![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Did some copy/editing this morning and just listing thoughts here for comment and proposals.
Please add quotes you come across here for a possible Wikiquote entry. Note: these should be direct quotes and not quotes from historians later writing about the event. TimothyJosephWood 14:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Logan, Samuel Crothers (1887). A City's Danger and Defense. Or, Issues and Results of the Strikes of 1877, Containing the Origin and History of the Scranton City Guard. Philadelphia: J.B. Rogers Print.
- "There can be no cause for apprehension, gentlemen; that meeting, I doubt not, is held by order of the miners' committee, and I have no doubt of its orderly intentions." Scranton Mayor Robert H. McKune (p. 83)
- ""The boys of the firing squad and members of the Citizens' Corps, had hardly been relieved from immediate duty by the arrival of Gen. Brinton and his command, when we found that we had to answer at the bar of public opinion, for what we thought had been both courageously and patriotically done." Captain Ezra H. Ripple (p. 111)"
- "When a riot is running through a city there can be no neutrals; every man must be on one side or the other. He must be for peace or discord. He must be willing to shed his blood for law and order, or be the abettor of lawlessness and destruction. To be brief, it is even riotous to be found on nither side." Stanley Woodward, closing arguments as defense for the indicted members of the Citizens' Corps (p. 145)
- "It must be plain to you from the evidence, that this was no peaceful meeting of men for peaceful ends in Scranton on the 1st of August. If it were so, there was and could be no riot. On the contrary, it was an unlawful assemblage, destructive in its tendency, deadly in its purposes. It was a riotous meeting, and every man was a rioter who refused to help to quell it." Stanley Woodward, closing arguments as defense for the indicted members of the Citizens' Corps (p. 145)
- "The miners resolved to stop work, which they had a perfect right to do. But when they formed a combination to prevent others from working and the mines from operating, they committed a crime." Stanley Woodward, closing arguments as defense for the indicted members of the Citizens' Corps (p. 145)
- Margo L. Azzarelli; Marnie Azzarelli (2016). Labor Unrest in Scranton. Arcadia Publishing. p. 7.
- "The general public opinion, as expressed to me, seems not to apprehend any violence or danger unless a too free use of liquor shall be indulged in; and at the request of committees of the workingman's organizations and others, who have called upon me this morning, requesting me to close all places where liquor is sold. I, therefore, in compliance with said request, ask of you to close your bars, and to strictly abstain from the selling of all kind of liquor for the present." Proclamation by Scranton Mayor Robert H. McKune at the beginning of the strike.
- "Whereas, by a call dated July 25, 1877, the Mayor of this city has called upon the businessmen for organization; and whereas, the present state of affairs in the city and vicinity warrants a feeling of insecurity on the part of the business portion of the community; and although a creditable determination is express by all parties to the present conflict of interests, and while we have the fullest confidence in their good faith, still we feel that an organization, on our part, will present tangible support to their efforts in sustaining the legal authorities in preserving peace and good, order, and, will guarantee protection to property in the event of intrusion from such elements of discord as might present themselves. We, therefore, proffer our services as a company, to be known as the "Scranton Citizen Corps" in the furtherance of the objects above set forth." Paper circulated by members of the mayoral Special Police
- "Distress of the Miners". The New York Times. August 6, 1877. p. 4.
- "The great trouble here in Scranton is our population, an excess of miners for the work to be done." Officer of the Delaware Lackawanna and Western Company
I've gone ahead and created a Wikiquote page. Feel free to add any quotes you come across there. TimothyJosephWood 13:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Bellesiles, the man who published a book based on invented data? (Or do you accept his contention that the dog ate his homework?)
From the link above:
Columbia University's Board of Trustees decided that Bellesiles had "violated basic norms of scholarship and the high standards expected of Bancroft Prize winners."[1]
Anmccaff (
talk)
15:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
:: I don't think Bellesiles is discredited as a historian for all time. If so, he would be fired from his university post and banned from professional organizations. The book 1877 is published and peer reviewed. In any case, I have added the secondary source Harold Aurend. I believe there is one more major secondary source to be added, but this is a book out of print and I will have to get it from a library. I hope that this will settle Anmccaff's accusations of bias and dishonesty... I should add that elswhere Anmccaff has accused me of being a "sockie" and tried to have me removed from Wikipedia. I have just learned that whoever investigates that determined that this was not the case, if I can understand the lingo... This has been indeed a very rude greeting to Wikipedia. I am honestly just trying, and I think all can see in this discussion that I have responded to Anmccaff with humility and restraint. However, I wish not to be accused of dishonesty any further, and would also wish that those previous accusations be withdrawn. Verita.miner ( talk) 18:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
like this.
According to an account that attempted to justify the shooting of the workers, the demonstration turned into a “mob” that threatened the mayor’s life.Now, the NYT articles you also quoted were quite clear that McKune was assaulted, and the articles from the Republican claimed it was only because of specific intervention that he wasn't killed. You had good sources that told you one thing, and you wrote another. What would you call that? Anmccaff ( talk) 19:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I should add that elswhere Anmccaff has accused me of being a "sockie" and tried to have me removed from Wikipedia.that's a rather specific accusation, and one showing a level of sophistication and familiarity with wiki that you are otherwise not showing. If you are St o'hara, socking, then yes, you should be banned. One user, one account, except for obvious and open exceptions. Anmccaff ( talk) 19:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Aaron Augustus Chase, of the Scranton Times, was later found guilty of libel for articles he published about the mayor, relating to the event. He was sentenced to a $200 fine and 30 days imprisonment. He was acquitted in a separate but related court case.[clarification needed][19]
The acquittal appears to refer to (former) Judge Stanton, who was also sued for libel. See:
this other NYT article.
Anmccaff (
talk)
03:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Yep, pretty much the same time and place, both connected to the next election, and the formation of Lackawanna county. Chase's case there was continued out of existence, IMS, but it might not. Anmccaff ( talk) 00:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
(Removing OR tag. I've been through even inch of this article and it is thoroughly cited. It may well be getting close in places to overcited.)
I'd agree most of the text is adequately footnoted now, compared with the original, and much of it is solid cites. Even the stuff I think wrong mostly goes back to something that is held by someone who got it in print. (The obvious exceptions are Bellesiles and Azarrelli. Stuff without meaningful internal citation doesn't belong. Oh, yeah...and the slab of cast iron, which only belongs, if at all, to show the cultural impact on Scranton.)
That said, the title of the article is still a Wiki neologism, and that's a pretty bad form of OR. Me, I am very inclined to put it back up, and take it to the appropriate board. Notice that -none- of the central cites use the term as a name. None. Anmccaff ( talk) 00:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
(→Legacy: How about a little more civility. And maybe a little more discussion before you...again...unilaterally disqualify a source based on arbitrary undiscussed criteria.)
I don't know too many things more uncivil than
bullshitting large numbers of readers, as whoever introduced this fluff and called it "the standard history of labor unrest in Scranton"
was doing just that.
Arcadia as mentioned above,
Anmccaff seems to have missed the recent book that deals in large part with the strike in Scranton: Azzarelli, Margo L.; Marnie Azzarelli (2016). Labor Unrest in Scranton. Arcadia Publishing.. Rjensen (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Professor Jensen appears to have missed the fact that Arcadia publishes local histories with remarkably little further review or oversight; some are excellent, some are horrible...but the pictures are always pretty nice. I've seen references to it, but haven't read it. Unlike at least one "editor" here, I'm rather uncomfortable citing work I haven't read. Have you, and how would you rate it? Anmccaff (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
...is a publisher of coffee-table books, miniaturized. It prints almost anything in local history that ain't actionable. Some are good, some are bad, but the publisher's imprimatur adds absolutely nothing to it.
Now, not only was this mentioned above, but...
On a completely unrelated note, the marker itself probably deserves mention in its own right in the aftermath section. I don't know if anyone here lives in or near Scranton, but if someone could take an independent pic and upload it to wikimedia commons, it would be helpful. TimothyJosephWood 11:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
...you replied to it, albeit without addressing it. Anmccaff ( talk) 20:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Academic historians may argue that Arcadia Publishing's books vary greatly in accuracy, research and depth. This is doubtless true. Indeed, some of the books are somewhat superficial and deserving of the denigrating term "coffee table" volumes. On the other hand, many of Arcadia's authors are well-respected professionals with a lifelong interest in their communities.That, I'd submit is the position on Arcadia in academia, largely. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. Anmccaff ( talk) 22:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
That would be what the Houyhnhnms call the thing that is not. Let's look at the specifics raised.
"the standard history of labor unrest in Scranton". Were that the case, there should be plenty of secondary scholarship mentioning it; there appears, outside of Wiki itself, none. That's puffery, not an honest descriptive.
Address these, if you would. Anmccaff ( talk) 00:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Is this:
Hitchcock, Frederick; Downs, John (1914). History of Scranton and Its People, Volume 1. Lewis historical publishing Company.
the same as the Hitchcock already cited? TimothyJosephWood 17:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok so...In the article currently we have McKune basically creating the special police by fiat on the 26th. However, in the Hitchcock cite above (p. 499), McKune simply calls a meeting on the 26th to discuss the issue. They hold a vote and nearly unanimously agree not to make a policing force because it was likely to escalate tensions.
To make things even more complicated Azzarelli (in the first quote here) includes direct correspondence and context on the same page indicating that McKune did actually call for special police, but two unnamed men from the meeting went off on their own and decided to make a second complimentary force, which became the Citizens' Corps.
One way or another, this doesn't all square up. Something happened on the 26th... TimothyJosephWood 12:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
It was not useful to have all my edits reverted by Anmccaff under the general classification "NPOV." I disagree, for instance, that noting the NY Times reported the actions in Scranton as a "general strike" on July 25 violated NPOV; it's a statement of fact that provides context. I realize the issue of "general strike" has been contested by Anmccaff vociferously above, but agree with other editors that the circumstances fulfill the definition of the term and the events were described as a general strike at the time. Also, providing full names of the governor and other major actors, as I did, is basic information. Parkwells ( talk) 22:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I've added a separate section under Aftermath on the organization of independent Lackawanna County, as this followed the strikes, and apparently generated considerable "excitement", according to the NY Times, with inflammatory articles about W.W. Scranton. This was why he brought a libel suit (separate section) against Chase and Stanton, then a sitting state judge, by the way. Have cited what I can find so far and am researching more material. Parkwells ( talk) 15:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I would like to put together a succinct background section (two or three paragraphs at most) if anyone has recommendations for sources or would like to propose a starting draft. Something about Scranton as a major coal hub, previous unrest, and how the fire was lit that eventually led to unrest in 1877. Suggestions welcome.
As always, sections like this have to walk a fine line between being informative and providing meaningful context, and becoming a WP:COATRACK. TimothyJosephWood 13:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Here are more potential sources; perhaps some can be found online: Parkwells ( talk) 03:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I've added some images, including one from Logan, as the whole work is in the public domain now. I cannot for the life of me find an image for W. W. Scranton. There's one on his find a grave that, judging by it's apparent age, is probably public domain also, but a reverse image search only finds the one instance of it. Leaving this album here for anyone interested. I haven't gone through it yet and see where images might belong. TimothyJosephWood 16:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Anmccaff What Hitchcock says is that the witness did not know if there were orders given to fire and that they heard none. Other sources provided do tell that orders were given. Your disruptive inline tagging has been addressed multiple times previously. Stop. TimothyJosephWood 17:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
First Sergt. Bartholomew was in command and the writer was directed to act as second in command(p501) - were there any formal order, he would have surely known it. He says, instead:
Hitchcock said he heard no such order but adds "I realized that self preservation demanded it."(Murphy 309.)
If any order was given to fire, or who give it, I do not know. I heard no such order, but I realized that self-preservation demanded it. Lieut. Brown, who had been with the mayor in the latter's effort to quiet the mob, now came to us, as did several more of our men. The firing ceased, three of the rioters lay dead upon the street, each one a leader. They were Charles Dunleavy, of Carr Patch; Patrick Langan, of Davis Patch, and Patrick Lane, of Bellevue.(Hitchcock, p502) Anmccaff ( talk) 19:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea where you are getting Hitchcock from
I suspect from a couple lines up, or the wrong page open. My error. You could, of course, given your infinite familiarity with the sources,
well, infinite's a little too generous, but yeah, damn straight,
Randy}^H^H^H^H^H, Skippy: yeah, I RTFC. Maybe even some other stuff, too. It keeps you from doing things like introducing people to your good friend, the Right Reverend
Mathew Hall. God knows what the thing'd look like without diligent kicking into shape. In the meantime, though, you can explain why a bloviator like Logan strikes you as more credible than Hitchcock.
Anmccaff (
talk)
23:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Did some copy/editing this morning and just listing thoughts here for comment and proposals.
Please add quotes you come across here for a possible Wikiquote entry. Note: these should be direct quotes and not quotes from historians later writing about the event. TimothyJosephWood 14:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Logan, Samuel Crothers (1887). A City's Danger and Defense. Or, Issues and Results of the Strikes of 1877, Containing the Origin and History of the Scranton City Guard. Philadelphia: J.B. Rogers Print.
- "There can be no cause for apprehension, gentlemen; that meeting, I doubt not, is held by order of the miners' committee, and I have no doubt of its orderly intentions." Scranton Mayor Robert H. McKune (p. 83)
- ""The boys of the firing squad and members of the Citizens' Corps, had hardly been relieved from immediate duty by the arrival of Gen. Brinton and his command, when we found that we had to answer at the bar of public opinion, for what we thought had been both courageously and patriotically done." Captain Ezra H. Ripple (p. 111)"
- "When a riot is running through a city there can be no neutrals; every man must be on one side or the other. He must be for peace or discord. He must be willing to shed his blood for law and order, or be the abettor of lawlessness and destruction. To be brief, it is even riotous to be found on nither side." Stanley Woodward, closing arguments as defense for the indicted members of the Citizens' Corps (p. 145)
- "It must be plain to you from the evidence, that this was no peaceful meeting of men for peaceful ends in Scranton on the 1st of August. If it were so, there was and could be no riot. On the contrary, it was an unlawful assemblage, destructive in its tendency, deadly in its purposes. It was a riotous meeting, and every man was a rioter who refused to help to quell it." Stanley Woodward, closing arguments as defense for the indicted members of the Citizens' Corps (p. 145)
- "The miners resolved to stop work, which they had a perfect right to do. But when they formed a combination to prevent others from working and the mines from operating, they committed a crime." Stanley Woodward, closing arguments as defense for the indicted members of the Citizens' Corps (p. 145)
- Margo L. Azzarelli; Marnie Azzarelli (2016). Labor Unrest in Scranton. Arcadia Publishing. p. 7.
- "The general public opinion, as expressed to me, seems not to apprehend any violence or danger unless a too free use of liquor shall be indulged in; and at the request of committees of the workingman's organizations and others, who have called upon me this morning, requesting me to close all places where liquor is sold. I, therefore, in compliance with said request, ask of you to close your bars, and to strictly abstain from the selling of all kind of liquor for the present." Proclamation by Scranton Mayor Robert H. McKune at the beginning of the strike.
- "Whereas, by a call dated July 25, 1877, the Mayor of this city has called upon the businessmen for organization; and whereas, the present state of affairs in the city and vicinity warrants a feeling of insecurity on the part of the business portion of the community; and although a creditable determination is express by all parties to the present conflict of interests, and while we have the fullest confidence in their good faith, still we feel that an organization, on our part, will present tangible support to their efforts in sustaining the legal authorities in preserving peace and good, order, and, will guarantee protection to property in the event of intrusion from such elements of discord as might present themselves. We, therefore, proffer our services as a company, to be known as the "Scranton Citizen Corps" in the furtherance of the objects above set forth." Paper circulated by members of the mayoral Special Police
- "Distress of the Miners". The New York Times. August 6, 1877. p. 4.
- "The great trouble here in Scranton is our population, an excess of miners for the work to be done." Officer of the Delaware Lackawanna and Western Company
I've gone ahead and created a Wikiquote page. Feel free to add any quotes you come across there. TimothyJosephWood 13:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Bellesiles, the man who published a book based on invented data? (Or do you accept his contention that the dog ate his homework?)
From the link above:
Columbia University's Board of Trustees decided that Bellesiles had "violated basic norms of scholarship and the high standards expected of Bancroft Prize winners."[1]
Anmccaff (
talk)
15:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
:: I don't think Bellesiles is discredited as a historian for all time. If so, he would be fired from his university post and banned from professional organizations. The book 1877 is published and peer reviewed. In any case, I have added the secondary source Harold Aurend. I believe there is one more major secondary source to be added, but this is a book out of print and I will have to get it from a library. I hope that this will settle Anmccaff's accusations of bias and dishonesty... I should add that elswhere Anmccaff has accused me of being a "sockie" and tried to have me removed from Wikipedia. I have just learned that whoever investigates that determined that this was not the case, if I can understand the lingo... This has been indeed a very rude greeting to Wikipedia. I am honestly just trying, and I think all can see in this discussion that I have responded to Anmccaff with humility and restraint. However, I wish not to be accused of dishonesty any further, and would also wish that those previous accusations be withdrawn. Verita.miner ( talk) 18:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
like this.
According to an account that attempted to justify the shooting of the workers, the demonstration turned into a “mob” that threatened the mayor’s life.Now, the NYT articles you also quoted were quite clear that McKune was assaulted, and the articles from the Republican claimed it was only because of specific intervention that he wasn't killed. You had good sources that told you one thing, and you wrote another. What would you call that? Anmccaff ( talk) 19:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I should add that elswhere Anmccaff has accused me of being a "sockie" and tried to have me removed from Wikipedia.that's a rather specific accusation, and one showing a level of sophistication and familiarity with wiki that you are otherwise not showing. If you are St o'hara, socking, then yes, you should be banned. One user, one account, except for obvious and open exceptions. Anmccaff ( talk) 19:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Aaron Augustus Chase, of the Scranton Times, was later found guilty of libel for articles he published about the mayor, relating to the event. He was sentenced to a $200 fine and 30 days imprisonment. He was acquitted in a separate but related court case.[clarification needed][19]
The acquittal appears to refer to (former) Judge Stanton, who was also sued for libel. See:
this other NYT article.
Anmccaff (
talk)
03:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Yep, pretty much the same time and place, both connected to the next election, and the formation of Lackawanna county. Chase's case there was continued out of existence, IMS, but it might not. Anmccaff ( talk) 00:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
(Removing OR tag. I've been through even inch of this article and it is thoroughly cited. It may well be getting close in places to overcited.)
I'd agree most of the text is adequately footnoted now, compared with the original, and much of it is solid cites. Even the stuff I think wrong mostly goes back to something that is held by someone who got it in print. (The obvious exceptions are Bellesiles and Azarrelli. Stuff without meaningful internal citation doesn't belong. Oh, yeah...and the slab of cast iron, which only belongs, if at all, to show the cultural impact on Scranton.)
That said, the title of the article is still a Wiki neologism, and that's a pretty bad form of OR. Me, I am very inclined to put it back up, and take it to the appropriate board. Notice that -none- of the central cites use the term as a name. None. Anmccaff ( talk) 00:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
(→Legacy: How about a little more civility. And maybe a little more discussion before you...again...unilaterally disqualify a source based on arbitrary undiscussed criteria.)
I don't know too many things more uncivil than
bullshitting large numbers of readers, as whoever introduced this fluff and called it "the standard history of labor unrest in Scranton"
was doing just that.
Arcadia as mentioned above,
Anmccaff seems to have missed the recent book that deals in large part with the strike in Scranton: Azzarelli, Margo L.; Marnie Azzarelli (2016). Labor Unrest in Scranton. Arcadia Publishing.. Rjensen (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Professor Jensen appears to have missed the fact that Arcadia publishes local histories with remarkably little further review or oversight; some are excellent, some are horrible...but the pictures are always pretty nice. I've seen references to it, but haven't read it. Unlike at least one "editor" here, I'm rather uncomfortable citing work I haven't read. Have you, and how would you rate it? Anmccaff (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
...is a publisher of coffee-table books, miniaturized. It prints almost anything in local history that ain't actionable. Some are good, some are bad, but the publisher's imprimatur adds absolutely nothing to it.
Now, not only was this mentioned above, but...
On a completely unrelated note, the marker itself probably deserves mention in its own right in the aftermath section. I don't know if anyone here lives in or near Scranton, but if someone could take an independent pic and upload it to wikimedia commons, it would be helpful. TimothyJosephWood 11:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
...you replied to it, albeit without addressing it. Anmccaff ( talk) 20:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Academic historians may argue that Arcadia Publishing's books vary greatly in accuracy, research and depth. This is doubtless true. Indeed, some of the books are somewhat superficial and deserving of the denigrating term "coffee table" volumes. On the other hand, many of Arcadia's authors are well-respected professionals with a lifelong interest in their communities.That, I'd submit is the position on Arcadia in academia, largely. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. Anmccaff ( talk) 22:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
That would be what the Houyhnhnms call the thing that is not. Let's look at the specifics raised.
"the standard history of labor unrest in Scranton". Were that the case, there should be plenty of secondary scholarship mentioning it; there appears, outside of Wiki itself, none. That's puffery, not an honest descriptive.
Address these, if you would. Anmccaff ( talk) 00:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Is this:
Hitchcock, Frederick; Downs, John (1914). History of Scranton and Its People, Volume 1. Lewis historical publishing Company.
the same as the Hitchcock already cited? TimothyJosephWood 17:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok so...In the article currently we have McKune basically creating the special police by fiat on the 26th. However, in the Hitchcock cite above (p. 499), McKune simply calls a meeting on the 26th to discuss the issue. They hold a vote and nearly unanimously agree not to make a policing force because it was likely to escalate tensions.
To make things even more complicated Azzarelli (in the first quote here) includes direct correspondence and context on the same page indicating that McKune did actually call for special police, but two unnamed men from the meeting went off on their own and decided to make a second complimentary force, which became the Citizens' Corps.
One way or another, this doesn't all square up. Something happened on the 26th... TimothyJosephWood 12:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
It was not useful to have all my edits reverted by Anmccaff under the general classification "NPOV." I disagree, for instance, that noting the NY Times reported the actions in Scranton as a "general strike" on July 25 violated NPOV; it's a statement of fact that provides context. I realize the issue of "general strike" has been contested by Anmccaff vociferously above, but agree with other editors that the circumstances fulfill the definition of the term and the events were described as a general strike at the time. Also, providing full names of the governor and other major actors, as I did, is basic information. Parkwells ( talk) 22:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I've added a separate section under Aftermath on the organization of independent Lackawanna County, as this followed the strikes, and apparently generated considerable "excitement", according to the NY Times, with inflammatory articles about W.W. Scranton. This was why he brought a libel suit (separate section) against Chase and Stanton, then a sitting state judge, by the way. Have cited what I can find so far and am researching more material. Parkwells ( talk) 15:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I would like to put together a succinct background section (two or three paragraphs at most) if anyone has recommendations for sources or would like to propose a starting draft. Something about Scranton as a major coal hub, previous unrest, and how the fire was lit that eventually led to unrest in 1877. Suggestions welcome.
As always, sections like this have to walk a fine line between being informative and providing meaningful context, and becoming a WP:COATRACK. TimothyJosephWood 13:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Here are more potential sources; perhaps some can be found online: Parkwells ( talk) 03:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I've added some images, including one from Logan, as the whole work is in the public domain now. I cannot for the life of me find an image for W. W. Scranton. There's one on his find a grave that, judging by it's apparent age, is probably public domain also, but a reverse image search only finds the one instance of it. Leaving this album here for anyone interested. I haven't gone through it yet and see where images might belong. TimothyJosephWood 16:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Anmccaff What Hitchcock says is that the witness did not know if there were orders given to fire and that they heard none. Other sources provided do tell that orders were given. Your disruptive inline tagging has been addressed multiple times previously. Stop. TimothyJosephWood 17:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
First Sergt. Bartholomew was in command and the writer was directed to act as second in command(p501) - were there any formal order, he would have surely known it. He says, instead:
Hitchcock said he heard no such order but adds "I realized that self preservation demanded it."(Murphy 309.)
If any order was given to fire, or who give it, I do not know. I heard no such order, but I realized that self-preservation demanded it. Lieut. Brown, who had been with the mayor in the latter's effort to quiet the mob, now came to us, as did several more of our men. The firing ceased, three of the rioters lay dead upon the street, each one a leader. They were Charles Dunleavy, of Carr Patch; Patrick Langan, of Davis Patch, and Patrick Lane, of Bellevue.(Hitchcock, p502) Anmccaff ( talk) 19:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea where you are getting Hitchcock from
I suspect from a couple lines up, or the wrong page open. My error. You could, of course, given your infinite familiarity with the sources,
well, infinite's a little too generous, but yeah, damn straight,
Randy}^H^H^H^H^H, Skippy: yeah, I RTFC. Maybe even some other stuff, too. It keeps you from doing things like introducing people to your good friend, the Right Reverend
Mathew Hall. God knows what the thing'd look like without diligent kicking into shape. In the meantime, though, you can explain why a bloviator like Logan strikes you as more credible than Hitchcock.
Anmccaff (
talk)
23:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)