Talk:Fancher party

Mark Twain quote / Wilford Woodruff as source
These sources have inaccuracies and other problems that have been extensively discussed on the Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre archives. Since editors interested in the massacre are likely to be watching that page, I suggest we discuss this there. BRMo 17:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This whole article was a raw data/text dump with a nugget of uncited PoV and an utterly unencyclopedic title. Gwen Gale 18:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Text is entirely my own other than three citations (two published historians, the other Mark Twain). Thank you. --Justmeherenow

Please see WP:OR then and mind, WP is not a data dump. Gwen Gale 18:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So the contents of a new article was deleted because the one person judge & jury decided that it's title & content are unworthy. It would have been interesting for other viewers to read & comment. What is the purpose of this dicussion page? Tinosa 18:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Idividual edits is the way to address issues with the wikepedian treatment of the Fancher party I would believe. ''Pax salaam! shanti shalom!' ' :^) --Justmeherenow 19:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Do what you all like, I am stepping away entirely from this. Thanks. Gwen Gale

I don't see others so afraid of your edits, Gwen Gale, as you seem of theirs? If it's not your overly vocal defenses against even the most inconsequential edits over at the MMM page it's - omg coming to this article and your having blanked its page without discussion? Rather than constructively assisting while another person, here or ther, takes the lead in exposition? --Justmeherenow 21:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that this is exactly a data dump of another article. Maybe it needs work. Maybe it should be merged.  Not sure, but I think some time should pass before it is just deleted. --Blue Tie 01:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge and redirect?
This article contains a bit of encyclopedic material that should be merged with Mountain Meadows massacre. However, at least half of the article (the Mark Twain section) is an effort to bring back material that had been rejected by the consensus of editors working on MMM. Wikipedia policy forbids creating new articles to skirt WP:NPOV or to avoid working by consensus. Is there a reason a second MMM article is needed? BRMo 03:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * When I opined that a seperate page be created for the Fancher party it was in the context of people who opined that the MMM article was simplifying the complex nature of the Fancher party and missed relevent points. Sigh, that is obviously not what this page has become. It is instead anti-LDS MMM material that has been inserted and removed from the main MMM article several times over. Other then I think it is worth noting that Mark Twain commented about MMM in his book "Roughing it" I see none of this material as helpful.  Why not just remove the word "Modern" from the section titled "Modern Depections in the Media" of the MMM article and add Roughing it to the list? Then wipe this article clean and start anew? Clearly expounding upon the Fancher party was not the intention behind the creation of this article
 * Davemeistermoab 04:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record I'm not anti-Mormon but only in favor of Wikipedia's being more straightforward in its telling of the victims' story - despite my accomplice Leavitt geneology! In any case I lean towards a merge to an article more granular as to the party's makeup - could somebody dump its contents here and tag it for cleanup? :^)


 * Does anybody know if there's still soundness to the adamant claim that no known victims joined the train from Missouri? Also it would be great if we could find someplace inconspicuous, so as not to give it undue weight, to link to the article about the Danites (ie the Missouri-period predessessor to the LDS militia founded in Illinois). --Justmeherenow 05:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * None of the known victims were from Missouri, and I can swear to that because I've researched them all :) The family groups were all from north western Arkansas, William A. Aden, who joined the group in Salt Lake, was from Tennessee. ParkerMMM 05:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record I'm not pro-mormon but I do think several people who are anti-LDS exploit the history of MMM for personal reasons. For that reason I've tried to be a calming influence in the rhetoric that has been added to this article. I personally am not in favor of merging the articles. it think there should be an article on the Fancher party, but it should be about the fancher party who they were, who joined them, who survived the massacre, who did not, etc. It shouldn't say to much about the massacre, leaving that for the MMM article. IMO any Mark Twain commentary belongs on the MMM article not here. However Mark Twain's words generally have more literary value than historical value and I don't think its appropriate to quote them in their entirety, just a summary at best. Davemeistermoab 02:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Davemeistermoab 02:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can agree to an article about the victims in the Fancher Party. It could include a brief biographical sketch about the families for which information is available, and a simple list of other known victims about whom little is known. As long as everyone agrees that this should not be a second MMM article, but rather an article that provides additional biographical information on the victims and survivors of this tragedy, I think it could make for a fine article. (The editing on the main article has kind of gone crazy today!) Peace. BRMo 02:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If this article is strictly limited to biographical sketches of the train(s) and perhaps some details about their travel before MM I'm ok with it. However, any attempt at a PoV fork would be most unhelpful and I would remind that the creator of this article has said it was started as such. Gwen Gale 12:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Since whether my edits' "good faith" seems to be questioned above, I admit it is the so uniformly passively voiced MMM article and its editors' unwillingness to allow viewpoints belonging to families of the victims to be expressed which motivated me to believe a separate Fancher party article was needed, where details being obstructed from inclusion at the MMM article could find their place. However the BY-Paiute tete a tete edit is in the right direction and away from the irritating passive voice in that Brigham Young actually does something in it (and it's not just that hey maybe individuals on their own up and decided to seige a wagon train...") :^). Ahem, anyway, sorry. So I deleted the actively voiced summary I had in the FP article after I saw that progress being made, which is the alternate coverage of the MMM I "withdrew". (Which was that Young had sealed the border, forbit resupplying unauthorized emigrants, and given the go ahead to indigenous tribesmen to plunder them). --Justmeherenow 16:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wonderful! Meanwhile, if you have specific things you'd like to include, please provide them here for discussion along with the citations to support them. Thanks! Gwen Gale 16:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Young did forbid supplying emigrants (before the massace), etc, and on Sept. 15, 1857 he declared Martial Law (after the massacre). For his Martial law Proclamation see:http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/Newspapers/MMM4.pdf. Subject matter is more appropriate to the article on the MMM, not here. ParkerMMM 05:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've dropped the merge template, with the understanding that this article will focus on providing information about members of the party and their trip prior to the massacre, and will avoid duplication of the MMM article or attempts to introduce PoV materials that've been rejected for that article. BRMo 04:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether you all decide to incorporate the Fancher party into the MMM, or create a seperate article, it needs a re-write :) First of all, suggest that you call them the "Arkansas Emigrants", or the "Arkansas Emigrant Train", which are the modern terms for this group. Fancher Party and Fancher & Co. was used by John D. Lee, and Juanita Brooks also used it, based on JDL's account. The usage does support the theory that Capt. Alexander Fancher was in charge of the train during their journey along the southern route in Utah. However, the Fancher Party or Train was only one part of the whole. Later on, it morphed into the Baker-Fancher Train, which is also inaccurate. Arkansas Emigrants is the more historically correct(and politically correct!)description of that includes all of the victims, not just one segment. ParkerMMM 05:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I did a basic cleanup and sweep through the text but truth be told it's still something of a mess. Arkansas emigrants might be ok, with Fancher party redirecting there. Gwen Gale 05:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want to sound crabby, but the majority of the information that appears on the Trains and where they were from is under my copyright :) I gladly gave permission to use it, but someone has changed it, so that some parts are now inaccurate. ParkerMMM 05:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Erm, information is not copyrightable. Prose is copyrightable. Please immediately delete anything in this article to which you claim a copyright. Giving your permission does not clear GFDL. Thanks. If you continue to claim copyright on text in this article that's ok but I will blank the page and put a copyvio tag on it. Gwen Gale 06:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC


 * Some of this was word for word from my book. Doesn't matter, it's okay to include the information, since you did credit the source, and I altered it so I am comfortable. But I did change what was there so your information is now 100% accurate on the Trains. It had gotten a little muddled along the way :) I did not alter the copy of the earlier text that does not appear in the article. Figured there was a reason it was not shown. I can answer the who, what, when and whys of the Arkansas emigrants if you need me to. ParkerMMM 06:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks.


 * None of this is my information and I did not credit the source. Mind, this is a public wiki.


 * Please answer this: Do you claim copyright on any text in this article or do you not claim copyright? "Yes" or "no" would be most helpful :) Gwen Gale 07:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No. I will look up the source references today and add them. ParkerMMM 17:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I would throw in that from the beginning this article has been nothing (more or less) than a raw text dump and should have been speedied as such. Gwen Gale 06:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Just A Suggestion - Whether it is here for the Fancher party/Arkansas Emigrants or the MMM article, I would suggest sticking to as many primary sources as you can. And even some of those are very questionable. Actually, the bulk of the accurate information has only emerged in the past few years, and you are tackling subject matter, especially in the case of the MMM, that would take volumes to explain. (The latest work by 3 LDS Historians will be 2 volumes, Bagley is writing another book in addition to Blood Of the Prophets.) Twain's Roughing it is entertaining heresay :) ParkerMMM 07:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A proposal for this article
A re-write might be in order, but this article could remain. The Fancher party was organized when? by whom? Why? It took what route? How was it organized? Who were the people? Why was it notable? etc. --Blue Tie 01:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still in favor of merger.


 * Re issue broached above of Fancher/Wallner's copyright: While an earlier version quoted Arkansas Primer, with credit being given, I don't believe the current version's phrasing of info from F/W's research involves any direct plagiarization? --Justmeherenow 16:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems not to now. I do think this article should be merged back into MMM. Gwen Gale 20:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree! The Fancher party article is more relevent in context with the Massacre. ParkerMMM 22:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What a mess, but it's merged and done now. Gwen Gale 01:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Was there a consensus to merge it or did someone just do it on their own? Because I never saw a consensus agreement to do that.  Perhaps it is the right way to go, but I have some doubts.  I will not argue either way, but I just wondered if all views were considered. --Blue Tie 01:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you read this talk page I think your questions would be thoroughly answered but I'll do it anyway. The editor who originally created this page is the editor who merged the text back into the main article after the merge also received support from the only other editor who had meaningfully worked on it. Gwen Gale 01:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A wiki's not stone. ParkerMMM didn't seem to think (although I may be mistaken) "Arkansas wagontrains massacred in 1857" and "the Mountain Meadows massacre" to be terribly distinct? But should the train's description become sufficiently elaborated, it could always become split off again. No? :^) --Justmeherenow 02:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)