mentality occurred.

War Strategy -- including the use of indians and cattle rustling

(All of the above in one section of 2-3 paragraphs AT MOST.)

Events leading to the Massacre

Baker Fanchier Party emigrating through the territory.

Conflicts between the Wagon Train and the Mormons

The Decision to attack the Wagon Train

Sequence and geography of attack events

Investigations and Cover-up

John D Lee Trial and Execution

Memorials and Recent events

Theories on Actions and Motivations.

Annotated Bibliography of MM Histories. [--Blue Tie]

Your suggested outline above has whatever its coverage of UT theocracy and stuff in an end-of-the-article "Theories on actions and motivations" section. OK - say the below paragraphs are given us as a treatment of some over-arching theories: What critiques do you have, B/T, about its discussion of theocracy, "blood atonement"--and my subtle sneak-in even of destroying angels)?

It's a given some of us (me)...am not expert in "The Historical Development and Status of Utah's Institutions and Laws, circa 1857." Still, folks with whatever experiential knowledge or book learning ought call out urgent warnings so we're able to tack this way or that and avoid illogical or ignorant shoals, y'know? :^)

Theocratic expansion into the Western frontier (1846-1858):

See also: Council of Fifty, Mormon Reformation, and Mormonism and authority

When they left Illinois in 1846 for what was then outside of the confines of the United States, Mormons believed their leaders were responsible to God alone to administer divine law. After the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo annexed Utah to the United States in 1848, the LDS Church accepted a territorial government for Utah with Young as its governor, yet for a time Utah continued on as a de facto theocracy.

Nearly 300 miles from Utah's territorial capital in Salt Lake City were the infant fortress-villages of Cedar and Parowan, only reachable by a three days' journey on horseback, the messenger's changing mounts at various settlements along the way. Although often visited by officials from Salt Lake, day-to-day affairs in these outlying settlements were decided by local officials, who were empowered to make arrests, try offenders of community law in ecclesiastical courts, and mete out punishments as they saw fit. It was rumored that on occasion such sacred communal punishments were carried out in secret—such frightening talk helping to keep dissident members of the community in line with the exacting communal expectations for conformity and upright conduct.

When the need arose for extraordinary measures of law enforcement or else as a military defense, usually against marauding Natives, these leaders mustered militias. [...]

Mormons had become swept up in dramatic reformations toward righteous living, starting just the year before in 1856. In this period (now called by historians the "Mormon Reformation"), Mormons had pronounced Millennialist expectations, as they worked to construct their "Zion" on earth in the preparation for Christ's imminent, triumphal return, when God will punish the unrighteous—such as those who had formerly persecuted Mormon religionists. In their temple ceremonies, these early Mormons vowed sacred oaths to work towards their important religious community's redemption, when God would "avenge the blood of the prophets on this nation".

Early Mormon teachings on theocratic law (1845-1858):

Main article: Blood atonement

Apostolic preachings during this period would dramatically urge the rank and file towards renewed diligence in their practice of the faith. On the frontier, incidents of adultery and of theft were not uncommon; and according to these preachers' teachings (alleged by some commentators as merely a rhetorical device) the deserved penalty for such unrepenatant sins under the Celestial law of God would be for the guilty parties' throats to be cut.Young advocated as a theological framework for this teaching the doctrine of blood atonement, which held that for certain serious sins, Jesus' atonement was not enough, and for divine justice to be served, the guilty must personally atone through their own bloodshed to achieve the Mormons' highest degree of salvation. Although for the most part during this period, Mormons' sins were deemed sufficiently washed away through rebaptism and repentance and the rhetoric about Celestial law was said to remain inoperable—except under a pure theocracy, which didn't as yet exist—these preachings may have led listeners to understand that eyewitnesses to incidents of serious sin could be authorized in vigilante enforcements of Celestial law without penalty. Although there are no known cases of homicide, including the Mountain Meadows massacre, conclusively linked to enforcement of the blood atonement doctrine by individuals or local LDS clergy (other than through Utah's regularly enforced official capital punishment practice for murder), John D. Lee and others professed themselves justified in their participations in the Mountain Meadows massacre through appeals to such teachings.

--Justmeherenow 05:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is still too much detailed information on a speculative matter. Let me give you a for-instance. In the famous Charge of the Light Brigade, there was a mix-up in the way the orders were developed, communicated and received. It would be possible to go into great lengths upon the correct ways that such things should be conducted, and upon the measures taken in modern command and control systems to avoid those errors. But that would be too much ancillary detail unrelated to the topic. This is the same way. If it is one of the theories to be presented, ok present it. It could be handled in a couple of sentences. But do not spend half an article going into details on what every possible meaning of that can be and how it evolved and what color it is and whether is tastes like chicken. That's another whole article. It would be like putting a detailed discussion of the ballistics of high powered rifled rounds in an article about the Kennedy Assassination. Or going into lengthy details on the CIA attempts to kill Castro. Sure, you could say it is a related topic but is it really so relevant to the article that it needs to have that much space? Is that what people looking in the Kennedy Assassination article would want to read about? Or is it several levels of detail out of whack? Some editorial wisdom is appropriate. Otherwise we might also decide to mention that negative ions cause weird behavior in humans and that at the time time that the Massacre occurred, weather conditions favorable for the generation of negative ions was present. We could then go into details for multiple paragraphs on how negative ions affect mood and decision making.

It looks to me like COGDEN would like to have a new article in wikipedia... something like "Mormon Extremism" or "Mormon Authoritarianism" or the like. It could contain all kinds of information about the radical teachings of Mormonism and how it produced cultic obedience behaviors and has offshoots in the Warren Jeffs organization and other like-minded groups. Discussions of Mormon blood oaths, sacred murders (perhaps including some modern examples) and blind obedience to authority could be included in the article. (The main source could be John Krackauer's book -- where he makes a case for Mormonism leading to violent behaviors). Then this article could reference that one by simply saying something like: "In the years and months leading up to the massacre, Mormon leaders emphasized obedience and dedication to the religion. This has led some historians to describe the carnage as the natural outgrowth of aMormon Authoritarianism or Mormon Theocracy, wherein individuals lost their individual sense of right and wrong. J.D. Lee gave this as the main reason behind his actions. Anyway, I do not think that whole second article ought to appear inside this one. It is a distraction. --Blue Tie 07:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There are already such articles: Mormonism and authority and Mormonism and violence. But even when subarticles or related articles exist, the article has to contain sufficient summary information to fulfill the needs of the article. Important information cannot be segregated into a content fork. Moreover, the above articles aren't actually sub-articles, and don't have sufficient context relating specifically to the MMM that this article needs. COGDEN 17:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's easy to slip into Krackauer mode when talking about early Mormon history (just as it is with New England Puritans, etc). Still, as blogger Keller of millennialstar.org summarizes them, the various influences Brooksian influences on Haight/Lee's perverse overreaching in the massacre are

1. a persecution complex
2. war hysteria over the approaching US army
3. harsh Mormon rhetoric to retributionally punish sin
4. Mormon ethic to unquestionably follow leaders
5. millennial expectations
6. us-versus-them alienation,
7. frontier violence
8. mob/vigilante dynamics
9. desires to ally with Natives
10. desires to steal property in anticipation of scarcity

- of which retributional sin-punishement rhetoric, ethic to unquestionably following leaders, millennial expectations, and maybe even us-vs-them alienation are pretty..."Krackauerian." Still, maybe a compromise can be reaching of lightly alluding to such stuff in MM background then fleshing some of them out - still very briefly - in a "theories" section? --Justmeherenow 18:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)!

I see a big distinction between background necessary to understand the massacre, on the one hand, and theoretical considerations and analyses about the minds of Lee/Haight/Young, etc., on the other hand. There shouldn't be any kind of secondary-source analysis of the massacre in the background sections, just background material that provide a setting for the massacre. When secondary analyses are given later in the article, they will need background and context too. Thus, like any work of nonfiction, the best sequence is: (1) context, (2) story (makes no sense without context), then (3) secondary analyses (make no sense without both context and story). Normally, not a lot of background is required, either because the audience can be expected to know it or there isn't much background. Here, however, the causes and alleged causes of the massacre are numerous and not well known, the massacre was complex, and the situation had been simmering for a long time, so that the background and context of the massacre are not fairly reduced to a few sentences. COGDEN 00:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that as much background material is needed as you are indicating. I think that the list that Justmeherenow produced is a pretty good list of factors that were involved or believed to be involved in the motives behind the massacre. Once again, I think that this would be better for an explanation or theories section rather than in the background. I think the background should be limited to the immediate events that led to massacre. Chief of these is the impending war and general sense of paranoia. Secondary to that is the history of having been chased out of other states and the thinking it would happen again. I think that is enough background. More detail, early on, complicates the article. --Blue Tie 03:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that Justheremenow's list is great, but it's not background information–it's theoretical information taken from secondary sources and is better discussed after the background and the description of what happened in the massacre. Once again, there is a distinction between analysis and background. Background is contextual information necessary to understand things referenced in the rest of the article. Analysis is a discussion, after all the context and other facts have been presented, of what secondary sources say about the massacre. Even with an analytical section, however, we still need background. The idea of including background is that before you refer to something in the narrative about the massacre, or in the analysis, you have to have given the audience enough context to understand what you're talking about.

Regardless, we still don't know at this point whether or not the background section is too big, because we still need to add an extensive amount of material to the remainder of the article. Large background sections are fairly common on Wikipedia. See, for example American Revolution, which I think is comparable because the Revolution, like the MMM, was an event based on brooding and festering factors that were a long time coming. If the background section turns out to be too big, the remedy is not to shuttle it to the end of the article and call it "analysis" when it's really background. The proper move at that point would be to split out a sub-article, such as was done in Events preceding World War II in Asia, leaving behind a summary, as presently exists in World War II. We don't know yet if that's going to be necessary, but I doubt it. COGDEN 17:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Friday in the LEAD sentence

Sorry to bring this up again but here goes. WHAT is the relevance of mentioning the day of the week that this event took place, specifically in the LEAD sentence. When I first saw this, it struck me as strange and made me wonder what the relevance of that day (Friday) was to the massacre. If it has a relevance, please flesh it out. If not, please remove it from the LEAD. Do we really need to get bogged down by this again?? Anyways, thanks as always, --Tom 19:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel that you are sorry in the slightest to bring this up again. What other parts of this article have you been concerned with? It seems to be almost an obsession of yours here. It does not detract from the article, it adds a fact to the article and it contributes to the flow in reading the article. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny how you absolutely REFUSE to anwser the question. It does detract from the article in the fasion I mentioned above. It made me curious when I first read the article and to date my question has not been answered since it appears not to have ANY relevance what so ever. I only wish it had so we/err I could let this go. I edit mostly lead sentences of bios to confirm to wp:mosbio, specifically nationality since alot of folks have agendas for editing these for ethnic pride/predjudice reasons. This article is on my watch list. Now I have tried my best to answer you, would you like to answer my questions. What is the significance of mentioning this "fact" and why are you so hell bent on including it?? --Tom 19:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC) ps if "it contributes to the flow in reading the article" is the best you have, thats pretty weak, don't you think? Anyways.

This is be an issue of personal preference; some editors think that knowing the day of the week is important while others think it is irrelevant. Duke, could you compromise and add it later in the article rather than the introduction? Tom, given that it really is a matter of personal taste can you accept Duke inserting later in the article? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! I have NO problem with mentioning the day of the week LATER in the article as it seems that this "event" occured over a number of days leading up to the massacre on Friday. As mentioned earlier by me, when I saw it mentioned in the lead, I thought it might have some religious significance or something that made me curious. If it does/has a significance than it should go in the lead. Some other articles about historic events mention the day of the week in the LEAD IF, BIG IF, its relevant. Anyways, thanks for entertaining my anal retentive nature :) Cheers! --Tom 12:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually think it makes sense to include the day of the week later in the article - in a section about the week's events, the initial "pauiute" attack on Monday, the whites spotted on tuesday or wednesday, etc. we could pull from rich turley's research for a citation of the week's events. they are missing as it is. I don't think it needs to be in the lead, but I do agree with Duke53 that it should be included somewhere in the article. -Visorstuff 20:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Day of the week is irrelevant in lead. Incidentally, the leaves on the trees were green at the time. This is a true fact, so perhaps some editors might want to include it as well. But I would side with those who would suggest it was irrelevant to the topic. However, as visor suggests above, if there is some sort of time-line or schedule later on, it would be appropriate to include it there because at that point it would be relevant. --Blue Tie 17:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)--

I removed "Friday' from the lead since an anon ip with two edits added it. It seems that we have SOME concensus to remove mention of the day of the week from the LEAD only since it is not relevant to the LEAD?--Tom 17:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"I removed "Friday' from the lead since an anon ip with two edits added it". Does the number of edits done by an individual add weight to their edits? Duke53 | ^Talk 17:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is that an anon ip makes his ONLY edit to join an edit war?? Oh course that should raise some reg flags. Anyways, can we try to just stick to working this out? Is there ANY compromise you can suggest or does "Friday" have to be in the LEAD sentence? --Tom 17:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

When I raised the question of anonymous editors making THEIR ONLY EDITS to Undergarment and Temple garment (usually they just deleted material, without comment) I was told that it didn't matter. But I guess it can be raised in this case. :) Duke53 | ^Talk 17:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well who ever told you that, I would disagree with them. Anony ips that only edit in regards to reverting during a disagreement should cause concern and be discounted it seems to me. Anyways, at least we agree about that :)?? --Tom 17:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

An(other) example of what I described above[1]. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I support the proposed compromise. And I have warned both Duke53 and Tom/Threeafterthree that any further edit warring over the word in the lead by either of them will result in my asking for administrator intervention. This silly edit war has got to stop. alanyst ^/talk/ 17:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Solomon, nice timing for your threat ...after he removed the word from the article. Kind of puts one of us behind the eightball, doesn't it? Duke53 | ^Talk 17:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I just discovered a new definition for 'compromise': I will keep deleting an item until I get my way. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Friday" in the LEAD sentence?

Yes - per it not being relevant in the LEAD. Mention of it further into the article is FINE. --Tom 17:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am still not sure if Duke has agreed to not putting it in the lead, but entering the information later in the article. I request that no one makes any more edits to that sentence until an agreement has been met. I haven't read the article, I assume that Alanyst's last edit remains. If necessary Duke change it back, everyone else don't edit it again until we come to terms. This is a minor issue and I hope we don't have to vote on something so silly, but this is tiresome and unproductive. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

anon ip just added back with edit summary"more is better" or sonething to that effect. I not going to revert it now since analyst and I have been discussing this on my page and I said I wouldn't revert. Anyways, cheers!--Tom 20:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)