Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Untitled

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

Quote recently added to the Monuments section

First, I like the first paragraph of this quote. Thank you for finding this (justheremenow found this right???). I think the rest of this section should be massaged to flow better around this quote (it's kind of choppy now with the quote in the middle).

I do think the second paragraph should be removed. My reasoning is that some people will see this as a way of injecting POV into the article. This article has been plaged in the past (Last December comes to mind) by people who would inject quotes into the article to state things that they knew would get reverted if they said it without quoting somebody else. I'm not accusing the quote of doing this (the quote is accurate, I've read the same quote in many other reports) just saying somebody could imply it. Davemeistermoab 01:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

is there any more reliable source for this material? I have mixed feelings. Generally I do not like blogs as sources. However, the article is very clear about the source being a blog and this is, I suppose, a relatively recent event that may not have made its way into more reliable sources. But if it can be sourced somewhere else, I would be more comfortable with it. There are things about that quote that I am skeptical about. I think it deserves more review. And maybe when the source is not so reliable it should be trimmed down.--Blue Tie 12:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC) NB: I will not edit this or make any changes until I have done my best to review and seek alternative sources. --Blue Tie 12:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC) NB2: Still reviewing, I tend to think this blog stuff should not be there. I do not think it is reliable. --Blue Tie 12:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, so re blogs - Just got a positive reply from a well-known individual in the LDS blogging community who was in the stands at the event. Whose recollections (whether or not she'll end up posting them on her group Latter-day Saints blog site) I'll post here; and incidentally I'm also asking if she might be able to source any possible coverage of the event in Cedar City area community newspapers or ward newsletters et cetera (or, I don't know, private correspondence/ diary entries? :^)

Salaam - shanti - pax - shalom! --Justmeherenow 20:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Update: Claims her gggm, Mary Hunter, a surviving child from the massacre who'd been adopted by the Hunters? ((!) - anyway, is to check maybe for a journal entry centered on the music they'd prepared and performed for the ceremony...):^) --Justmeherenow 16:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC) (More): 1st the family legend about her ancestor who was a survivor entirely oral. But has found microfilm news articles on the reconcilliation ceremony she'll "e" along and to which I'll try to link to here somehow! --Justmeherenow 22:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy (WP:SPS) says, "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." A couple of exceptions are noted, but not any that seem to cover this case. Therefore, even though I think it's a nice story, I don't think it can be included in the article. I've found a story about the event in Cedar City in the December 1990 issue of the Ensign magazine. (I'd prefer to use a newspaper story, but haven't been able to find one on a free site.) I plan to replace the quote from the blog with a factual description of the event based on the Ensign story—it will be a bit boring, but it will meet Wikipedia standards for sources. BRMo 13:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit on the fence about such things. I agree the policy does not quite support blogs and other similar self publishings. On the other hand, I can see some circumstances where they might be acceptable:

There are no challenges or disputes over the content.
It adds value to the article content.
The source would appear to be otherwise credible and unbiased.
Several different such sources agree.

In this case, the problem appears to be that the individual is reporting having heard two different things from the same person. This is an automatic conflict and so it starts to violate the very first bullet. I think it meets the second bullet and probably the third, but not the fourth. I am leaning on taking it out. I would like to see some news or magazine sources. --Blue Tie 14:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Blue, do you really think Hinckley self-contradicts?

It all boils down to Salt Lake versus Cedar City! Didn't you yourself say the territorial militia wasn't involved whereas the local county brigade level militia proven-ly was? Analogously, within this ceremony towards reconcilliation Hinckley had had people who knew ancestors who had either assisted in the murders or whose ancestors had known those who were complicit (who were thereby indirectly complicit through their silence) to stand. And on their behalf Pres. Hinckley asked for the victims' descendents' forgiveness: What symbolism! With the seats of for dignitaries such as families of the victims' being on the floor while the higher elevation nosebleed seats were filled with locals who may have descended from people who'd assisted in the massacre or its cover up!

(Sure, Hinckley thereafter says such overtures shouldn't be contrued as accepting blame on the part of "the church" but this doesn't necessarily contradict those such as Oaks' having said that Mormon leaders on some ecclesiastical level or antoher were involved.) Shalom. --Justmeherenow 15:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea if he self contradicts. Maybe. That would not be surprising to me.

I seriously have no idea what boils down to SL vs CC. I do not know what you mean by that.

I did not say that the local militia provenly was responsible. I have said all along that some of the people who were involved in the militia were involved in this slaughter. That's obvious. If, for example, we said the murder was conducted by people with testicles, that would be right. But not all people with testicles participated. So also with militia. On the frontier, where there were militia's most men were in them at one point or another in their lives. Since this massacre involved men, I would have no doubt that they were members of the militia. BUT, that does not mean it was a militia action and hence, it should not be ascribed to the militia. Here is another way of putting it. Suppose that a Vice President of a Company had signing authority on the company checks. Suppose also, that there was a company policy against bribery without direct permission from the CEO. Now, finally, suppose that the the VP decided to write a company check and bribe someone without permission. Did the company do the bribery or did the VP? The law is clear. The VP did it fraudulently. However, if the VP had gotten permission, THEN it would have been the Company that did the deed (as well as the individuals). The militia is a separate entity from its members and if this was not a militia action, then the militia should not be blamed. I do not know how to make it clearer than that.

Perhaps Hinckley is making the same sort of distinction. Perhaps he is saying that individuals of the Church were responsible but not the Church. I can buy that. It happens all the time. But where I have a problem with this story is the notion that we modern people "accrue" liabilities or "injuries" from what "our" ancestors did or what happened to them. I do not accept that. For example, I do not accept that the descendants of Slavery are owed reparations from me for what happened to their ancestors. In the same way, I do not accept that descendants of Mountain Meadows victims are "owed" something and I do not think descendants of the murderers "owe" something. This may seem unfair, but if I were to have the view that people are "owed" something because of what happened to a long-dead ancestor, I am sure I would clean up. But I have no interest in that and believe it is wrong. To me, it is very very important that the "sins of the fathers" NOT be visited upon the "Heads of the Children".

However, that last paragraph (your original statement that led to it) is pov. It has nothing to do with the article and should not be in the article. The real issue here is Reliable Source. Our feelings on the matter are secondary, though they do start to enter in when we consider what is significant and how things should be worded from an editorial perspective. But usually a Joe Friday "just the facts" approach takes care of the majority of those problems. --Blue Tie 17:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

NB: I notice that as you relayed it, Hinckley did not accept or request anyone to accept responsibility. He asked some folks to forgive some other folks. Though I do not see a "responsibility chain", I can nevertheless see "hard feelings" and a request for someone to let those go making some sense. That still does not have anyone taking responsibility or accepting it. However, there is still the issue of reliable source. After that, we can get into editorial nuances or pov that are associated with what was meant or intended if we want to.--Blue Tie 19:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

i) Unsurprisingly, I'm in favor of such reparations... (E/g, I dunno - Retroactively determine dealings with slave traders to have been improper under Natural Law or something, then form a legal tribal entity for all descendants of slaves and figure out a mechanism to symbolically compensate them from out of the accumulated US wealth which had accrued due their ill-gotten labors?) ...but whatever. ii) I probably misquoted (um paraphrased) Oaks - sorry (although what I think is, for most purposes, besides the point anyway, as you say!) iii) As perhaps is the fact I think the distinction you (as well as GBHinckley?) make between individuals and institution seems instructive. --Justmeherenow 22:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Incidentally, by "SL vs CC" I mean the implication that it's B/Y's vs Haight's order for Mormons to lay seige/ plunder the emigrants under cover of poisoned Indians - or, further, B/Y's versus Haight's order for the entire party save young children be massacred. --Justmeherenow 18:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any substantiated or credible evidence that SLC was involved. There does appear to be substantiated or credible testimony indicating that more local authority made the decisions and issued the orders. So, I do not understand the pov of SL vs CC. --Blue Tie 02:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm saying Hinckley isn't contradicting himself but is merely distinquishing between SLC and CC, just as you have. (On behalf of descendants of perpetrators/descendants of those who knew perpetrators, Hinckley asked victims' families' forgiveness - yet also says such gestures do not imply the church was responsible, which isn't a contradiction but a point of discrimination between responsibility for the treacheries being in SLC versus it's being in CC, favoring the latter. Which is analogous to what you, Blue Tie, have said, without contradicting yourself, with regard to the Nauvoo Legion. In short, someone can say without self-contradiction that the brutalities weren't by a legit brigade of Brigham's but by an illegit brigade of LDS brigands.) --Justmeherenow 00:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the attack has more of an appearance of Vigilante action than anything else. As for LDS Brigands, I think it is clear that this is not the case. Though their acts were illegal they were not exactly "outlaws". They were members of the local indian tribes as well as ordinary citizens of the local LDS community. From what I have read, none of them were "brigands" as I understand that word. I am sure the LDS wish they were "brigands".--Blue Tie 01:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My PoV is why pussyfoot around with describing murder as vigilanteism but not brigandry? Young's/ Kimball's sermons circa 1857 supported vigilanteism and its incidents that arose were neither investigated nor prosecuted. And I think vigilanteism and brigandism are pretty synonymous - with California very extensive atrocities of the same period giving us the first term. Anyway, anybody reading between the lines can see *) Young's granting stock on the trail to Paiutes, **) Indian agents Hamblin and Lee - whether under orders from Salt Lake or taking initiative themselves - gathering up Paiutes to threaten and thereby extort livestock from various trains to illustrate either "Young's" or else these essentially lawlessly vigilante elements of the territories' ability to implement or withdraw protection against Indian attacks upon American settlers at will ***) Several trains' being raided in this manner ****) From out of this mix: Mountain Meadows' brutalities with regard the Baker-Fancher companies' train.

And this all under the cover of the militia's only having wanted to protect the trains: what a hoogabaloo!

Yet if the article's naming of Higbee implies Lee's a scapegoat, the numerous previous acts of ruthlessness alleged to Lee within his duties as a constable, et cetera, supports history's judgment of him as a rather unsavory character. --Justmeherenow 20:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

With regard to iii, probably this stems from my experience with legal entities in which natural persons may operate. These legal entities are considered to be "separate persons" with their own liability and so on from the natural persons who are members. These legal entities endure separately from their constituent members. This may seem like a technicality but I think it is actually a very important consideration for a whole host of reasons, including moral reasons, -- and that is why the law has made this distinction. We should also do the same. A current example would be Enron. If you were an employee of Enron, you would have been part of a massive scheme to defraud Energy Markets for gain. Yet, most likely you personally would have been innocent. The guilt would lie with the entity. At the same time, it is entirely possible for the larger entity to be innocent while some constituent members are guilty. I hope this makes sense.--Blue Tie 22:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Part 2 - re quote recently added to monuments section

Mar 21 (2007) - at timesandseasons.org blog, annegb comments:

The thing about this re-hashing of Mountain Meadows is that the church has made peace with the descendants of those killed. The prophet apologized, we had a big ceremony down here in Cedar City attended by the families from the south and the chief of the Paiute tribe. We had a beautiful choir that sang “There is a Balm in Gilead” and some other beautiful songs and it was lovely. Do we have to pay reparations for this to go away?

May 4 - again at "T&S" catherine baker comments:

As an \”outsider,\” I wanted to comment on what I have read here in this discussion. I teach English at the college level and I\’m impressed with the level of honesty, intelligence and patience that you give to the discussion and each other. I should also add upfront that I am a descendent of Captain Jack Baker of the Baker-Fancher train, and I attended the 3-day dedication ceremony in Cedar City in 1990 - \”forgiveness and reconciliation.\” In the auditorium/gymnasium at the university, President Hinkley spoke at length. It was very moving and almost ethereal. The descendents were seated on the floor of the gym, while members of the church were seated in the stands surrounding us. At one point, President Hinkley asked all those in attendance to stand if they had a relative, or knew someone who participated in the Mountain Meadows Massacre to stand - about 2/3 of the people stood (as a humorous aside: I was sitting next to my 86 year old uncle, Bill Baker ( a man of few words that are always dry and monotone) and he poked me in the side and whispered out of the side of his mouth to me, \”eek gad - maybe they called us all here just to finish us off.\” But I digress . . . at this ceremony, President Hinkley spoke eloquently on the subject and he said he was there \”to take responsiblity for what happened at Mountain Meadow and ask our [the descendents] forgiveness. He also exonerated all members of the Piute nation - in the presence of their current Chief. The Piute Chief sang/recited an old Piute prayer at the end of the ceremony and we all left with tears in our eyes. Needless to say, it was an emotional couple of days. I\’m curious if any of you had any knowledge of this 3-day event? We were not allowed to take cameras, recorders or cam-corders into the gym; but, we were told that the proceedings would be recorded by the church and we would all receive copies if desired. I have written the church directly and have never been able to get a copy - many of us have to no avail. Then, in 1997 some of you might be aware of the excavation at one of the grave sites when some bodies were mistakenly uncovered . . . at the re-burial, President Hinkley spoke again and he stated, \”That which we have done here must never be construed as an acknowledgment of the part of the church of any complicity in the occurrences of that fateful day.\” It was so very disheartening to many of the descendents who read his words. It negated everything that we thought we had accomplished in 1990. So . . . I have two questions that I would like to ask you to open for discussion; 1. How does the success of the \”truth and reconciliation\” movement of ArchBishop Desmond Tutu compare to the attempts of \”reconciliation\” between the Church of Latter-Day Saints and the descendents of the Baker-Fancher train? . . . other than it being on a much smaller scale. My second question is . . . can anyone get me a tape of Gordon B. Hinkley\’s (then First Counselor in the LDS Church First Presidency) speech in Cedar City in 1990? Thank you all very much for allowing my post - and again, I am most appreciative of your open and honest discussions - except, of course, item 47 by John Williams\’ \”It’s just not as embarrassing to think that Brigham Young ordered to have some rednecks shot as it is to think that Joseph Smith engaged in physical relations with women married to other men.\” It does my heart good to know that is only one negative remark among 103 posts - an actuary would call it irrelevant - as do I.
catherine baker
cbaker50@verizon.net

I contacted blogger annegb for a second take on the ceremony. And she went down and scrolled up (or went up and scrolled down, I don't know) pertinent microfilmed news stories from Saint George, Utah,'s The Daily Spectrum from 1990 - and much of one of them I'll retype below.

Sunday, September 16, 1990 Time for healing, LDS leader says about massacre
by Loren Webb, Staff Writer CEDAR CITY -- Calling it an honor to participate in this singular and remarkable service, Gordon B. Hinckley, first counselor in the LDS Church's First Presidency, said Saturday it was a "miracle" to see both descendants of perpetrators and victims...gather....
During the ceremony, descendants of both the victims and perpetrators joined arms on stage and in the audience, some hugging and embracing each other following a challenge by Rex E. Lee, Brigham Young University president.... ... Hinckley...said he came as a representative of a church that has suffered much over what happened.
While people can't comprehend what occured at the massacre site where only 17 children survived, Hinckley said he was grateful for reconciliation by the descendants on both sides.
"We hope, we pray that there shall never again sprout from this soil seeds of hate, but that generations will walk together in the sunlight of good will," said the LDS leader.
"Now if there is need for forgiveness, we ask that it be granted," added Hinckley as he offered the dedicatory prayer for the monument sites.
There was a parallel in the memorial service, said Mountain Meadows Monument Steering Commitee Chairman Dixie Leavitt, with traditional funeral services.
"After the services, we will proceed to the cemetary (at the meadow) and there suspicion will be buried, and anger will be buried and ill will of yesterday will be buried."
In his invocation, J.E. Dunlap, publisher of the Harrison Daily Times in Harrison, Ark., prayed that those gathered will learn from past mistakes so they won't be repeated.
"Help us see past misguided motives," he said.
Steering Commitee member Roger Logan, a 14th Judicial District chancery judge in Harrison, Ark., and a descendant of many of the massacre victims (...said,) "This massacre was a source of sadness, of suffering for the people of Arkansas" ... "and for those of Utah." ... ... ... Logan had the descendants or relatives of the victims stand as he read off the victims' names.
After reading from the Book of Ecclesiastes, J.K. Francher, a Harrison, Ark., pharmicist and freelance writer, said it was time for people on both sides of the tragedy to come together and heal old wounds and dedicate a memorial.
This joyous ocassion of meeting in peace, "is a watershed period," he said, an exciting time that gives him "chill bumps." ... ... Fancher also never dreamed that a memorial service would come to fruition but "the spirit kicked in" and people of differing religious beliefs have reconciled.
"The most difficult words for men to utter is 'I'm sorry and I forgive you' " he said, then added, "We can't change the past. We can change the present and we will change the future."
Easing the burden of the victims was also the goal of Paiute Indian Tribal Chairwoman Geneal Anderson of Cedar City and Paiute spiritual leader Clifford Jake, who uttered an Indian prayer ceremony in his native tongue.
While Mountain Meadows will always have a secondary meaning associated with the massacre, said Rex Lee, he expressed the hope it will now signify a memorial to the victims, human dignity and understanding as well as healing and not looking back.

Also newsphoto's caption runs: "CEDAR CITY -- In a spirit of unity and forgiveness, representatives of the descendants of victims and alleged participants joined hands during Saturday memorial services at the Centrum. From left: J.K. Francher, Rex Lee, Roger Logan, J.E. Dunlap. [Spectrum/ Nancy Rhodes]

--Justmeherenow 23:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Treatment in other encyclopedias

Here is the treatment in Encarta:

Responding to the rising outcry against the Mormons, in May 1857, United States President James Buchanan terminated Young’s governorship of the territory. Buchanan also ordered federal troops to Utah to enforce federal authority over the Mormons, which started what was called the Utah War. When news of Buchanan’s action reached Great Salt Lake City in July, Young sent a company of scouts to harass and delay the federal troops, which were moving west from Fort Leavenworth, in Kansas. Young’s scouts did their work well. Burning supply trains, destroying animal feed, and stampeding U.S. Army cattle, they delayed the federal troops long enough to force them to camp for the winter in Wyoming, short of their destination. In southern Utah the tension between the Mormons and the federal government erupted in a tragic act of violence, the Mountain Meadows massacre. In September 1857 a group of 140 settlers traveling from Arkansas to California had been angered when the Mormon communities refused to sell them any food, and had told the Mormons that they hoped the invading U.S. Army would punish them. The travelers, resting at Mountain Meadows, were then attacked by Paiutes who had been encouraged by some Mormons. Local Mormon leaders decided that they could not allow the settlers to reach California and tell federal officials that the Mormons were encouraging attacks on immigrants. They disarmed the Arkansans by pretending to lead them to safety at Cedar City, Utah, and then led them into another ambush, in which 120—all but the small children—were killed.

I note a few things here. First, Encarta clearly lays the blame on the Utah War tensions. Second, the issue of food and trade is strongly mentioned. Third, the travelers were angry and had been making some offensive statements. Fourth the Paiutes attacked. Fifth, the Mormons were protecting their reputation. (!?!)

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Among these is the fact that a large contingent of United States troops was marching westward toward Utah Territory in the summer of 1857 (see Utah Expedition). Despite having been the federally appointed territorial governor, Brigham Young was not informed by Washington of the army's purpose and interpreted the move as a renewal of the persecution the Latter-day Saints had experienced before their westward hegira. "We are invaded by a hostile force who are evidently assailing us to accomplish our overthrow and destruction," he proclaimed on August 5, 1857. Anticipating an attack, he declared the territory to be under martial law and ordered "[t]hat all the forces in said Territory hold themselves in readiness to March, at a moment's notice, to repel any and all such threatened invasion" (Arrington, p. 254).

Part of Brigham Young's strategy in repelling the approaching army was to enlist local Indian tribes as allies. In an August 4 letter to southern Utah, for example, he urged one Latter-day Saint to "[c]ontinue the conciliatory policy towards the Indians, which I have ever recommended, and seek by works of righteousness to obtain their love and confidence, for they must learn that they have either got to help us or the United States will kill us both" (Brooks, p. 34).

Meanwhile, owing to the lateness of the season, a party of emigrants bound for California elected to take the southern route that passed through Cedar City and thirty-five miles beyond to the Mountain Meadows, which was then an area of springs, bogs, and plentiful grass where travelers frequently stopped to rejuvenate themselves and their stock before braving the harsh desert landscape to the west. Led by John T. Baker and Alexander Fancher, the diverse party consisted of perhaps 120 persons, most of whom left from Arkansas but others of whom joined the company along their journey.

As the Baker-Fancher party traveled from Salt Lake City to the Mountain Meadows, tensions developed between some of the emigrants, on the one hand, and Mormon settlers and their Native American allies, on the other. Spurred by rumors, their own observations, and memories of atrocities some of them had endured in Missouri and Illinois, Mormon residents in and around Cedar City felt compelled to take some action against the emigrant train but ultimately decided to dispatch a rider to Brigham Young seeking his counsel. Leaving September 7, 1857, the messenger made the nearly 300-mile journey in just a little more than three days.

Approximately one hour after his arrival, the messenger was on his way back with a letter from Brigham Young, who said he did not expect the federal soldiers to arrive that fall because of their poor stock. "They cannot get here this season without we help them," he explained. "So you see that the Lord has answered our prayers and again averted the blow designed for our heads." Responding to the plea for counsel, he added, "In regard to the emigration trains passing through our settlements, we must not interfere with them until they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with them" (Brooks, p. 63). The messenger arrived back in Cedar City on September 13.

By that time, however, it was too late, and nearly all the men, women, and children of the Baker-Fancher party lay dead. Besides a few persons who left the party before the attack, only about eighteen small children were spared. Two years later, seventeen of the children were returned to family members in northwestern Arkansas. Two decades after the tragedy, one of the Mormon settlers who were present at the massacre, John D. Lee, was executed by a firing squad at the Mountain Meadows, symbolically carrying to the grave the responsibility for those who "were led to do what none singly would have done under normal conditions, and for which none singly can be held responsible" (Brooks, p. 218).

Again, the Utah War is the key issue, the Indians were involved, rumors, "observations" and memories were involved in the decision, Lee's execution was "symbolic" (not for him!) and a mob mentality had prevailed. I am always amazed at the rider traveling such a long distance in such a short time. It seems to me that instructions to spare no horseleather in returning and his great haste in both directions, makes it clear (at least to me) that a decision had been made to kill the people (premeditation), that this was communicated to BY who did not want it to happen, and that the rider was highly motivated to avoid the incident even before he heard from BY (he probably deserves a medal for his efforts to stop it). --Blue Tie 13:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Does Brooks document that the specific WildCats, etc., etc., rumors existed prior to the fact massacre as opposed to immediately after the fact? When considering the precise nature of the poltical tensions of the moment, surely it's just as likely that "pro-U.S." and "anti- Mormon rebels" political statements (say their mocking Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball) by members of the train morphed into a tapestry of common beliefs that many Mormons understandably came to hold after the fact of the massacre, such as that members of the train must had done awful things, such as their maybe helping to assassinate the Mormon prophet, in order for them to have obviously been marked by the Lord, and His annointed servants, for destruction. But when Lee reported to Young, he was said to have mentioned specifically a Fancher team drivers' mocking of B/Y and HC Kimball but nothing specifically about all that other, subsequent, creative stuff.

In short, I sense that the article's "rumors" section length and prominent placement violates neutrality by overemphasizing unproven speculations as to which exactly of these baroque complaints and rumors against the members of the train existed prior to the fact of the massacre. --Justmeherenow 03:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think concerns about chronology (were these rumours swirling about before or after?) are helpful. I don't know how reliably the chronology can be documented but it's worth a try. Gwen Gale 03:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I challenge Gibbs as a reliable source for the rapes

We have an account of rapes of two girls. There are several reasons to doubt that this occurred, most particularly in that the murderers believed that they were doing some service to God and had some rules in that regard. However, that sense of reasons to doubt only gives cause to explore the issue, it is not by itself sufficient to remove that information as published.

However, the source, Gibbs account, is demonstrably flawed as I shall show.

Gibbs makes his presentation of this incident on page 36, 37 and of his book. The details start here. There are three specific things that should be noted about this account:

1. Gibbs gives one source as "Hamblin's Indian boy". Yet he later, on page 54 and 55, he admits that at least parts of the boy's story is not true.

1-1 On pp 54 & 55 Gibbs refutes Mr. Platt's story that the boy hid & fed the girls for several days before they were discovered and murdered.Tinosa 08:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

2. Gibbs gives another source as an unnamed woman, who was not a participant of the killings, had no firsthand knowledge and is anonymously reported as believing rumors that she had heard.

2-2 On page 37 Gibbs met a devout Mormon woman who verified the rape accusation.Tinosa 08:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not see where a woman who was not a witness, not a participant and who reports believing rumors, can be said to have "verified" something other than that there were rumors that she believed.

3. Gibbs final source, and the most clearly verifiable is the testimony of Jacob Hamlin. He declares, with absolute assurance, that Jacob Hamblin witnessed the ravishment and murder of the girls. He says that was the substance of Jacob Hamblin's testimony in court. Yet we can read that testimony here. Note that right away, Jacob Hamblin was not at the massacre itself. He also was not present at the murder of the two girls but instead was relating something he had heard. His testimony does not include any mention of rape or anything like it. It also does not include any description of the girl begging for her life.. a question specifically asked. Thus we find that when we can verify Gibb's words, that he has manufactured his conclusions without regard to the facts.

3-3 Gibbs states, on p37, that Hamblin was not present at the massacre.

Hamblin trial testimony

Q: Who killed the other? A: He did it, he said.

Q: How? A: He threw her down and cut her throat.

Q: Did he tell you what she said to him? A: No.

Q: Who did tell you that? A: The Indians told me a good many things.

Q: Didn't Mr. Lee tell you that she told him to spare her life, and she would love him as long as she lived? A: Lee didn't tell me that.

It appears that the Indians told Hamblin what the girl said, not Lee.Tinosa 08:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it, but it is a bit vague. In any case, he does not describe what she said. --Blue Tie 11:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In summary, Gibbs himself impeaches source #1. Source #3 is shown to be misrepresented by Gibbs, by a simple examination of the source vs the statements that Gibbs attributes to that source. Thus Gibbs himself is impeached. Source #2 is vague and given the problem with reporting a source that we can validate, we must deeply question a source that we cannot validate.

Now, when we observe the flaky nature of this source, when we re-analyze the murders as a religious/vigilante act conducted by extremists who were trying to be careful not to "shed innocent blood" as they put it (or in other words analyzing their moral code) we would further doubt the story and in sum total, consider the Gibbs reference to be unreliable.

And no other source supports this claim. The claim of a single source that is impeached should not be considered reliable for wikipedia. Certainly editorial standards at the time of this writing were not as strict as they are now and so we cannot go to "editorial review" as a justification for this source. If Gibbs were alive today, this would be the equivalent of a self-published source or blog. I would not have a problem with that all on its own, though it is contrary to wikipedia standards, but I think the evidence is clear: Gibbs was biased and did not report the facts correctly when we can verify them, we should not trust him in instances where we cannot verify him. --Blue Tie 13:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You might review both Gibbs and WP sourcing policy more thoroughly. Gwen Gale 15:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Having done that, I find nothing that gives me a reason to change my view on this. Did you have something in mind? --Blue Tie 00:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There are "experts" that hardly neutral. Brody admitted her subjectivity (she ignored sources that did not agree with her position) and her work should always be viewed as not the complete picture. However, once a problem is identified in a source, and assuming the context is appropriate, it is acceptable to note that the expert's position is weakened because of ...(whatever the reason). This should also be a quote by another reputable source and not just a personal opinion. We report on Wikipedia, we do not write or create in the true sense of the term. Does this make sense Blue Tie? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am open to whatever is appropriate per wikipedia policy. I am not really objecting to Gibbs on the basis of pov alone. I do not consider that sufficient. What I feel is shown by the evidence is that, bias or not, the source is not reliable. THEN, the cause of that unreliability might be the bias. But the bias is only a minor point, not the main point. How does wikipedia policy deal with sources that are compromised by demonstrable inconsistencies that can only be characterized as falsehoods by the author? Are they seriously to be considered reliable sources? And even if they might be, it seems like a poor editorial decision to put such a source in an article and then turn around and declare it bad. Why bother? This is not like I am opposed to the NPOV policy of each side of a debate. But in this case, the only source on one side is a lie. Should that be really given much space or credit and then debated as though it had any substance at all? I sincerely appreciate your thoughts on this and I remain open to suggestions. But I also have to say, that it is a weird world where a source that is so compromised as this is considered reliable. --Blue Tie 00:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your remarks about Gibbs seem to be based mostly on your own original research, which is not acceptable for WP content. If you can find contrasting citations about the Dunlaps, by all means, let's include them too. Gwen Gale 00:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not think you understand the policy on original research. There is nothing about that policy that requires us to fail to analyze sources. Indeed, we are supposed to use the most reliable sources possible. This requires an evaluation of sources. This is not original research. It is evaluation of sources. That is a different thing. I am not proposing that any of this evaluation be put into the article. That might be original research -- and if not, it would be noise in the article. --Blue Tie 02:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The Gibbs citations are verifiable and wholly in line with current WP sourcing policy. If you would like to contribute other verifiable citations to the article, please do so. Gwen Gale 02:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Unindent: The issue I am raising is not one of verifiability per se. So that we can leave that bit of it, I hereby assert and we never have to visit again, that we can verify that Gibbs said these things. That does not mean that there are not some aspects of WP:VER that are not applicable, but chiefly the issue is WP:RS. Gibbs does NOT meet wikipedia standards in that regard. Here is what I mean:

Per WP:RS

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy -- I have demonstrated that this author is not trustworthy. He even impeaches himself and says his own witness was untruthful.

In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors. -- this is NOT the most reliable source on the subject. (Unless all originators of lies are the most reliable source of information).

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources... Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended. -- the Gibbs statement is controversial but as a source Gibbs is only exceptional in his flaws, not his truthfulness. As a source for the article this is not an exceptional source.

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources -- but there is only this one untrustworthy source.

Per WP:VER

Sources of questionable reliability. In general, sources of questionable reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of questionable reliability should only be used in articles about themselves. -- this book clearly has problems with facts. It should only be used in an article about itself.

--Blue Tie 03:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Gibbs account does have its problems. However I disagree with the procrustean attitude that some problems discredit everything he has ever done. With the 3 reasons Blue Tie gives:

I It is common for experts, journalists and even police to quote eyewitnesses but to then say they do not believe them in some areas. Most eyewitness accounts are not 100% accurate just due to human nature. Many a case has been tried with eyewitnesses where part of their testimony is deemed accurate and part is doubted. Unfortunately many an innocent person has gone to jail from where eyewitness testimony was not scrutinized enough. You don't have to look hard to find examples of both.
It is ok to use such sources provided no better sources can be found to prove or disprove an allegation, that it is clearly stated that this is speculation, and that the purpose of the book allows for it (i.e. is not an official report that could be used to indite somebody, etc.)
I think you misread the book on this one. Gibbs states that Jacob Hamblin was not present for the massacre. Also be careful, in this section of the book he switches back and forth between the accounts of Jacob and Oscar Hamblin, you may be confusing the two. My read of that section is Jacob Hamblin is reciting what Albert told him, not claiming to have seen it personally.

I would also point out that Gibbs most directly accuses the participants of rape of the sources I have read but he is not the only one to insinuate or speculate that rape occured. I have also added the relevent text from Carleton's report where he all but accuses Lee of Rape. Davemeistermoab 01:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I am not complaining about everything he ever did. In fact about 1920 he tells a story about a dead indian girl that I find very touching... So I do not necessarily dislike him. Also, I am not questioning the whole book. I am only challenging the specific account of the rapes. The rest may be flawed or not. But I have been very focused in my comments to just this account.

While it may be common for people not to believe eye witnesses, in Gibbs case, he believes in one place and disbelieves in another. This is impeachment of testimony.

I do not think it is ok to use a source that is demonstrably based on falsehood. That no other "better source" can be found is, in fact, the problem. If someone tells a lie, there will be "no better source" to confirm that story. Why should this be considered credible?

I did slightly misread Gibbs book, but not quite as you probably think I did. I did not think Gibbs said that Hamblin was at the massacre, but I understand why you thought I did. But I did not. However, I thought Gibbs had said Hamblin was present at the murder of the girls. He didn't. That was what I misread. But.. still Gibbs did not tell the truth. Here is what Gibbs wrote:

"Jacob Hamblin was on his way from Salt Lake to his ranch near the Meadows when the massacre was perpetrated. Hamblin's Indian boy Albert, who was about 16 years old, and whom the former had adopted, was present at the massacre and witnessed the ravishment of the Dunlap sisters and the cutting of their throats. On Hamblin's arrival at the ranch the boy conducted him to the Oak brush where the bodies of the girls, nude and bloated, furnished ghastly evidence of the truth of the young indian's story. Subsequently, Hamblin interviewed the indian Chief who was Lee's partner in that special and who verified the young redskin's story and repeated the words used by the elder girl when pleading for her life."

"The above is the substance of Hamblin's testimony on that incident as given at Lee's second trial."

I have underlined the parts that were NOT in Hamblin's testimony on that incident as given at Lee's second trial. You will note that it is ~~nearly the entire~~ a substantial portion of the summary.

~~Jacob Hamblin does not testify it was his indian boy who showed him these things. He just says that upon returning, he saw the bodies.~~

Jacob Hamblin does not testify that his indian boy was present at the massacre

Jacob Hamblin does not testify that his indian boy was present at the girls ravishment

Jacob Hamblin does not testify that his indian boy was present at the girls murder ~~(the indian boy was never discussed)~~

~~Jacob Hamblin does not testify that both girls throats were slit~~

~~Jacob Hamblin does not testify that he saw the bodies of the girls~~

Jacob Hamblin does not testify that he saw bodies nude ~~and bloated (though I expect they were)~~.

Jacob Hamblin does not testify that he subsequently interviewed the Indian chief

Jacob Hamblin does not testify that the girl made any plea or quote. He was asked specifically about that too.

Gibbs relies a great deal on this "indian boy" ~~who is not mentioned by Hamblin,~~ but later Gibbs admits the boy's story was not true. Yet he relies upon it! Amazing.

Gibbs whole account is fabricated. It is not supported by what he claims is his source. This is a terrible impeachment of this source. Wikipedia should not use it.

On the other hand, I have no problem with Carlton's record and if he declared that the girls were raped, that would be a different matter. But I do not think he did. I do not remember it. --Blue Tie 02:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The article does not attribute the account to Jacob Hamlin, but to Gibbs. Your interpretation of the text is original research. Please cite an independent secondary source to support your assertion. Gwen Gale 02:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what is unclear. Let me put it into simple statements:

The article tells a story.

The article uses Gibbs as the source for the story

The Gibbs source is shown to be deeply impeached and flawed

The chain is that you have one demonstrably bad source for the article and no other sources for it. It is therefore a bad addition to the article. Lies should not be considered reliable sources. I do not understand what the problem is with that logic. But again, you do not understand the policy on Original Research. It does not apply to evaluating sources. Are you getting confused about what, exactly, I am saying?--Blue Tie 03:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you've conflated Gibbs' outright dismissal (in an appendix) of the Indian boy's story about feeding the girls for several days with Gibbs' straightforward account in the main text about the girls having been raped and murdered on the afternoon of the massacre. As for your assertion that the Dunlaps couldn't have been assualted out of plain view of everyone else at the site, both the assertion and your attempt to infer that it has anything to do with the substance of Gibbs' account are original research. If you would like to bring another perspective to the text of the article, please do so with a verifiable citation from a published secondary source. Gwen Gale 03:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it is a matter of conflating when they are the exact same story. Gibbs himself connects the two of them together in the text. Do you understand that it is impossible to conflate one thing together? As for my "assertion that the Dunlaps couldn't have been assaulted out of plain view of everyone else at the site..." -- that assertion does not exist. I have never made that assertion. I think you are confused. --Blue Tie 03:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion for providing balance/neutrality is to add a quote from another reliable source that regards the rape story as questionable. Juanita Brooks (p. 105) says, "Although there have been cases where man has committed murder after rape, the circumstances surrounding the massacre make such an action highly improbable. In the midst of wholesale murder, surrounded by excited Indians, with more than fifty Mormon men in the immediate vicinity, such an incident seems fantastic." She later says that she regards the version told by Albert Hamblin to Major Carleton, which says the girls fled and pleaded for their lives but doesn't mention rape, as "perhaps the most reliable story." BRMo 03:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are trying to strike a balance. But maybe my point is being lost. I am absolutely in favor of presenting two competing points of view -- if both points of view have valid sources. But in this case, one side of the debate is demonstrably false. This starts to get to Undue Weight: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Doesn't the horribly impeached views of Gibbs qualify as even less than a tiny-minority? --Blue Tie 03:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation that Gibbs is "demonstrably false" and "horribly impeached" seems to be based on your mistaken reading of the text, see above for my earlier comment (edit conflict). Gwen Gale 03:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your above comment was a series of errors. As I point out there were no errors.--Blue Tie 03:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie, Please read more carefully. Jacob Hamblin DOES state he learned of the location of the girls from his indian boy and he does say he saw their throats slit. You are wrong again. You did misread and rush to judgement. We all do it, just admit it and move on. I grant you Gibbs did attribute more to Hamblin's testimony than what Hamblin said. But that does not make the story impossible. Hamblin also stated he learned a lot about the Dunlap incident from indians but was not pressed further on the point, implying to me Hamblin would have more to say if asked. Also Gibbs may have made an oversight rather than trying to factualize conjecture, no worse that what you have done (and me and everybody else). Also, Re-read my part about eyewitnesses, you missed my point completely. Again, to believe parts of eyewitness testimony and disbelieve other parts is normal and proper to do.

My point in all of this is Gibbs account merits scrutiny, yes. I do not agree that he should be outright discredited. User:Davemeistermoab 03:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC) ::To avoid cluttering this page up further with what I expect to be excruciating detail, I will take this to your talk page, because I do not read what you read in the testimony. Lets compare. --Blue Tie 03:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right and I have refactored some of my comments, but the same message remains. Oddly, you have suggested that somehow admitting that I made some errors, completely guts my point. It does not. Gibbs is still unreliable as a source. Whether what Gibbs did was not worse or was worse than what you or I or the man on the corner of the street is irrelevant. Neither you nor I are sources for this article. Gibbs is. He is unreliable. I do not think it is right to say I missed your point on eyewitnesses. It would be more precise to say I did not accept it at all. It is NOT proper to believe SOME parts of eyewitness testimony and not others. Where did you get that idea? In court, the impeachment of an eyewitness affects the whole testimony. I think what you are trying to say is that eyewitnesses make mistakes and some things that they saw are right and other things are not right. I would agree with that. But.. which are which? You cannot say. The whole testimony is suspect. The real problem here though is, that it was not a matter of simple perception of what someone did. The story involves the Indian boy going through extensive actions... which Gibbs said were not true. This is not an eyewitness issue. It is an issue of credibility. Somewhere. --Blue Tie 04:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie, you are wrong again. The best example I can think of is the Oklahoma City Bombing. Timothy McVeigh was put to death by the testimony of eyewitnesses who swear to this day they saw him with "John Doe Number 2", whom the same prosecution insists does not exist. That is one of millions of examples where eyewitness testimony was deemed partially accurate, partially inaccurate by the "experts". Davemeistermoab 14:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The example is irrelevant.. I could go into detail, but this discussion is also irrelevant, so I will not extend it further, except to say that "eyewitness" is not the issue in the matter we are discussing. --Blue Tie 00:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that purported inconsistencies found by original research so impeach a published source that it cannot be considered reliable goes far beyond Wikipedia policy. Some of the arguments sound like what a defense lawyer does to try and impeach a prosecution witness, by finding anything to criticize in a witness's account and then seeking to discredit everything they say. I could find some inconsistency in any history book, but that would not prevent the book from serving as a reliable source. A book does not have to be perfect to be a reliable source. Edison 16:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:POV References

I have noted a large number of POV references in this article which are self-referencing (a lot like the book of mormon is) which are based on POV views of history. I have also reviewed recent DNA testing and results which clearly demonstrate Mormon Church history is as fictional as some of the church's marketing materials. I plan to work on this article and attempt to identify and cleanup these unreliable or POV sources. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be specific, provide citations and discuss changes here first. Also, it would help if you'd check your spelling ("soon of the churchs", "I plant to work" and so on): Editors might pay you more heed. Gwen Gale 05:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have gotten the attention of one editor so far. I do go back and fix my bad typing though. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, you'll soon have the attention of many more editors than me :) Gwen Gale 05:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I always like to meet new people and work on articles with them. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Brace your feet, brother ... you are about to see some swarming like you have only read about before; hopefully you won't receive hate mail (via USPS), like some others of us have gotten. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it appears my edits have been reverted by an anon IP address. Removal of verified sources seems to violate WP guidelines. I had better investigate and POV scrub those sections. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It is pretty easy to meet people here on Wikipedia. You seem to have a rather colorful history and interesting interactions with other editors. I trust this will be a positive interaction, regardless of your less than stellar beginnings.

I am sure that everyone is heartened to know that you have come to understand that the LDS church is a hoax based upon your personal review of DNA testing. Please don't be upset that others have reviewed the same data and come to alternative conclusions. I suggest that those kinds of comments are more germane to a personal blog. Religion is a topic of faith. On Wikipedia are are committed to reporting facts or positions held by experts. Our personal opinions are worthless here.

This is not the ward house for testimony time, so please refrain. Removal of citied verified sources is vandalism. You are free to POV scrub the existing cited sources. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You might also be served by reviewing the archives of this article prior to beginning on your venture. Unless you possess intimate knowledge of this event, more than any known historian to date, then I suspect that you will find your concernes already addressed and discussed. However, in the event that it is simply editorial critique or word-smithing, then by all means go for it. Quality writters are always a pleasure to have around. I also suggest you follow Gwen's advice and discuss your proposals here first. The current article is the fruit of countless hours of work from people of all persuasions. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not tell me how to do research on verifiable sources. My mind is not fogged, so I think I can figure things out for myself. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the fact that you feel your mind is not fogged, but that judgement is best left to others. In the event that our minds are fogged we are seldom aware of this reality. That is a statement for all individuals, not just you. This whole conversation started with your willingness to work with others. Are you willin to work with other editors on a topic that has been hotly contested for months? By your actions, it appears at least for now that you have no interest in working with other editors and only wish to yammer on about Mormon bots reverting your edits. I request again that you simply cooperate with other editors; you will find them both knowledgable and skilled team players. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 14:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mormon spambot

You know, I studied those two anon IP reverts, and they appear to be coming from an automated spambot. What do you think? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not a spambot. Please try to keep the faith with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Someone who disagrees with wholesale changes to an established article is not a spammer nor a troll. thanks. 207.179.28.20 07:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am personally unaware of any automated spambot devoted to Mormon articles. The anons edits appear to be from two different IP#'s which show different editing patterns. I reviewed your edits before I reverted once again. My revert is based on my review of your material, and my opinion concurs with the two previous reverts. I particularly objected to the changes in the topic paragraph. Much of your material is POV -- some strikingly so -- and should be vetted on the talk page before enclosure. Please review archives and the talk page before making significant edits, as I believe --Storm Rider suggested above. Be aware that this is a controversial topic and gets reworked by new editors on a regular basis. Only well sourced and well discussed edits have a "long life" in this article.

I am copying this discussion to the MMM talk page. WBardwin 07:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well sourced is required. well-discussed is not. Please do not remove cited sources again. We can certainy disagree, but you are not allowed to remove reliable sources (such as public statements by the Paiutes themselves). Suppression of the Paiute Tribes citations is inappropriate. I will only replace the material into the article since such removals are simple vandalism. Additionally, I have identified questionable "Journal of Discourse" sources claimed as historical documents. Unfortunately, many of these materials are works of fiction with no verifiable foundation and may fail WP:V. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt the discussion as you post. I have restored my post to its original form. Again ------ well discussed positions are more likely to stay here and sources, even well documented, can be removed until concensus on their use is reached. Be aware that concensus is a significant Wiki concept and is observed by most editors. WBardwin 07:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Policy Link: Wikipedia:Consensus

The encyclopedia anyone can edit, not just church approved edits. Sorry. In the mean time, I will carefully review this article and all of its sources and any failing WP:V will be scrutinized before making further changes, and I will be replacing the Paiute citation tommorrow after 24 hours elapses. Please do not remove it again, it's vandalism and POV pushing. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Spambot? -- I am no bot and no troll. I watch articles dealing with western history in the mid to late 19th century and edit when I have a little computer time. Do yourself and other editors a favor -- work toward Wikipedia:Consensus. It is an official policy. 65.54.155.43 08:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, let's handle your proposed edits one at a time then. Please list each suggestion for a text change (or more likely, a proposed addition) along with a verifiable citation to support it, thanks. I most thoroughly assure you that 1) I am not affiliated with the LDS, 2) have never been a member of that church and 3) any changes you propose will need to be supported by consensus if they are to become lasting parts of the article. This public wiki works by editorial consensus and sourcing policy, not by the individual, unilateral interpretations of editors. Lastly, the involvement of both Saints and Paiutes at MM is widely documented, although the details are also widely disputed across that documentation. While we can include published assertions which attempt to disassociate Paiutes from involvement other than having looted the victims' property (apparently following agreements to that effect with BY), other published assertions that they took part in the killings, along with Mormons both disguised and undisguised, will likely continue to be included, following WP sourcing policy and a consensus interpretation. Gwen Gale 11:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of verified cited sources is vandalism, and no concensus is required to replace them. Their removal and the vicious "anti-mormon" attacks were proof that these church members editors are POV pushing. As I said, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit - not just church approved edits. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[De-Indent] For the record the Salt Lake Tribune article mentioned is already used in the article as a source and has been for months. It is used as a source for the following statement in the article: "Paiute leaders stated in 2001 that the tribe's oral history denies any involvement in the massacre itself, but does admit to many watching from a distance and pillaging the Fanchers' property after the massacre." If it is deemed that this statement needs to be placed in a more prominent place in the article or more expansion, I'm all for that. But I don't see the need to have this same information duplicated, as what essentially happened when this same text was placed in the first paragraph. Articles that mention the same content in multiple paragraphs read sloppy and to me says that contributors added content without actually reading the entire article. Davemeistermoab 20:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Www.wovoca.com is not one. Please don't use it as a source. Hipocrite - «Talk»

Hipocrite, Please refrain from following me from article to article. This is the second article I have edited you have showed up to disrupt my editing. Do you actually read anything before making pronouncements it fails WP:V? It does not appear so. That citiation is from the Salt Lake Tribune, which is a reliable source. Stop following me around and making false statements about content. Thanks. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If the source is not the kookery website www.wovoca.com, please cite the source directly. Gwen might have a claim I am stalking her - you have no such. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Article in question is a reprint on this website from the Salt Lake Tribune. You would know that if you read it. The "look there's Elvis" tactics don't work with me. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't like to copyright violations, then, unles you are aware that the tribune released to wovoca the right to republish their copywritten materials? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Now you make false claims of copyvio. Where? This appears to be trolling. The citation goes back into the article. The source is reliable. The light moves forward. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please just cite the tribune, as opposed to some crank's website repost of what may or may not be the article. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, for what it's worth, I don't think Hipocrite is trolling you. --Duk 19:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Duk. I will refrain. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at it carefully, I see little scholarship and lots of stuff about the occult. While I'm sympathetic to ancestral advocacy generally, the cited article contains zero mention of DNA and makes a sloppy, wholly unscholarly case for the notion that since lots of gunshot wounds were found on the skulls, Paiutes couldn't have been involved. One could perhaps add to the article that Paiute advocates hold this view and cite womvoca.com but truth be told, I think it would do them more harm than good among keen readers.

The womvoca.com article certainly does not support any notion that the emigrants were part Cherokee (though one must always bear in mind that Cherokees so thoroughly adapted and married into the European-American mainstream early on that there likely was some Cherokee blood represented here and there among the victims, as there is in much American history... the pith is that if it's true, it's not extraordinary and may not even be notable). That's my take anyway. Gwen Gale 14:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

From you early reverts, it does not appear you read the citations either. I am trying to WP:AGF here, however, when five editors and an anon IP's, all church members, say the same stale "this is not your personal blog, so do not change any of our church approved edits" I feel like I am inside the ward house down the street here in Lindon listenting to testimonials. That article is from the Salt Lake Tribune, BTW. It meets the criteria of WP:V. It will be reinserted into the article. :-) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources? I saw but one, which a) doesn't support your assertions and b) even if it did, wouldn't make it through WP sourcing policy. I'll say it again, I'm not an LDS member and never have been. Personally, I think there's a chance BY ordered the whole thing but there is zero proof of that. They seem to have burned any evidence long ago, either to cover up his orders or cover up his looming, clumsy botch in handling both the pre-massacre tensions and the aftermath. Either way, the evidence is overwhelming that these murders were planned and executed by Mormons under Mormon leadership with local Paiute help. I am much more sympathetic to your PoV than you seem to think (save I guess on the Paiutes, who you seem to want to characterize only as looters of the dead who stood by and did nothing to aid the innocent men, women and children as they were massacred, when the documented record repeatedly recounts that they took part in both the initial attacks and the murders along with disguised and undisguised Mormons). Whatever. This is a public wiki. If you have some solid citations to back up your assertions, please provide them and let's work them into the text. Otherwise, please assume good faith yourself and stop throwing around hollow accusations in an effort to bluster your PoV into the article. It won't sway. Gwen Gale 17:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I fail to understand why comments from the Director of the Utah BIA and DNA evidence in a Salt Tribune article was removed. You understand paiutes participated? Based upon your belief? Tell me once when white mormons gave Indians guns to participate in a massacre? DNA evidence of the remains, along with forensic evidence the victims were head shot makes a good case there were no indians involved. At a minimum, the paiutes claims should be posted and not subjected to the mormon church stating only their side of the event. Time to flush out the anon posters. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Paiutes' current claims should be in the article text. Please provide a non-copyvio, verfiable citation and we'll get it in. Meanwhile, please stop insisting that this article is a product of the Mormon church, It is a violation of WP:AGF, a disruption and very mistaken. Thanks either way though for your helpful input. Gwen Gale 20:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. We just passed the biggest hurdle. As for "we'll get it in" please read WP:OWN. I can put it in myself. The anon IP socks reverting edits and posting edit summaries stereotyping me as an "anti-mormon" really speak loads of a lack of WP:AGF. I was simply editing an article. This article needs semi-protection it appears. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Erm, about your suggestion that I claim "ownership" of this article, WP:AGF. If you carry on luzzing about these mistaken comments, you won't get very far. Meanwhile, thank you so much for your helpful input. Cheers. Gwen Gale 20:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am glad I could be of help. I will get those edits into the article after I complete my review of all of the cited sources and materials. I have two items that give me concern 1) the paiutes did have seasonal fluctuations in their food supply yearly, with periods of famine and would be tempted to take a herd of free cattle, and some of them may have been tempted to join a rading band. 2) White mormons giving indians guns sounds implausible. None of the bodies show wounds or evidence of wounds caused by paiute weapons, all of them were head shot by experts with firearms -- i.e. militia. Both cause doubt from both sides. The paiute tribe has stated their accounts. They have equal weight to those of other viewpoints. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Friday added back to lead sentence

Gwen, why is this "helpful" as you mentioned in your edit summary? Providing context again? --Tom 13:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I do understand that your concern about this is mostly stylistic and in utterly good faith. I don't see any religious or "cryptic" significance in the day of the week other than it wasn't a Sunday and it was towards the end of the week. I'm aware of no documented significance to it at all. This was one of the most significant mass killings in American history and IMHO including the day of the week along with the date in the header together provide a thorough context. Lots of MMM sources mention the day of the week and there are other examples of traumatic historical events whose accounts wontedly tend to include the day of the week (Kennedy's assassination was a Friday, Pearl Harbor was a Sunday, 9/11 was a Tuesday and so on). That's all there is to it for me. Gwen Gale 14:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So if there is no documented significance, it can be dropped from the lead, otherwise folks will wonder as too its significance like I did and others have. Thanks, --Tom 15:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You're the only one I'm aware of who has brought this up with any frequency. Moreover, since your contributions to the content of this article have been otherwise nil, I sometimes wonder why you hammer away at this and even admin shop about it for good measure, long after I'd tacitly agreed to let it drop. Why do you hide your username User:Threeafterthree under Tom? Is there a cryptic significance to that? Is this truly a stylistic concern for you or is there something deeper here that you'd like to tell us about? Either way, since it is documented information, it can be kept in the lead, subject to editor consensus (which means more than your opinion or mine). Thanks. Gwen Gale 15:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been brought by a few folks other than myself and has been discussed WAY more than what seems appropriate since it struck me as curious and I/others have reverted it back serveral times. As far as my username, I was just trying to be more personal and use my first name. Also, yes this is a stylistic issue, nothing against the day "Friday" in fact I love fridays :). I was really hoping for some good reason/story for the mention of the day of the week in the lead sentence but have yet to see one. Anyways, since there seemed to be agreement from folks other than myself, can we agree again to drop it just from the LEAD sentence? Thanks, --Tom 17:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"it can be dropped from the lead ..." We can leave it in, since it has been documented as factual and doesn't hurt a thing. Cheers! Duke53 | ^Talk 15:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Factual, but irrelevant. Less is more. Style argues against it. alanyst ^/talk/ 18:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm cool with wherever consensus leads on this, let's have some more input. Gwen Gale 18:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

On 14 march 2007, Tom said "Seriously, I wasn't trying to be a prick"

On 1 May 2007, Tom said "I really don't care that much about this article, I don't even know how I ended up here, but this has turned into a edit war , why exactly?"

I suggest that contributing editors ignore Tom until he finds himself.Tinosa 21:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

He's just trying to soften his tone. He's got an opinion, so do others. Please comment on the issue itself, not the contributor (WP:NPA). alanyst ^/talk/ 22:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Alanyst, again you are a voice of reason. I'm going to remove Friday from the LEAD sentence since we are back where we started. A few different editors have now chimmed in about the day of the week of the event mentioned in the LEAD without any significance can be removed. Any problems with that? Thanks, --Tom 15:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Truth be told, I think it's rather obvious Alanyst was referring to courtesy, not the substance of this thread. I'm truly sorry to see you essentially edit warring over this and not waiting for a clear consensus to emerge. Why can't we wait for a consensus? Gwen Gale 16:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no point in stating that it was on Friday unless it contributes to the narrative. For instance, if they had been warned to be out of the area by Thursday, and on Friday there were still there and were attacked, it would be relevant. Edison 16:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I know he was talking about coutesy, but he has also weighed in on this issue in the past. It seems that I have now brought this up for a 3rd(?) time with slight agreement. I think 3(?) folks have agreed with me and maybe 3 folks have reverted me? Anyways, how much concensus do we need or want at this point? --Tom 16:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like opinions on this are about evenly mixed, so it's not a consensus either way. With all due respect to your good faith, I must say that since you contribute aught to this article other than your opinion on the word "Friday" appearing in the lead, I think it's reasonable to discount your part of any meaningful consensus, so it seems to me that if anything, there's more consensus for leaving it in. Whatever, I'd rather hear from more editors before "declaring" anything and mind, this stuff all gets archived anyway so the pith is to put lasting content into the article. Now, before you say that the use of this term has disturbed other editors, and that its absence would be more lasting, I simply don't agree. You're the one who has by far deleted this verified content more than anyone else. So let's wait and see. Gwen Gale 16:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Now an anon IP with 15 edits makes their first edit to this article and adds the Friday back, thanks dude! I also don't appreciate being dismissed since I have only edited this minimally. Anyways, --Tom 17:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the full extent of my position on this: First, it's a matter of style, not substance, since there's nobody seriously arguing that the fact it happened on a Friday is somehow relevant to the event. Second, nobody should be edit warring over a minor matter of style; that's just lame. Third, I personally think the lead reads better without it being mentioned, so I very mildly support its removal based solely on my personal preference. Fourth, I hereby resolve to not let it bother me if Friday is added back in; maybe others with an opinion here can make a similar resolution if their preferred style is not the one that ends up being incorporated. I think that's the sum of my perspective, and hopefully I'll have no need to say more on the matter. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur, style matters and there seems no good reason to keep Friday in the lead. But I also agree this is WP:LAME Ronnotel 21:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Tom's only contribution to the article has been this. I've asked him twice now why it's so important to him but to my knowledge, he's never told me. Gwen Gale 21:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second, I never told you? OK here goes AGAIN. Its SO important to me at this point since there seems to be some sort of AGENDA to keep the day of the week in the lead. My agenda in here is clearly stated on my user page. My question is STILL why is it SO important to have this in the LEAD??? I really was hoping that it was religiously significant or that there was SOME story or reason behind it so we all could move on, but at this point, no justifiable reason has been given. Anyways, I am sure this will be added back at some point and we can all revisit this "issue" again and again :) Cheers! --Tom 14:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So then everyone is now in agreement to strike the word Friday, correct? Ronnotel 04:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No. I consider it to be useful information. BRMo 04:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

How so? --Tom 14:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In reading about the sequence of events, I find it easier to follow in terms of days of the week than in numerical dates. For example, in reading over the section on the Cedar City meetings, I see that an error has recently been introduced into the article. The meetings in Cedar City took place on Sunday afternoon, not Thursday as present version of the article says. (The rider to Salt Lake City, James Haslam, left on Monday morning.) Another council meeting was held on Thursday night at Mountain Meadows where, presumably, the plans for the massacre were made, but Haight was not present at that meeting.

It's been clear for some time that there's not a consensus in favor of deleting the word "Friday," so why do you keep coming back here and edit warring over it? It's a very irritating distraction when much more substantive issues are being debated. Let it be. BRMo 02:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that perspective, BRMo. I hadn't considered the usefulness of "Friday" in following the chain of events. Not sure it alters my earlier "fully stated" position, but I appreciate seeing the different point of view. alanyst ^/talk/ 03:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I too appreciate your response. I will leave this..for now :). Cheers! --Tom 14:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just in case my opinion, such as it is, could contribute to a consensus, here goes. My opinion on Friday is the same as for which way to hang the tissue in the loo, i/e I don't mind a compulsion one way or the other as long as the nitpicky person straightens up the place while they're at it. ;^) --Justmeherenow 21:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"So then everyone is now in agreement to strike the word Friday, correct"? Not hardly ... I also consider it useful information. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

How so? --Tom 14:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't marionette nor "ogre" nor go with girls thet go thar. --Justmeherenow 21:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Aye, but for me that day of the week is twined in pith and lore to what came before and whatever we agree to here will be forgotten in a year. Let time tell and others blame, for I abstain. Gwen Gale 04:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediating the conflict

NPOV requires that we characterize all sides of a notable conflict. I know nothing about this topic. Perhaps both sides could explain to me some facts that I think might help guide the process:

Is the other side notable?

Do you both agree that the other side of this disagreement is notable - that it has a not-insignificant number of supporters? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the other side more supported than yours?

Which side of this conflict do you think has more support - popular, and/or professional, or is your side the mainstream view? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this belief adequately explained in the article?

If you believe you are expressing a majority view, do you feel the minority has appropriate representation? If you believe you are expressing a minority view, do you feel the majority has unfairly pigenholed you? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

We are not to this point yet. The hurdle has been passed. It's downhill from this point. All are welcome to help. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A Case for Indian Involvement

Federal Indian Agent, Garland Hurt, heard rumors of troubles between emigrants & Indians, and sent an interpreter to investigate, Sept. 17,1857. After interviewing the Piedes(Indians) at Beaver, the interpreter reported that they had been encouraged to attack by Lee and had been repulsed 3 times. The Mormons encouraged the emigrants to lay their arms down at which time the emigrants were massacred by both the Mormons and the Piedes.(see Letters of the President. December 4, 1859. Hurt to Forney)

Federal Judge J. Cradlebaugh accompanied Captain Campbell & Marshall Rogers to Sana Clara where they spent a week before rendezvousing with Major Carleton to exchange the army payroll. Cradelbaugh interviewed the Indian Chiefs of that area. The chiefs said a portion of their men were involved in the massacre but were not there when the attack commenced. (see Utah and the Mormons--Cradlebaugh. page 122 & 123.)

Chief Jackson, from Sana Clara, admitted committing outrages on the people of the U.S. (see Letters of the President. July 6, 1859. Capt. Campbell to Major Porter)Tinosa 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Here we have a contemporary report of an admission by Paiutes that they were involved in violence against the emigrants. This also shows how the accounts as to the extent and timing of their involvement do vary rather widely. For example, the article text is drawn from at least one source which says the Paiutes were involved in the initial attacks, too. Gwen Gale 02:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This reference appears to substanciate the paiutes claims they did not partcipate in the killings. It appears their partcipation was to take the cattle and other food items -- possibly in an agreement to hide the evidence the mormons killed these people. I can also see where the mormons would have wanted it this way -- so they could point to the indians possession of cattle and livestock and blame it on the paiutes. Great reference. It validates the paiute position. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There are three references that User:Tinosa quoted above. The first suggests that the Paiutes were involved in the actual violence. The second suggests some involvement but is a bit ambiguous; did they join in the violence after it commenced, or was their involvement in the overall situation non-violent? The third is even more ambiguous; "committing outrages" could mean anything from stealing up to murdering. None of these substantiate any claims that they did not participate in the killings; the most solid one (the first) seems rather to suggest otherwise. The second and third, being vague, do not support your hypothesis any better than they support the hypothesis that the Paiutes were among the murderers. No position has been validated, nor is the purpose of this article to validate any position. See WP:NOR. alanyst ^/talk/ 04:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The forensic investigation conducted by the Utah Bureau of Indian Affairs indicates that all the victims died from gunshots to the head. Sounds like the actual killing was done by the mormon militia, with the starving paiutes taking the cattle afterwards. For the claims the Paiutes partcipated in the "massacre" to be valid, there needs to be evidence they performed some of the killing. It appears they did not. Therefore, their assertions they did not participate in the massacre are apparently accurate. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds kind of reasonable to me, but if you say it in the article, it's original research. To make that assertion in the article, to make it last, requires a supporting citation which shows the same assertion in an independent, verifiable and published source. Also keep in mind, other sources have Paiutes jumping out of the bushes and hacking emigrants to death along with the shooting Mormons. Though I'm not saying the latter to argue with you, at all, Cheers. Gwen Gale 05:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Merkey admits the possibility of no more than minor, auxiliary involvement. Still, the article shouldn't state unproven claims about the tribe's full participation as uncontroverted fact. Instead, shouldn't what ought to be stated outright is that the Mormon colonists' militia attempted to lure the Pauites into involvement in the promised, easy plunder of the emigrants, all to be blamed solely on the tribe? (with the earliest version of the militia's cover story being that the Paiutes had gone on the warpath over a poisoned beef or whatever this particular tale kept changing to! (Shakes head.)... ) --Justmeherenow 05:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Only bringing this up for context, I think there are no worries in saying more about the varying accounts of Paiute involvement. Whether or not they were involved in the actual massacre, it's clear they were involved in the attacks and siege, then hovered about during the killings, waiting to loot the dead. The Paiute's ethical lapses at MM were then exploited by the Mormon leadership for generations, who tried to throw much of the blame on them. Lots of sources say the Fancher train (as it existed at MM) was one of the richest to ever pass through the area. Greed does seem to have stirred things up too. The value of the cattle alone, in 1857 terms (never mind in 1857 Mormon Utah terms), seems to have been a bit staggering. Gwen Gale 13:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, please, but the analysis of the bones presented by Merkey was not complete. It was not an analysis of every person killed at the massacre, but just a limited number of them. If that is correct, how do we say that there is conclusive evidence that all people were killed by professional militia? Also, I know of no historian that purports that the Paiutes had only rudimentary instruments of killing. To the contrary, historians state they had guns. That being the fact, I am unaware of any form of current analysis that enables us to determine that only Momons slaughtered these people. For some reason these assumptions seem not to be based upon reality, but rather POV. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 14:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, thanks for bringing this up, which is one practical reason why I mentioned to Jeffrey Vernon Merkey that, first, citations supporting that interpretation would have to be included with any change in the article, otherwise it would be OR and second, why I used the wording, "saying more about the varying accounts of Paiute involvement" rather than "they didn't take part in the actual massacre." As I re-read my post above though, my wording wasn't quite clear, my botch, I should have written "at the very least waiting to loot the dead..." Gwen Gale 14:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the vandalism and removal of cited sources. Please do not remove the citations from the article again. It's vandalism. I do not consider this a content dispute becuase the Paiutes have made public statements which have been verified. Do not try to rewrite history based upon your beliefs in the abscence of cited sources. Thanks. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC):::

No citations that I can see were rm'd. Meanwhile please stop calling good faith edits vandalism, thanks. Gwen Gale 17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you removed cited sources once again. As a previously banned sockpuppet of User:Wyss who willfully disobeyed an ARBCOM ruling, I would think you would try to observe and follow the rules. Based upon these past issues, I would have to wonder how many of these other accounts may be socks. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my assertion. As for your attack, every statement of fact that you have made above is wholly mistaken. Thanks for making yourself understood though. Gwen Gale 17:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, you live in a glass house. Put those stones down. alanyst ^/talk/ 17:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sweat Lodge Wikibreak

I went out and sat in the sweat lodge I built during my entire Wikipedia involvement (no hot rocks today, just sat in the lodge and let the wind talk to me). That lodge contains all of the energy from my interactions on Wikipedia good and bad, and I built it during my disputes with Mr. Wales last year. I go there to think about many of these issues about Native Issues on Wikipedia. All of us need to consider the wording of the paiute involvement and their statements, and balance this with all the sources. The comments about the paiutes reaction and refusal to endorse the MMM Monument is a notable and serious event. Sifting through all of the citations reveals numerous inconsistencies. There is also new evidence to consider. I would like for Gwen to propose wording for a new section and allow me to review it to address these issues if she is willing. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to drafting a "Paiute involvement" section for the article. There are certainly enough conflicting accounts, each of which could be helpfully and briefly explained as to tale and provenance. Gwen Gale 21:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Post it here. I will help you edit and source it. Let's take our time. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

(A quote concerning the Oregon Trail appeared here, which I moved....) --Justmeherenow 16:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Independent, verfiable citations like this about native Americans along emigrant trails in the American west during the 1850s, along with anything about the Paiutes and MMM, is so helpful to have posted here. Gwen Gale 16:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

How about we focus on the paiute involvement and look for citiations related to that. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

OK Merkey, I moved it to Blue Tie's concern # 33. Thanks. :^) --Justmeherenow 16:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

To tamp down the chances of further disputes and edit warring muddying up what I thought could be a helpful first step towards integrating your valid concerns about Paiute involvement at MMM into the article, I'll hold off on writing a draft until we have shown a thorough consensus about how cooperative editors, Wikipedia sourcing policies and the scholarly implementation of verifiable sources all work together in developing stable text for articles on this public wiki. I also suggest that the article remain protected from editing for now (although it is a version I'm not thrilled with). If you have any questions about this, please don't be shy! Cheers! Gwen Gale 16:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

From the ecyclopedia article at everything2.com:

... In a journal, Young's Indian interpreter writes that Young let the Indians know that after the army finished with the Mormons, they would come and kill the Indians. Less than three weeks after the massacre, Young authorized over $3500 in goods to be given to the Indians. Also there is a frequently censored phrase from Young's Aug. 4, 1857, letter to Mormon "Indian missionary" Jacob Hamblin to obtain the tribe's trust, "for they must learn that they have either got to help us or the United States will kill us both. (Qtd. in SLT)/ How much he did or didn't know isn't clear, but questions brought up by the massacre continue to cause great unrest among some Mormon leaders.

And what about the findings of the archaeologists and forensic anthropologists? When they were told they had to return the bones before a thorough examination could be done, the team spent thirty hours straight in an attempt to gain as much information as possible from the bones and twenty skulls they had. According to accounts, the Indians beat or stabbed the women and children and the militia shot the men. Evidence showed that men, women and children were shot. Five of the twenty (children and young adults) were killed by blunt force. And there was much evidence of predatory damage, most likely wolves or coyotes, due to the bodies being left unburied. * On the other hand, no evidence for knife or hatchet wounds was found. Many descendants of the Indians believe this corroborates their oral histories that state the Indians did not participate or had little participation. Unfortunately the evidence ends there and as one of the team notes: "Obviously, skeletal trauma cannot corroborate ethnically who was responsible for the shooting and whom for the beating" (SLT). It is true that the Indians were on fairly good terms with the Mormon community and their tribe accounted for the highest number of Mormon converts. And if the evidence about Young and his dealings with the tribe is accurate, a motive is suggested./ But no one can know for sure and what is on record is confounded by conflicting stories of the militia, themselves. Stories range from the Paiutes barely participating to full participation to forcing the Mormons to kill them. One affidavit claimed that the Indians came and asked them to kill the train or they would join the army and fight the Mormons. Adding the cover-up that painted the Indians as the sole participants and denying the militia's part and one has a mess of history. One that will probably never be completely sorted out.

--Justmeherenow 17:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Pls keep these coming if you can Justmeherenow and thanks again :) Gwen Gale 18:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a very good citation. It basically says that there are conflciting reports -- all attributable to the mormons blaming the event on the paiutes in varying degrees. There are no admissons by the paiutes of participating in the event, but the converse. When you have conflicting sources, you have to allow the reader to decide without clouding the materials. We should leave the denial of the Pauite tribe but leave the remaining materials about their involvement with appropriate citiations concerning the discrepencies. Based upon the evidence, it seems obvious that some individual indians may have been involved in the logistic side to take the cattle. However, it does not appear these individuals had the approval of the paiute tribal leadership, which took a bystander stance, then judiciously collected up the cattle at the end of the affair. Given the conflicting sources, all views should be esspoused, with the clear denial by the paiutes and an article section stating they refused to participate in the monument dedication along with the statements of their leaders "they could not participate in the monument dedication because they feel they would be perpetuating the Mormon Church's Lies concerning the affair" (which is what the say in their quote in the Salt Lake Tribune -- "lies"). I realize this may be controversial for the Church, but these were the statements of the Paiutes concerning the Monument dedication. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hardly anyone wants to be known as the descendent of a mass murderer. That said, whilst I tend to think your statement that varying accounts about Paiute involvement are "all attributable to the mormons blaming the event on the paiutes in varying degrees," is reasonable, the excerpt above does not declare this as a conclusion at all and hence does not support the assertion. Meanwhile, the excerpt if anything seems to support implicit and mutually sympathetic cooperation between Paiutes and Mormons: "It is true that the Indians were on fairly good terms with the Mormon community and their tribe accounted for the highest number of Mormon converts."

Even modern Paiutes seem to acknowledge that their ancestors at a minimum passively watched the massacre and looted the dead by pre-arrangement with the local Mormon leadership. We have a cite from the lead forensic examiner that the forensic evidence in no way eliminates Paiutes as having participated in the slaughter. So far I see no support for any assertion that the Paiutes were not involved in these killings, other than inclusion in the article of a direct quote of denial from a modern representative of the tribe. Gwen Gale 04:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So far I see no support for any assertion that the Paiutes were not involved in these killings, other than inclusion in the article of a direct quote of denial from a modern representative of the tribe. Good point. An official statement from a Federally recognized tribe they did not participate is powerful and should be referenced, along with their statements "the mormon church is perpetuating lies" as part of their official position. The mormon church has admitted their culpubility here, the paiutes have denied theirs. Sounds lile we have gotten an agreement in principle. Particularly since the piautes are a Federally recognized entity and have all the treaty powers of such an entity. An official statement from them is historical and verifiable, unlike the rest of these sources. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that these modern Paiute statements should be included and referenced in the article. So far I can't support doing it in the header of the article because this modern assertion does not as yet appear to be supported either by historical documents, professional historians or modern research (including forensics done on the emigrant skeletons accidently unearthed at MM). That said, I think you and I can agree, on the talk page only, as editors, that most Mormon spin about MMM has been a tissue of lies and evasion but IMHO none of this "exonerates" the Paiutes. Even the severest anti-Mormon accounts tend to describe Paiutes as having participated in the killings.

As it is (and before you arrived), the article already at least threw some doubt on the extent of Paiute involvement by noting how the accounts do vary. As I look at these sources more thoroughly, truth be told, the evidence for Paiute involvement in the killings looks overwhelming to me.

To accompany the Paiute statement(s), can you provide a hard, independent, published, non-Paiute source which starkly and directly declares that Paiutes were not involved in the final massacre?

With all due respect, I cannot agree with your concluding assertion, "...unlike the rest of these sources." You seem to be conflating the notions of historically documented statements (the modern Paiute denials, which don't prove a thing except that modern Paiutes don't want to be known as the great-great grandchildren of participants in a mass murder) with historically documented behaviours and events which sources, although varying and fogged by Mormon evasion and spin, rather consistently describe as direct Paiute involvement in the killings. Gwen Gale 04:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Paiute Renegades

It just came to me. If paiutes joined the church, they were no longer Paiute Indians by this classification because they were not obeying the tribes directives. They could be referred to as "paiute renegades" and I think this will satisfy the neutrality issues and allow us to move forward. Anywhere pauites are referred to in the accounts, call them "paiute renegades". If they were mormon church converts, then they were mormons not paiute indians. paiute renegades seems to work here and I think the tribe will no longer be offended by these characterizations, since this implies some tribal members were acting outside of the tribes directives in the matter, which they have documented in their oral traditions. Mormon converts would have been viewed by the tribe as renegades. Please consider this. It's when you use the term "Indian" that this comes into conflict. This implies a sovereign group with governmental authority ordered the attack, which the paiutes claim did not happen. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

We would need an independent, published source which described them as "renegades" in order to include that in the article text. Moreover, if only one source could be found, it would have to be directly attributed so as to not mislead the reader that such a characterisation is generally accepted by professional historians.

Moreover, since we have accounts that Paiute "chiefs" were present, I'm not even sure it could ever be supported as a description, unless it could be shown that these were renegade chiefs.

I think you should consider writing (and getting published) a book or magazine article about your views concerning Paiute involvement and alleged Cherokee ancestry of the emigrants. We could easily and lastingly include your interpretations if they were published in a citable source (although WP policies concerning NPoV and undue weight would still apply). Gwen Gale 05:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Hmmm. Would an official press release from the Paiute tribe satisfy this requirement. That I might be able to suggest. (I have not spoken to most of these folks since Clifford Jake died, but I know who to call). Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It smacks of collective autobigraphy. One point of a published book or article is that it has impressed someone to get published, passed through some fact-checking, and the response to it will be findable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

after reading your comments above this section, I realize we cannot depend on the Paiute tribe for exhoneration as an ~~reliable~~ unbiased source. That would be like accepting the word of foxes leaving the henhouse with chicken feathers all over their lips, saying "show me the chickens" (actually cattle in this case). The first proposal of including their statements seems the best approach. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.