Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 19

Untitled
Material archived from the Mountain Meadows massacre Talk page. (August 2010 - August 2012 approximate)

No burial at all for two years following the massacre?
Walker, Turley and Leonard's 2008 work Massacre at Mountain Meadows says the victims were hastily buried immediately following the massacre, but in such shallow graves that they were just as hastily disinterred by animals. I think the allusion to this 150-year-old charge -- that the victims went unburied so long -- should be re-written. It's in the very first paragraph. I'm no LDS apologist but apparently the perpetrators DID attempt to show the victims a modicum of respect at the time and this shouldn't go unrecognized. 207.19.143.1 (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Bryce Rumbles (brycerumbles@yahoo.com)
 * I agree that the source used in the lead section appears to be misused. This appears to be a deposition taken after the fact answering the question "why weren't they buried" after they remains were discovered. As such the source you have is probably better. With that said, I'm not sure there is a significant difference between saying the remains were "left unburied" and the remains "were buried in such shallow graves that they were hastily disinterred". However in the interest of accuracy, I would support the change you are proposing. Dave (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Involvement of Paiute Indians
A recent IP editor removed the statement about the involvement of the Paiute Indian tribe, claiming that "this has been thoroughly disproved and admitted by the Mormons." Another IP editor then undid this edit, a move I agree with. It has not been thoroughly disproved, but is founded in historical records (I will show you what I mean later in this post). User:Duke53 then added a citation needed request for that info, and I typed a short footnote (which will no doubt need some work). It seems pretty much a fact that the Mormons tried to blame most of the massacre, and sometimes all of it, on the Paiute Indians for many years. Of course that is not true, but completely taking them out of the picture, for whatever reason, is not accurate either. The massacre site is currently in the process of becoming a National Historic Landmark, and a footnote found in the nomination form gives some good information about Paiute participation. Since it is a work of the National Park Service, it is in the public domain, so have at it:

"Different lines of evidence provide conflicting information regarding Paiute involvement in the massacre. Although participants and contemporary federal reports stated that Paiutes were involved in the attack, the limited amount of archeological research conducted at the site provides no evidence of weapons typically used by the Paiutes. “[T]he Southern Paiutes, the Indians who lived in the area, used bows, and by the mid-1850s they were tipping their arrows with metallic heads fashioned from salvaged bits of axle and other wagon-train debris…the skeletons recovered from the mass grave showed no trace of arrow wounds of any kind. Of course, the gunshot wounds in the skeletal sample might have been inflicted by Indians…[but] the Paiutes at the time were known to ‘possess few firearms and little skill at using them.’” Shannon A. Novak, House of Mourning: A Biocultural History of the Mountain Meadows Massacre (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2008), 173. However, two Paiute informants--Moquetas and Tau-gu (Coal Creek John)--stated that the white people had given them guns to use against the immigrants. During the initial attack, Moquetas was shot in the leg and crippled. Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley, Jr., and Glen M. Leonard, Massacre at Mountain Meadows, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 268, 269. See also a discussion of 25 individual Native Americans who were named in historic records as being present, in Walker et al, 265-270. Those authors evaluated the credibility of the written evidence, and determined that there was strong evidence regarding 15 of the individuals witnessing or participating in the massacre. One such source was James Henry Carleton, Special Report of the Mountain Meadow Massacre (Camp at Mountain Meadows, Utah Territory: 25 May 1859): 57th Congress, 1st session, 1902. H. Doc. 605, in which Brevet Major Carleton reports that within 20 months of the massacre, a Paiute man named Jackson told that army investigator that he was one of the attackers. However, the historical record is disputed by some oral history accounts. “Two major lines of Paiute oral history have developed about participation in the massacre. One line says that no Paiutes participated…the second line of Paiute oral history recognizes some Paiute participation.” Walker et al, 265-266. See also Forrest S. Cuch, A History of Utah's American Indians (Salt Lake City: Utah State Division of Indian Affairs/Utah State Division of History, 2000), 131-139."

I am more apt to believe what the few American Indians told investigators, than what some of them passed down to their children (as what the Mormons passed down to their kids is not always the most correct either; who wants to be remembered as a killer?). So I see no reason to remove this information from the article, because "members of the Paiute Indian tribe", even if it was only 15, did participate. Anyone else have an opinion? --Mangoman88 (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * " ... I am more apt to believe what the few American Indians told investigators ...". Yeah, it's not likely that those 'American Indians' could have been 'coerced' into saying whatever the 'investigators' wanted to hear, is it ?
 * " ... there was strong evidence regarding 15 of the individuals witnessing or participating ..." Quite a leap between witnessing and participating, let's get a source that simply says that they definitely participated in committing these cold blooded murders. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 10:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Pretty much all modern historians believe that any Paiute involvement was miniscule, but the exact level of their involvement is difficult to determine. As such, my preference would be keep any mention of Paiute involvement out of the lead, and just explain it in the body of the article, where there is space to explain it in context. I think Mango's quote is a good one, and probably a better source that what is currently used. Dave 16:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I seems like the real question here isn't did the Paiutes participate, but was the level of their involvement enough to merit being mentioned in the lead? I think yes, and it has been part of the lead since the article was created back in January 2003 (although it has come and gone several times). It has been discussed, more or less, before; an example is here Mountain Meadows massacre/Archive 10. If it was removed the sentence would read that the emigrants were killed "by a local Mormon militia on September 11, 1857", while that is true, its not the entire story. The lead should summarize what is in the body, and the body supports participation by Paiutes. Which by the way means the 'citation needed' added by User:Duke53, was unnecessary; for more info see Template:Citation needed (lead). Even if it was only two Indians, there is no untruth in saying "members of the Paiute Indian tribe" helped in the slaughter, at least according to the general consensus of most historians. Even Will Bagley's Blood of the Prophets, which most defiantly goes against many LDS POVs, mentions evidence that Indians participated, including the story of when H.L. Halleck, a non-Mormon, passed through southern Utah in December 1858, and "the Paiutes showed him the place where they lay in ambush to the east of the road" (Pg. 153). Yet, I do agree with Dave that the article should include information about the debate on how much the Paiutes participated, and about the large amount of blame incorrectly placed upon them from the very beginning. I do like this suggestion found in the talk page archive:"The Mountain Meadows massacre was a mass slaughter of the Fancher-Baker emigrant wagon train at Mountain Meadows, Utah Territory, by members of the Iron County militia and a unknown number of local Paiute tribesmen recruited by the militia." --Mangoman88 (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead already has the sentence "Initially intending to encourage an Indian-led massacre,[7] local militia leaders including Isaac C. Haight and John D. Lee conspired to lead militiamen disguised as Native Americans along with a contingent of Paiute tribesmen in an attack." In my opinion, that is sufficient to demonstrate Paiutes were present. The statement, "by a local Mormon militia and members of the Paiute Indian tribe" implies that the Paiutes were equal partners in the massacre, which is not correct. I do think your above suggestion "of an unknown number" or even "a small number" is ok and addresses the issue of false implication, but not the issue of undue weight. Dave (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree Dave the issue of undue weight is important, I think the entire lead needs some work, it jumps around a lot; repeating some information more than once. I will do a little work in the coming days and post my rewrite on the talk page for your opinion.--Mangoman88 (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "I know how to present this subject is being hashed out on the talk page, but in the interim "perhaps" is not an appropriate word for an encyclopedia article." Huh ?? So, even if we know that there only may have been direct Paiute involvement in committing these murders we are stating it as fact ?


 * "Even if it was only two Indians....</i>" Even if ? How many were there ? Let's have cited evidence.


 * "<I> .... H.L. Halleck, a non-Mormon, passed through southern Utah in December 1858, and "the Paiutes showed him the place where <B>they</B> lay in ambush to the east of the road</I>" If the Paiutes were only observers of these murders, then the phrase 'where they lay in ambush' could be a description of what they saw the mormon militia doing. Very ambiguous.
 * There's some bogus thinking going on here. Some editors are willing to bend over backwards to place some of the blame for these cold blooded murders on non-mormons. Either a reliable source says that the Pauites definitely were directly involved in committing this crime or we do not mention it at all. Cheers. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 12:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What about this? "...by a local Mormon militia and an unknown number of Paiute Indian accomplices...." I chose the word "accomplice" because it conveys some degree of involvement but does not imply the same degree of participation or culpability.  (An accomplice to a bank robbery could have held a gun at the tellers, or could just have driven the getaway car or even have assisted with the planning but not have been present at the crime.)  This phrasing in the lede would give the reader a rough but sufficient idea of who was involved and in what numbers and degrees, while the article body would give the reader the details they need to understand the term "accomplice" more fully.  And I don't think it would be at odds with what the sources say, even if none of them use that particular word. alanyst /talk/ 15:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Edit: changed "a few" to "an unknown number" to avoid falsely implying more precision than what's available.


 * Okay so I did a rework of the entire lead section. It does NOT have to be used, but I think it helps with some of the concerns mentioned both with the involvement of Paiutes and burying the dead. First thing I did was some work to the lead sentence, I told what happened (a group of emigrants were killed) and then established a time and place. We don't have to say it was a series of attacks, but that helps avoid confusion about the several attacks and siege that happened over the five days, it wasn't really just one event. Then I moved around sentences so the lead is in chronological order, we don't need to hear about the emigrants' things being sold at auction before we even know who the emigrants are and why they were in Utah. I also tried to summarize things a little better, it doesn't need to say exactly how many troops were coming to Utah or how many head of cattle the wagon party had, it can just say troops were on their way to Utah and the wagon train stopped to regroup their cattle. It also doesn't need to say when and where Lee was executed, just that he was sentenced to death. We don't need three for four sentences saying why some people think Brigham Young ordered it, and why some think he didn't, we can just say it is debated and they can read the article if interested. Please read through it, and give suggestions, and remember it doesn't have to be used - The Mountain Meadows massacre was a series of attacks, which cumulated on September 11, 1857, in the mass slaughter of the Fancher-Baker emigrant wagon train at Mountain Meadows, Utah. The wagon train, composed almost entirely of families from Arkansas, was bound for California; a journey which required passing through the Utah Territory. At the same period of time, military troops sent by President James Buchanan, were on their way to Utah with orders to ensure federal authority within the territory. A confrontation, later known as the Utah War, was expected by the local Mormon settlers and their leaders, who mustered the militia, encouraged them to prepare for war, and gave defiant speeches stating their determination to mount a defense. After arriving in Salt Lake City, the emigrants made their way south, eventually stopping to rest and regroup their cattle at Mountain Meadows, a valley within the Iron County District of the Nauvoo Legion (the popular designation for the territory's militia). While the emigrants were camped at the meadow, nearby militia leaders including Isaac C. Haight and John D. Lee, made plans to attack the wagon train. They initially intended to encourage an Indian-led massacre, by persuading and arming some Southern Paiute Indians to join with a much larger party of militia men (who would be disguised as Indians), in an attack. During the initial assault on the wagon train, the emigrants fought back and a five-day siege ensued. Eventually fear spread among the militia's leaders that some emigrants had caught sight of white men, and had probably discovered who their attackers really were; this resulted in an order, by William H. Dame, for their annihilation.  After five days of siege the emigrants were running low on some supplies, including water. They allowed a party of militia men to enter their camp, and after ensuring the emigrants of their safety, the militia escorted them out of their hasty fortification. After walking a distance from the camp, the militia men, with the help of auxiliary forces hiding nearby, executed the emigrants. Intending to leave no witnesses of Mormon complicity in the attacks, and to prevent reprisals that would further complicate the Utah War, all the adults and older children were killed (totaling about 120 men, women, and children). Seventeen children, the eldest of whom was six, were spared. Following the massacre the perpetrators were sworn to secrecy and only hastily buried the victims, leaving their bodies venerable to wild animals and the climate. The surviving children were taken in by local families, and many of the victims' possessions were auctioned off.  Investigations, temporarily interrupted by the American Civil War, resulted in nine indictments during 1874. Of the men indicted, only John D. Lee was tried in a court of law and, after two trials, was convicted and sentenced to death. Today historians attribute the massacre to a combination of factors including both war hysteria and strident Mormon teachings. Scholars continually debate whether the massacre was caused by any direct involvement of senior church leadership, including Brigham Young, or if responsibility lies with the local leaders of Southern Utah.

--Mangoman88 (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is certainly more focused than the current lead, which unnecessarily drifts onto a lot of tangential subjects. I have two nit-pics with your version.


 * 1) "a journey which required passing through the Utah Territory" That is not technically correct. There were documented emigrant trails that flowed through Arizona instead of Utah. However, they were not popular due to the more extreme weather, geography and security situations. I would instead just say "a journey which caused them to pass through the Utah Territory"
 * 2) As currently written, the last 3 sentences of the first paragraph (i.e. the Utah war piece) does not establish a clear connection to the massacre.  How about reversing the order of the content to make the connection clearer, such as, "At the same period of time, Mormon leaders were making defiant speeches that encouraged the local population to prepare for an armed confrontation with military troops that was later known as the Utah war." (IMO that they were sent by James Buchannan is also a tangential detail not worthy of mention in the lead) Dave (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, both those suggestions are very good points. I had trouble trying to word the info about the Utah War, and your sentences are much better than mine. If and when I put this lead into the article I will use both corrections. One of my biggest concerns is that the information in the lead is verified in the body, so that citations are not needed; a requirement for featured article status. I think just about everything is, except that the oldest survivor was six years old. Anything else that anybody sees which is in the lead, but not in the article's body? Is the wording okay enough to explain Mormons planned, led the attack, and did most of the killing, aided only by some Paiutes who had been persuaded to participate? I used the word 'some' to avoid "falsely implying more precision than what's available," as another user suggested. Any other suggestions, improvements, praises or complaints:)?--Mangoman88 (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is important to state that the only survivors were young children in the lead. However, I'm not convinced we need to give the figure of six years old. That said, I don't have any problems with that statement either. I'd get some more feedback on it. Dave (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the first sentence or two of the lede needs to answer the question of who perpetrated the massacre. I also think the lede you've proposed is a bit too long and detailed.  Here's my wording that also incorporates other suggestions above, along with a few spelling corrections and stylistic tweaks:
 * "The Mountain Meadows massacre was an attack by a local Mormon militia and an unknown number of Paiute Indian accomplices on the Fancher-Baker emigrant wagon train over several days in September 1857 at Mountain Meadows, Utah. The attack culminated on September 11, 1857, with the slaughter of all the adults and older children in the Fancher-Baker party. The wagon train, composed almost entirely of families from Arkansas, was bound for California on a route that passed through the Utah Territory.  At the same period of time, local Mormon leaders were urging their populace to prepare for an imminent armed confrontation (later called the Utah War) with United States military troops ordered to establish federal authority within the territory. The leaders mustered the militia and gave defiant speeches stating their determination to mount a defense.  After arriving in Salt Lake City, the emigrants made their way south, eventually stopping to rest at Mountain Meadows. While the emigrants were camped at the meadow, nearby militia leaders including Isaac C. Haight and John D. Lee made plans to attack the wagon train. Their plan was to arm some Southern Paiute Indians and persuade them to join with a much larger party of militia men disguised as Indians, in an attack.  During the initial assault on the wagon train, the emigrants fought back and a five-day siege ensued. Eventually fear spread among the militia's leaders that some emigrants had caught sight of white men, and had probably discovered who their attackers really were. This resulted in an order by William H. Dame for their annihilation. Running low on water and provisions, the emigrants allowed a party of militia men to enter their camp who assured them of their safety and escorted them out of their hasty fortification. After walking a distance from the camp, the militia men, with the help of auxiliary forces hiding nearby, turned their weapons on the emigrants. Intending to leave no witnesses of Mormon complicity in the attacks, and to prevent reprisals that would further complicate the Utah War, the perpetrators killed all the adults and older children (totaling about 120 men, women, and children). Seventeen children were spared.  Following the massacre the perpetrators hastily buried the victims, leaving their bodies vulnerable to wild animals and the climate. Local families took in the surviving children, and many of the victims' possessions were auctioned off.  Investigations, temporarily interrupted by the American Civil War, resulted in nine indictments during 1874. Of the men indicted, only John D. Lee was tried in a court of law.  After two trials Lee was convicted and executed. Today historians attribute the massacre to a combination of factors including both war hysteria and strident Mormon teachings. Scholars still debate whether senior church leadership, including Brigham Young, directly instigated the massacre or if responsibility lies with the local leaders of Southern Utah."
 * Thoughts? alanyst /talk/ 05:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you change it to "was an attack by a local Mormon militia and assisted by an unknown number of Paiute Indians ...." we have a deal. I don't have an issue with accomplices, but 5 years of working on this article has taught me that somebody will. =-) Dave (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I really like how simplified the lead is becoming! My one major suggestion is reworking the sentence about the Utah War to say something more like they "were urging their populace to prepare for what they believed would be an imminent armed confrontation," because technically it never became an armed confrontation in the sense that there were battles. And I feel it currently makes it seem like the Utah War was something it wasn't. I hope that makes sense. I also agree with Dave, using "accomplices" is going to be an issue with some folks (Its easy to see this by going through the article's history and archived talk pages). Maybe something more like-"The Mountain Meadows massacre was an attack by a local Mormon militia, assisted by some Paiute Indians, on the Fancher-Baker emigrant wagon train. The attack lasted five days, but culminated on September 11, 1857, with the slaughter of all the adults and older children in the emigrant party at Mountain Meadows, Utah." I think we would be okay just saying "some" Paiute Indians, because the truth be told we really don't know how many militia men there were either (meaning it could read an unknown number of militia men and Paiute Indians).--Mangoman88 (talk) 09:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you missing a major point? There are conflicting stories about <I>whether</I> there were Paiutes involved; the article should reflect that fact. The question here isn't about <I>how many</i>, but rather,<I> if any</I>, Paiutes were involved. Cheers. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 15:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarify "involved." Involvement in the overall circumstances of the episode, or directly taking part in the killing?  If I understand the sources correctly, there's widespread agreement that Paiutes were involved in the broad sense, but that there's much less agreement regarding the more specific question of whether they took part in the killing. alanyst /talk/ 15:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer an "unknown number" myself, but would be ok with "a few". In my opinion, the words chosen need to convey to the reader that while a few Paiutes were participants, they had no role in the planning, leadership, the deception, or the cover-up. Many of the other suggestions, including "some", do leave the possibility that the Paiutes share the blame, and one or two of the earlier suggestions could imply they were equal partners. It is for this reason that I prefer that Paiutes not be mentioned in a single sentence summary in the lead. However, if we don't add mention of the Paiutes, someone else will. So, I guess it's better that we discuss and address it. As to Duke's point, while unfortunately every aspect of the massacre is disputed, most modern historical accounts that I've read say: 1 - mormon leaders tried to convince the Paiute leaders to join them in a war against the US government 2 - it didn't work, by and large they didn't want to be a part of this "white man's war" 3- they were able to convince a few to go to Mountain Meadows for the attack on the Fancher train, but unclear what role they actually played, but they were there. 4 - tried to blame the entire massacre on the indians, but nobody believed it, then or now. Dave (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC) PS, once this wording is address, the phrase on the sub-page killings and aftermath should be fixed, it currently reads, "by as many or more than 200 Paiutes", sourced to Lee's initial account. I think we can all agree, that's using both a questionable source, and is weaseling around with "as many or more than". Dave (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is what Massacre at Mountain Meadows (by Walker, Turley, and Leonard) says about Indian participation, you'll notice it influenced my version of a new lead:"'The principal aggressors in the Mountain Meadows Massacre were white Mormon settlers in southern Utah communities. They persuaded, armed, and directed some Southern Paiutes to participate. The various groupings of native people designated in modern times as Southern Paiutes were not a monolithic, homogeneous group in 1857, the year of the massacre. They consisted of numerous bands and camps scattered principally over a wide swath of what is now Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and California. Most of these people did not participate in the massacre.'" Because there were so many separate bands of the Paiutes, that helps explain conflicting evidence. Also in their preface this is how the authors summarize who did the killing:"'The perpetrators were members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, aided by Indians.'" I just thought these two quotes might help us figure something out, since this is how historians are summarizing it. As I have thought about it more, I am fine taking Paiute involvement out of the first sentence. Especially since a bit later in the new lead it will explain, better than the old, the level of Indian participation. That's also kind of why I left any mention of the killers out of the first sentence in my version, so that I could better explain who and why later in the lead, and it didn't create any false impressions right away.--Mangoman88 (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We do have this:
 * "A book published by the Kaibab Paiute Tribe in 1978, Kaibab Paiute History, The Early Years by Richard W. Stoffle and Michael J. Evans, included commentary on a photograph: "Dan Bullets noted that Tunanita'a [John Seaman's father] was picked up by John D. Lees's group traveling to the Mountain Meadow Massacre. <B><I>One other Pa jute accompanied the group, but neither was allowed to participate in the killing</I></B>. Tunanita'a found a gold coin after the massacre but the Mormons took it away from him, saying it was bad medicine for him to have it." </Center>
 * [my emphasis] <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 22:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems as if there is a lot of stumbling about trying to quantify the number of Paiutes, which is unknown. There is no historical question in the minds of legitimate historians that Paiutes were present. There is also no dispute that the massacre was planned and directed by local Mormons. If you are not going to quantify Mormons, there is no need to quantify Paiutes. What is a fact is some Paiutes were present. Anyone trying to eliminate their presence has an agenda that is outside of historical facts. "Some" is the correct term unless anyone can state from historical records exactly how many Mormons and Paiutes were present. - Storm  Rider  12:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Lots of revisionist history and lots of judgements due to politically correct tendencies now in our culture. IMO oral histories of Paiutes or white massacre participants family traditions would have evolved entirely opposite if this had been a grand event instead of a dark one. Biases can't bring forth the truth but reason might. The date of the massacre was fixed by an entry in Rachael Lee's journal that stated John D, Lee and about 50 indians rode into the fort. What did they need with 50 mounted Paiute observers? If I were to make a cartoon of the massacre it would show John D. Lee and Coal Creek John and 2 whites the Indians made don their cloths and run in front of the emigrants to see if they could avoid getting shot. The resst would all be watching from the mountain tops. 100-300 whites and indians watching from the mountain tops with my own ancestor who "watched from the hill". At the other end of the state Lot Smith and company were harassing the Army and running off livestock. The Paiutes did not like the 'Mericats (American whites) because of past wrongs and casual potshots taken at them. This isn't a subject that can be worked out without study and lots of thought. Two weeks later the whites had to rescue a train that had their cattle run off with and restore them to their owners. In any case, no Mormons or Paiutes now living had anything to do with it and the event needs to fade into history which we all own (Quoting "Trail of Tears" closing sentence. An event of human kind just as bleeding Kansas, the massacre and decimation of the native Americans by the advancing colonists, WWII, etcRadrelic (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

New article lead
The Mountain Meadows massacre was a series of attacks on the Fancher-Baker emigrant wagon train, at Mountain Meadows, Utah. The attacks culminated on September 11, 1857 in the mass slaughter of the emigrant party by the Iron County district of the Utah Territorial Militia and some local Indians.

The wagon train, composed almost entirely of families from Arkansas, was bound for California on a route that passed through the Utah Territory. While the emigrants were traveling, leaders of the Mormon Church in Utah were urging their populace to prepare for what they believed would be an armed confrontation with United States military troops ordered to establish federal authority in Utah. In an episode later known as the Utah War, the leaders mustered the militia and gave defiant speeches stating their determination to mount a defense against the army marching towards the territory.

After arriving in Salt Lake City, the Fancher-Baker party made their way south, eventually stopping to rest at Mountain Meadows. While the emigrants were camped in the meadow, nearby militia leaders including Isaac C. Haight and John D. Lee made plans to attack the wagon train. Intending to give the appearance of Indian aggression, their plan was to arm some Southern Paiute Indians and persuade them to join with a larger party of militiamen, disguised as Indians, in an attack.

During the initial assault on the wagon train, the emigrants fought back and a five-day siege ensued. Eventually fear spread among the militia's leaders that some emigrants had caught sight of white men, and had probably discovered who their attackers really were. This resulted in an order by militia commander William H. Dame for the emigrants' annihilation. Running low on water and provisions, the emigrants allowed a party of militiamen to enter their camp who assured them of their safety and escorted them out of their hasty fortification. After walking a distance from the camp, the militiamen, with the help of auxiliary forces hiding nearby, attacked the emigrants. Intending to leave no witnesses of Mormon complicity in the attacks, and to prevent reprisals that would further complicate the Utah War, the perpetrators killed all the adults and older children (totaling about 120 men, women, and children). Seventeen children, all younger than seven, were spared.

Following the massacre the perpetrators hastily buried the victims, leaving their bodies vulnerable to wild animals and the climate. Local families took in the surviving children, and many of the victims' possessions were auctioned off. Investigations, temporarily interrupted by the American Civil War, resulted in nine indictments during 1874. Of the men indicted, only John D. Lee was tried in a court of law. After two trials Lee was convicted and executed. Today historians attribute the massacre to a combination of factors including both war hysteria and strident Mormon teachings. Scholars still debate whether senior Mormon leadership, including Brigham Young, directly instigated the massacre or if responsibility lies with the local leaders of Southern Utah.

'''How's this one dudes? Thought I'd throw in my two cents -97.117.4.127 (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)'''
 * I like it, I think "some local Indians" successfully conveys their presence without implying a level of responsibility. The one suggestion I would make, to this and the ones above is to change the location to "Mountain Meadows in Utah" Having "Mountain Meadows, Utah" implies the place is a town. Dave (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There should be a disclaimer as to whether 'some local Indians' actually <B><I>participated in committing these gruesome murders</I></B>, or were simply observers. Remember, there is some evidence that the 'Indians' were actually mormons disguised as 'Indians' Cheers. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 17:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I like it also! Saying Utah Territorial Militia is much better than the vague term "Mormon militia." It conveys a better sense of military organization, leadership, and planning than a renegade Mormon militia would have. And Duke53 please note that just a few sentences later it does state that "Intending to give the appearance of Indian aggression, their plan was to arm some Southern Paiute Indians and persuade them to join with a larger party of militiamen, disguised as Indians, in an attack." This is a summary of the article's body, and the body clearly states that some, even if it was just a small party of Indians, participated (and is sourced). If you are worried about Paiutes being unfairly persecuted I suggest working on some of the subarticles that state the "Fancher-Baker party was attacked by as many or more than 200 Paiutes." --Mangoman88 (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not 'worried' about anything. What concerns me is the way the Indians are being portrayed as being 'part' of these cold blooded murders. The following is from a utah.gov website:


 * The basic account, current for decades now, essentially maintains that Indians initially attacked the wagon train--most likely under urging or encouragement from local Mormon leaders--but that the emigrants were able to repel the attackers after some loss of life and injury. The Indians then were said to have appealed for assistance from area Mormons, who perhaps on their own determined to take advantage of the situation involving perceived antagonists in those emotionally charged times following the zealous Mormon Reformation of 1856 and the prospect of war with federal troops looming on the horizon--the so-called Utah War of 1857--58.
 * The common history continues that local Mormons approached the besieged emigrant wagon train under a flag of truce and convinced the emigrants to surrender their weapons, promising in return a safe escort out of the area. The desperate emigrants agreed, only to be slaughtered by their would-be protectors a few miles away, it again being claimed that Native Americans helped take part in this brutal act of treachery.
 * <B>Accounts collected by the Paiute Tribe call into question this recounting of events, claiming that in great part Paiutes have been wrongfully blamed for assisting in something that was not of their making</B>. Some of the interviews collected were with descendants of area Paiutes of that time, but the interviews suffer from the limited vocabulary and command of English of the tellers plus a garbling of facts generally characteristic of such long-range reminiscences. Excerpts from a couple of these interviews are presented below. The interested reader can consult the Paiute Tribe for more complete transcripts and accounts.
 * One interview was conducted with Yetta and Clifford Jake on November 18, 1998. Mr. Jake started the interview by introducing himself and stating that he was eighty years old. He then continued:
 * I used to chop wood for the old man Isaac Hunkup and his sister.... He was telling me a story, telling me what they see and what they hear also. And the Mountain Meadow massacre and Paiute didn't know anything about what was taking place over there. They were calm and quiet. They didn't know nothing about nothing. There was two brothers that come to the pine valley, hunting deer.... But what he was telling me was that they were there camping out there in the mountain. In the morning during the day [they] heard a gun, like popping, popping like a firecracker. So they went up on the mountain. There was a wagon train the people where people were shooting and killing the wagon train people, is the way he used to tell it. Oh, my goodness! Two guys were still waiting when they got down, they got everything, everything. Even their houses, the wagons were tipped over, they had some cows and sheep and the pigs and chickens and the womenfolks also. They got womenfolks. They were run-fling around and getting shot there. They were watching from a knoll. Them two guys. "Oh, my god," they said, "they are killing them people.,, They said that "<B>I don't see no Indians around here</B>," he said. No Indians live around this area. This is their hunting place, not the pine valley. So, anyway, they got down, they got all of those things. ::::Those things they took away from the settlers, the wagon train. And they talked together. "Let's follow the rim about a mile, a couple of miles, away from them, see what they are going to do." So they went. They took all of them people that [were] massacring the wagon train. They went over towards the east. They followed them quite a ways from they followed them till they get to the place to where they are going to change their clothes. So, anyways, they followed them clear to New Harmony. From there they sneak up on them about a half-mile. They watch them and they watch them. They sit there. <b>They clean their selves; they took off their Indian outfits off—clothes, Indian clothes. And they were white people. Them white people, they washed themselves up and cleaned themselves. They were white people that done it</B>. And they said, "Let's get going," they said. "Let's get going to warn them other people down to Sham the Paiute encampment!" They traveled to get there as fast [as] they can. I don't know if they were on a foot or on a horse. But, anyway, they made it down there ... to get a hold of them Indians, house to house. I want them to be aware. <B>We are going to [be] blamed for something that we didn't have happen</B>. For those people, for shooting them wagon train. Better beware. They said they got really scared. After awhile during that day one of the guys from the younger Indians they saddle up their horse and warn the people around the area. Clear to Cedar City and ... maybe Moapa too. <B>So beware; we are going to get blamed, going to get blamed for what those white people did. There were no Indians in that massacre</B> .... The authority came down. They got there. They said Indians don't leave their dead like this. <B>They started blaming the Indians for it</B>. The Pa jute Indians around this area, they didn't know anything about what happened over there. They didn't even know nothing. <B>There weren't no Indians around that place there</B> .... That's what takes a place that time. <B>Us Paiute nation got blamed for that</B>.
 * Gloria Bulletts Benson, who helped conduct the interviews, summarized some of the important points found in the interviews in a memo to Paiute Tribal Chairwoman Geneal Anderson.<B> Most importantly, she stressed that there were no Paiutes involved in the killings, according to the accounts of the interviewees. Paiute involvement was limited to hearing and watching from a distance the killing of the emigrants and some of their animals, and the robbing of the possessions of the dead</B>. Some Paiutes reportedly followed the killers towards New Harmony and saw them take off their "Indian" clothes and bury and/or divide some of the stolen goods. <B>Paiutes were told to avoid the area and not pick up any of the scattered money, as it was "bad medicine." Area Paiutes were afraid that they would be blamed for the massacre and sent word of it to surrounding band areas to warn others</B>.


 * Now, since we have conflicting reports of events, I feel strongly that it should be mentioned in the lead. The word 'purportedly' comes to mind, as in "mormon militia. <I>purportedly</i> helped by Indians, committed this atrocious act", or words to that effect. Cheers. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 01:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Your interest in protecting the American Indians is truly touching. Being a descendant of the Cherokee nation, I am touched. However, word of mouth i.e. what they say today or even what stories have been handed down amoung the People, is of no more value than what is handed down among the Mormon people. Both differ from what historicity of the event dictates. Your strong feelings are impressive, but feelings have nothing to do with history or what actual historians have reported about the events. Cheers. - Storm  Rider  08:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The logic presented by Duke is flawed. There are documented cases where someone who only served a passive role in a crime was found guilty under the law. Examples include someone who was hired off the street to serve as a entrance sentry for a robbery. The most famous example I can think of is the Hi-Fi Murders, ironically enough another Utah crime, where one of the defenses used by Andrews's legal team was that he was only passively at the crime scene, not an active participant. It didn't work, Andrews was sentenced to death. While Amnesty International and the NAACP made a big deal of this, most people now believe it was correct to find Andrews guilty and AI and the NAACP were mostly using this case for publicity, similar to the Tawana Brawley incident. Point being, the blame rests with the Mormons, but even if the Paiutes were only passive observers, it's fair to mention them as being involved as a party that had advance notice of the events who chose to come and watch, instead of trying to prevent the massacre.


 * My only concern is that the mention of the Paiutes in the lead (where there isn't space to explain context) is done in such a way that it is clear they were not the planners or executors of the massacre, which I think the current lead does an acceptable job of doing. I know I'm probably not going to convince Duke with this post, this is more to distance myself from the a logic presented above. Dave (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I took out the paragraph about the Utah War from the lead and said they just passed through the Utah Territory during a turbulent period known as the Utah War. It seemed like too much for a summary. You can undo it if you want since I didn't bother to discuss it here first!--Mangoman88 (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Article Cleanup
FYI, I am parsing the article, just intending to fix some article rot, not any significant content change. For example, in the article's current state, Utah continues to be wikilinked on the 20th mention, Brigham Young is linked on the 7th or 8th mention. For those that aren't familiar, the standard practice is to link terms on their first mention (or for large articles first mention in each major section). Another big, duh, is the short name of the Mormon church is used until the 4th section, when magically the full name is used for the first time. The full name should be used first mention, abbreviations after that. Dave (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I have finished the first round of cleanup. I'd like some advice on one unresolved issue. Currently the 2nd paragraph of the section "Fancher-Baker party and early interaction with Mormons" is largely repeated in the 2nd paragraph of the section "War Histeria". I'm not sure how to handle this. Part of me says the best way is to merge the War Histeria in with this section entirely. Objections? Dave (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * One more problem, this statement in the lead, "Eventually fear spread among the militia's leaders that some emigrants had caught sight of white men, and had probably discovered who their attackers really were" is not supported by the body of the article. I would prefer that after some space is freed up by cleaning out the repetitive stuff in the body, that a statement or two be added in the body to support this statement in the lead. Dave (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You've been doing great so far, Moabdave. tedder (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)::


 * Okay, I added the statement about emigrants possibly seeing Mormons, and the resulting order, into the article body (along with sources).--Mangoman88 (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I've proposed pruning the two redundant sections, and nobody has opposed. I'll try to implement this fix tonight. Dave (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do it, do it, do it! --Mangoman88 (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK so I'm only 3 weeks late, but done. I hope. Dave (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sub articles
OK. I've finished pass two of cleanup to this article (only a dozen passes to go and it might be GA ready =-) ) Here's a question. Do we really need all of the sub pages? There's _10_ sub-pages to this article. I honestly get the impression that some of these were created so that people could insert content without facing the scrutiny that would be applied had the content been put on the more-watched main article. With that said, could I get a sort of straw-pole on the merits of some of the sub-pages?

Baker-Fancher party
 * Definite keep, IMO, adds a lot of value about the human aspect of the victims not covered in the main article. Dave (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows massacre and Mormon theology
 * Probably keep. It seems to stick to the intended purpose of going into more detail from the equivalent section in the main article. However it is essentially redundant (in purpose at least) to Mormonism and authority and one has to wonder why both articles were created. Dave (talk)
 * Delete in favor of Mormonism and authority.

War hysteria preceding the Mountain Meadows massacre
 * Ambivalent. It has potential, but most of what is there needs serious work. It could be kept if improved, or combined with another article.Dave (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Combine ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy and siege of the Mountain Meadows massacre
 * IMO everything but the last 2 sections is redundant to other articles. IMO, this could easily be merged with the War History, or at least pruned. Dave (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Killings and aftermath of the Mountain Meadows massacre
 * Ambivalent. My honest opinion after skimming this is this section exists to keep the rape allegations in the article tree somewhere (these were highly controversial when inserted into the main article, as the only sources are 3rd hand sources and no modern historian gives them much thought). However, with that said, this section is probably the one that most deserves to have a sub-article. Dave (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Investigations and prosecutions relating to the Mountain Meadows massacre
 * Ambivalent. About half of this is just rehashing the same stuff as the other sub articles, but about half is legitimate expansion of what is summarized in the main article. Dave (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Prune ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows massacre and the media
 * IMO, the only value this section serves is to get the "crap magnet" "In popular culture" type stuff off of the main article. That alone may be enough of a reason to keep it, however, I lean towards delete as it serves almost no real value. Dave (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or combine information into another article. I'll note that there is a huge body of late-19th c. and turn of the 20th c. literature by non-Mormons--even in other languages than English--that is almost entirely about the Massacre. The middle brow genre of the American Western was greatly influenced by this literature: eg, Zane Grey's "seminal," Riders of the Purple Sage (1912; see Riders of the Purple Sage)--and, according to that sometimes reliable source, Wikipedia, " Most critics agree that [Sage] played a significant role in shaping the formula of the popular Western genre.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And since I mentioned Grey, I might as well mention the first Sherlock Holmes novel (1887):"According to a 1994 Salt Lake City newspaper article, when Conan Doyle was asked about his depiction of the Latter-day Saints' organization as being steeped in kidnapping, murder and enslavement, he said: 'all I said about the Danite Band and the murders is historical so I cannot withdraw that, though it is likely that in a work of fiction it is stated more luridly than in a work of history. It's best to let the matter rest'. However, Conan Doyle's daughter has stated: 'You know, father would be the first to admit that his first Sherlock Holmes novel was full of errors about the Mormons'."--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows massacre and Mormon public relations
 * While this is non-redundant content and expanding on what is in the main article. IMO, what is in the main article is sufficient, and I don't see much value in this sub-article. Dave (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Brigham Young and the Mountain Meadows massacre
 * I think there is value in the last 2 sections, but the first part is just a restatement of stuff that has been covered in other articles.Dave (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Epitomize last 2 sections & merge into main article. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Remembrances of the Mountain Meadows massacre
 * Definate keep. This articles does what its supposed to, expand in more detail what is briefly covered in the main article.Dave (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Anybody else willing to take this mess on? Dave (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work Dave. I feel compelled to support your judgement on these issues. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The one question which comes to mind to me is about the number of works which might speceifically deal with the sub-topics, and the amount of material they might contain. WP:N might be in play if the subtopics are subjects of multiple reliable sources. Also, it might be interesting to check the various extant Mormon encyclopedias to see how mny of the subarticles exist there, for largely the same reason. If those two conditions are not met, however, no objections to the proposals above. John Carter (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say keep them all. Some are very poorly written, but in my opinion they all meet WP:N. We just need people willing to improve the sub-articles. I redid Remembrances of the Mountain Meadows massacre, about a year ago, expanding it from just a few sections. It didn't even contain anything "controversial", but was still a lot of work. Sometimes its almost not worth the fight (to me) when trying to improve these articles, but I'm sure there are people willing to do so. Originally several of the sub-articles had a large amount of information that was the same in every article. Somebody had just coped and past several paragraphs, for example, under the title "Spared children and distribution of spoils" into several of them. When I went and removed that info from the articles not dealing with the aftermath I was just accused of vandalism.--Mangoman88 (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Condense - I have an issue concerning the breadth of this article-tree. Yes, it is historically significant and an important event; that is not up for question. But it seems that the amount of attention focused on any and all details even remotely relating to the massacre -- past, present, and future -- are included in this spread, with a heavy emphasis more on the aspect of the LDS Church than the event itself. This is definitely a case more for asking "What -shouldn't- be included?" rather than "What else can go here?".

I recommend condensing everything into the primary article that can possibly be condensed. Many of the subpages are simply an expanded version of the section in question bookended with the same information from the primary. I recommend condensing it down into three umbrella subpages: "Background of ...", "Aftermath of...", and "Mountain Meadows Massacre and the Mormon Church". These three seem to be the primary facets being addressed by this ten-page slimemold. Crtrue 04/07/2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.36.60.173 (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * FI, The only subject covered in the sub-articles that is not at least briefly touched upon in the main article is the fate of the surviving children. Dave (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Literature and other media relating to the massacre
A recent edit by an IP user brings to mind the question: What merits being listed in the Literature and other media relating to the massacre section of the article? The IP user added the Mark Twain book Roughing It, which in reality as little to do with the massacre. As far as I can tell the massacre is only mentioned in Appendix B, following Appendix A "A short sketch of Mormon History" (Twain passed through Utah during his travels documented in the book). Of Appendix B only one paragraph was written by Twain, the remainder comes from "Mrs. C. V. Waite's entertaining book, "The Mormon Prophet".

My feelings are that only media mostly, or entirely, devoted to the massacre should be listed in the main article. It may be a good idea to create a more complete list in the Mountain Meadows massacre and the media sub-article, that lists books such as Roughing It. I think it would be disappointing for someone reading the article, who later wants to read more about the massacre, and picks up Roughing It, then finds that only three pages talk about the massacre. There are probably many books which mention the massacre in a similar fashion as Roughing It. --Mangoman88 (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is no need to list every text that is only obliquely related to the topic; it would simply be too many. The list should be for texts that are focused on the topic in order to best assist readers. - Storm  Rider  08:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The section is currently titled: "Literature and other media relating to the massacre", if we keep that title, than the IP's contribution was correct, and this section will be huge. However, what I debated doing was undoing the IP's edit and changing the title to "Literature examining the massacre", for the reason you stated. Thanks for picking up where I left off. I forgot to finish what I started =-) Dave (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

From Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre/Comments

 *  The following was originally posted to Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre/Comments, but should have been added here instead, so moved. Could not put in approximate chronological order, as that time-period for this talk page has already been archived. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC) 

This is a repeat of my post on the talk page of the article:

Here are the statements or subjects or areas that I believe need some review:


 * 1) I do not think it was Nauvoo Legion
 * 2) I do not think the circumstances are controversial. The causes might be. Excluding those issues related to cause and motivation, what circumstances are controversial?
 * 3) I think the word "highly" as a modifier for controversial is original research and should be removed.
 * 4) The "European Ancestry" description seems to be odd and out of place. I notice that no one else is described by their ancestry in the article, so it seems pointless.
 * 5) I question the "prosperity" of the migrants.
 * 6) Can we be more certain that the lure of gold did motivate the young men?
 * 7) The hostilities between Utah and the Federal government are described as "potential". It should be "threatened", I think.
 * 8) Rumors and antagonism section reads as self contradictory. The Mormons were eager to trade... the Mormons were suspicious.  It is a bit disjointed and looks like it was written by committees who took separate sentences to craft.
 * 9) Both Bagley and Brooks make it clear that understanding the MMM requires an understanding of the Mormon past but this is not adequately found in this article.
 * 10) In addition, the relatively recent and uneasy peace between the Mormons and the Indians should not be completely ignored either, as I am sure that in some way or another this was a factor (and many contemporary documents recite the same thing though from different perspectives).
 * 11) The statement "However, the train's leadership likely were not aware of Young's martial law order" is original research and synthesis. It should be removed. Also, that BY issued the requirement for a pass is not mentioned in contemporary documents... I am not sure it is a factor in this matter.
 * 12) "Only days before", should be specified as a date.
 * 13) Young's order should be more properly characterized... it was not that there was to be no trading with them, but it was to be limited.
 * 14) The section about the Missouri Wildcats should be reviewed, particularly the question of their existence. (All Bagley stuff is a mixed "bag" -- he quoted original sources but he played fast and lose with them -- they should be looked at with more than the usual bit of a critical eye).
 * 15) The rumors or actual deeds attributed to the party that were part of the problem should be given space.
 * 16) The impact of Pratt's death might be a speculation. Yes I know Bagley suggests it, but he does not present any actual evidence that this was a factor, from what I can recall. I do not think any of the participants either at the time or later, mentions this as an issue.  It deserves greater review.
 * 17) The meeting with the Indians on Sept 1 should be couched in terms of the US Army military action and in the context of prior Mormon wars. (It was almost certainly not related to bands of immigrants -- Young had made similar pronouncements and these were all with regard to the Army).
 * 18) The process of the decision to "eliminate" the trains just gets made suddenly. There needs to be more detail.
 * 19) The statement "Meanwhile, organization among the local Mormon leadership reportedly broke down" is suspect. It needs more investigation and review.
 * 20) The term "widely known" for Mountain Meadows is original research. It can be struck without damage to the article.
 * 21) In the actual attack, I think the degree of participation by the Indians has been under-emphasized.
 * 22) The footnote for this important statement: "On Friday, September 11 two Mormon militiamen approached the Baker-Fancher party wagons with a white flag and were soon followed by Indian agent and militia officer John D. Lee" does not support the statement.
 * 23) The "Innocent Blood" perspective of who should kill whom should be included in the article as it gives an insight into the religious thinking of Lee and co-conspirators.
 * 24) The account of the Dunlap girls should be carefully reviewed and scrubbed. That one particularly unscholarly and utterly biased reference (Gibbs) provides an account that was contradicted by all others, including the eyewitness account, and including his own original source that he is supposedly summarizing, should be given far more consideration and editorial review.  (Said another way, Gibbs demonstrably lied and all of his statements should be considered false unless otherwise corroborated).
 * 25) The burial description uses the words "lightly" and "soon". These are vague, not well supported and should be struck or possibly re-established differently (I can think of a way to do it better).
 * 26) The selling or bartering of the children is suspect given the claimed and likely motives of the perpetuators. This needs to be further investigated and possibly re-worded or removed for neutrality.
 * 27) In the aftermath, the several investigations and the trial leading to the conviction of Lee should be more fully described.
 * 28) In the aftermath, the decision of the new Governor to give general clemency should also be mentioned.
 * 29) The word "scathing" for Carlton's report is original research and needs to be removed. Also the word "severely" associated with "criticized".
 * 30) Carlton's account of the Mormons receiving payment might be in error. It needs checked. As I recall, it was not the Mormons who got the payment but the families who later took the children in -- they filed for redress on behalf of the children (as memory serves.  I could be wrong, but this rings a bell with me.
 * 31) A section on theories of blame (conspiracy theories maybe) should be included. Since it is important to many people to defend or impugn the character of Brigham Young (as Bagley suggests, accusing Young throws doubt on the Mormon beliefs in their leaders), the general religious intent behind the debate and a summary of the elements of the debate itself should be presented.
 * 32) Interestingly, the Gunnison Massacre and especially Brigham Young's reactions and reports to it are like mirror episodes to this one and might be appropriately invoked (Young did not give out the whole truth when reporting and tried to avoid retribution to the Indians who killed the troop. Apparently compromise coupled with either forgiveness or looking the other ways was his style in such situations.)
 * 33) Key sources, Brooks, Bagley, Shirts, should be given a section detailing the various contributions or perspectives of each writer. Biases of writers should be noted and appropriate criticisms of their works summarized.  I think this section is appropriate because the story has elements of mystery and each of these works seeks to explain the mystery. The research into the "mystery" is part of the story.
 * 34) Some sources seem underrepresented. I do not see any of J.D. Lee's defense or comments (who, obviously would be extremely biased, almost certainly lied, but he was also an eyewitness). Also, Brooks, who probably spent the most years researching the incident of all of the authors shown here, and who arguably took the most objective perspective, is severely under-represented. (I do not exactly agree with some of her conclusions -- from a legal and military perspective -- but I respect her objectivity and courage).  Gibbs, on the other hand, would clearly "improve" upon the truth and should not be used at all. Note also that Gibbs cannot even get the dates straight. Gibbs is an unreliable source. If Gibbs said anything that is not found elsewhere it should be struck and if it is found elsewhere the reference to the other source should be used, not Gibbs.
 * 35) Finally, several of the "references" do not seem to be used for the article including:
 * Abanes, Richard (2003), One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church, New York, New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, ISBN 1568582838
 * Beadle, John Hanson (1870), "Chapter VI. The Bloody Period.", Life in Utah, Philadelphia; Chicago: National publishing company, LCC BX8645 .B4 1870, LCCN 30005377.
 * John Cradlebaugh, elected delegate of the territory of NV. Speech on the admission of Utah as a State given before the 37th Congress, 3rd Session, February 7, 1863, titled "UTAH AND THE MORMONS."
 * Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture, Editorial Board. Finck, James (2005), Mountain Meadows Massacre, Little Rock: Central Arkansas Library System.
 * McMurtry, Larry (2005), Oh what a slaughter : massacres in the American West, 1846-1890, New York: Simon & Schuster, ISBN 074325077X. BookReporter.com review
 * Sessions, Gene (2003), "Shining New Light on the Mountain Meadows Massacre", FAIR Conference 2003.
 * Stenhouse, Thomas B. H. (1873), The Rocky Mountain Saints, New York: D. Appleton and Company, LCC BX8611 .S8 1873, LCCN 16024014, ASIN: B00085RMQM.
 * Thompson, Jacob (1860), Message of the President of the United States: communicating, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate, information in relation to the massacre at Mountain Meadows, and other massacres in Utah Territory, Washington, D.C.: United States. Dept. of the Interior.
 * Waite, Catherine V. (1868), The Mormon Prophet and His Harem, Chicago: J. S. Goodman 1866, ISBN 1425532209
 * Newspaper Articles
 * o Los Angles Star(3 October 1957),(10 October 1957),(4 March 1958)
 * o Western Standard(13 October 1957)
 * o Mountain Democrat(17 October 1957),(31 October 1957)
 * + http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/CA/misccal1.htm
 * o Corinne Reporter. ARGUS. see Stenhouse XLIII
 * o Deseret News(1 December 1869)
 * o Valley Tan((5 March 1859),(29 February 1860,see Brooks Appendix XI)
 * + http://www.lib.utah.edu/digital/unews/

--Blue Tie 20:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Utah war infobox
FYI, at Template talk:Campaignbox Utah War‎ I have asked what is the connection between the Salt Creek Canyon massacre and the Utah war. The Utah War article does not mention Salt Creek Canyon, and the Salt Creek Canyon massacre article does not mention the Utah War. The reason I'm notifying watchers of this talk page is two fold: Dave (talk) 03:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) solicit more input, as this page is surely the most watched of the 3 involved pages.
 * 2) If there is no connection, this template should be nominated for deletion, which affects this article.

Mormons need to be mentioned earlier
It seems that, perhaps through overboard attempts to be "fair," the Mormons are not mentioned until nearly the end of the third paragraph -- 287 words into the article. At a minimum, this reticence to call out the involvement of the Church of Latter Day Saints in the lead paragraph skews the significance of this important event in American history. Clocke (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a fair point, and I don't think anybody would object to tweaking the lead to move the first use of the term Mormon closer to the front of the lead. However, I don't think its absolutely necessary to change the lead either. While the word Mormon is not directly used until the 3rd paragraph, prior to that time there are numerous linked terms that reveal Mormon involvement, including 2 in the first paragraph. Dave (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh please! It says in the first paragraph that the Utah Territorial Militia killed them, and that's all it needs to say. The main reason the killers were at the meadows is because they were part of the militia, and not because they were Mormon. If it were simply that the Mormons had all been commanded to kill the wagon train party, then there would have been thousands of Mormons at the meadows. But Mormons in general were NOT commanded to kill members of the wagon train, the militia was.67.2.112.65 (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * An anonymous editor made the change today. Unfortunately with the current wording, Mormon is used 3 paragraphs before it is explained, which harms the rest of the article. I'm going to try to fix that without making massive changes. Feel free to revert back to the pre May 26 changes if this didn't work. Dave (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Mormon Whitewashing?
This article originally was much more direct (see 2004 history) in initially assigning culpability to the Mormons, but has been subsequently whitewashed in an apparent attempt at improving LDS image. This is contrary to all that Wiki and free and open knowledge stand for. Granted, the period and early church history were violent, but mollifying history to suit political and religious objectives is worse than objectionable. The article still attributes Mormon culpability and probable LDS hierarchy involvement, but the first paragraph needs to be changed to reflect or match the original version. 41.63.133.83 (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How perceptive. Have you got the references to back up your position? If you, then all you have is opinion, which everyone else has and has no place on Wikipedia. If you have references, great; quote them and add them. If not, you are stuck. You might want to go back and read the article and then review every statement and the references that support them. I know it is hard to swallow when your opinions are not supported by facts, but such is life. Alternatively, you could just start a personal blog and assign all blame to the Mormons for everything from STDs, world hunger, AIDS, and for being a cult of the worst order. Cheers, - Storm  Rider  18:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)