Talk:Battle of Matewan

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Appalachia Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Appalachia, a collaborative effort to increase coverage of Appalachia and the Appalachian Mountains. If you would like to participate, go to the project page to see a list of related articles needing attention.AppalachiaWikipedia:WikiProject AppalachiaTemplate:WikiProject AppalachiaAppalachia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organized Labour Low‑importance

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: West Virginia Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	West Virginia portal This article is supported by WikiProject West Virginia (assessed as High-importance).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Scarysnake. Peer reviewers: Lrr00006, Se2032, Stokesskye.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

I moved this page from Matewan massacre to eliminate bias in the article title. Because all discussion at talk:Matewan massacre concerned the possibility of a move, I did not move the talk page.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.131.28 (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone rsesearched how the gun battle at Matewan was treated by the contemporaneous press?

- The state historical marker refers to "Matewan Massacre".
- The commemoration on the flood wall refers to "Battle of Matewan".
- The Matewan WV vistor website refers to "Matewan Massacre".
- The Matewan historical website refers to "Battle of Matewan".

Battle of Matewan is perfectly acceptable as an alternate to Matewan Massacre and does eliminate the bias or POV problems.Naaman Brown (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Company town?

In the lead sentence, Matewan is described as a "company town", meaning that the town was created by a mining company. Are there any source to support this claim? If not, then "company" should be struck from the description of the town. —Farix (t | c) 03:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matewan is a coal town, BUT it was also a rail hub......I can get the refs if requiredCoal town guy (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Townspeople Killed

The little chart on the right indicates 3, but the article says four. What gives? And where are the citations for the actual "battle of Matewan" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.50.109 (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Myth and reality

This article will neded extensive review. I removed one false claim about scrip being the only form of pay for the miner, thats false LOOKY HERE....I will review and provide actual NON BIASED links in the near futureCoal town guy (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Matewan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080113150953/http://www.matewan.com:80/ to http://www.matewan.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resulted in a setback??????

So I looked at the resulted in descriptor: | result = A setback of Miners' rights until the early 1930s when the Government finally recognized American labor unions that eventually led to the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) of 1933

NIRA had no details on how to handle Labor strife and conflicts. THAT was handled in 1935 with a labor relations act. However, within the next decade we had another world war and being on a union for an industry that helped make steel was the equivalent of being a porcupine in a nudist colony. This article still needs massive reworkingCoal town guy (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of name?

Hello, I noticed an issue with the spelling of Cabell Testerman. On one of my sources, it is spelled Cable instead of Cabell. Which is the correct spelling? Here's the source where I found the other spelling. http://www.wvculture.org/history/labor/matewan03.html Scarysnake (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grave and marriage certificates do not clean up these answers. It seeems state government sources call him C.C. Testerman as that is what is on his marriage cert. His grave has it spelt CABLE but listed as CABELL. A contemporary newspaper from NC has Cabell and there's a wealth of documents available on ancestery so someone with an account should be able to settle this.--2601:545:C080:D380:A920:B057:64A4:D02C (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Success for Baldwin-Felts?

I'm never heard this talked of as a success for Baldwin-Felts, the victory was pyrrhic at best. They lost 7 a total of seven compared to the town's 3. I think there's got to be a better way to word this. 2601:545:C080:D380:A920:B057:64A4:D02C (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article has problems and I will so tag. To begin with it is ridiculously POV. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

I've tagged for neutrality and cohesion. There is insufficient footnoting too as well as original research. The section named "Conspiracy Theory" is problematic. The allegation concerning Hatfield shooting Testerman was made at the trial by the labor spy Lively. It is not a conspiracy theory but an allegation, and the wording of that section is not neutral. I have the well-researched 2020 biography of Lively, and will use that as a source for this article once I am done working through the Lively article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old post but just chiming in to say I agree. There's seem to be a lot of undue weight given to the theory that Hatfield shot Testerman. But more importantly and clearly, it does seem like "Conspiracy Theory" is a terrible name for that section title. It is by all means not a conspiracy theory by any definition of the word. I would be curious to see what other editors might say. If you have any thoughts on how it could be improved, Figureofnine I would like to hear them. 76.189.133.64 (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the section "conspiracy theory" should be renamed. What would be a good name for this section? Or should the information in this section just be put into an earlier part of the article? It seems too small to deserve its own section. Cheers! DoctorMatt (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a few years and I've lost my train of thought on this whole subject. I'm going to have to go back and take a look. I see that there has been some editing and reframing. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to think what the best revision is here. I believe the "Battle" section should be re-structured some. I feel as though it abruptly goes on a tangent about the aftermath of the feud and the theory that Hatfield shot Testerman right in the middle of the description of the battle itself. These sections of text might be better suited for the Aftermath section, which does in fact already exist.

To that end, I think if the theory is sufficiently discussed in the Aftermath section, then perhaps an entire section dedicated to talking about that theory again might not be needed. If there's a strong belief that it's worthy of its own section, I would certainly think a title more accurate than Conspiracy Theory should be used. What that title would be eludes me at the moment, however. 76.189.133.64 (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just chiming in to say I took a stab at updating the discussed sections. I'm planning to take some more time and read through the sources to see if the content can be improved upon further.NamesAreNames (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That helps a lot, thank you. The sourcing is still not great, but we have to work with what we have. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]