Talk:Duffy's Cut

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article lacks references.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organized Labour Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pennsylvania Mid‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Links

There was previously a very long list of links on this page - they were copied and posted directly from the official site, and can easily be found there. - AKeen 04:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Information

A story on NPR just aired about Duffy's cut and an archaeological dig there. They found evidence of trauma on two of four unearthed skulls suggesting that some of the men were murdered. The investigation is ongoing, but at least one man's skull was identified as John Ruddy. The link to the story is here:

"Fates Of Irish Workers Sealed In Mass Grave". All Things Considered. NPR. 2010-05-23.

- 72.78.20.101 (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added --evrik ^(talk) 15:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NY Times 3/24/13

The New York Times has a piece about this, dated yesterday, March 24 2013:

It has some info relevant to this article:

It names the Pennsylvania Railroad president this article refers to: Martin Clement
It describes the construction in 1909, at Clement's behest, of a granite memorial to the victims
It includes a photo of Bill Watson at the memorial

Barry, Dan (2013-03-24). "With Shovels and Science, a Grim Story Is Told". New York Times.

TypoBoy (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added --evrik ^(talk) 15:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Inquirer - July 13, 2017

Glatsky, Genevieve (2017-07-13). "Promising discovery in 1830s deaths of Irish rail workers on the Main Line". Philadelphia Inquirer.

A source for expansion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added --evrik ^(talk) 15:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bone Analysis in History Section

I tried editing it but it got reverted and was told to bring it here. Please consider my request to change how the story is portrayed here. At issue is this sentence:

"Analysis of the bones has indicated the possibility that some of the men were killed by projectiles [9][10][11][12] by local vigilantes fearful that cholera would spread.[9][10][11]."

For context, one and perhaps two of the skeletons showed this possibility, though whether the damage was perimortem (as described in the wikipage) or postmortem is in dispute. Even if we were to use this as evidence of 57 people shot to death in a massacre, which I think is problematic at best, my main issue is with the second part of the sentence. Analysis of the bones showed that possible two of the skeletons had signs of projectiles, however in no way can such an analysis indicate who inflicted the damage (local vigilantes) or their motives for shooting them (fear that cholera would spread). Further, the citations used to back it up don't say that either.

Source 9 (NPR) mention the vigilante possibility as a theory put forward by the Watsons, not a finding of the bone analysis.
Source 10 (AP story archive) again quotes the Watson's theory as the basis for their flashy headline "Old Irish bones may yield murderous secrets in Pa.", and separately cites Janet Monge that one skull shows signs it maybe (not definitely) was shot, nothing about peri or postmortem either.
Source 11 (Smithsonian) again notes one or maybe two skulls might have sustained a bullet, and then Monge repeats the Watson's theory "these may have been mercy killings, or perhaps local vigilantes didn’t want more sick men leaving the valley". However this is again speculation derived from the Watsons' theory, like in Source 10 which quotes them as giving the possibilities they "were killed by vigilantes because of anti-Irish prejudice, tension between affluent residents and poor transient workers, or intense fear of cholera". Only the cholera reason is noted in the Wikipedia article, however reading between the lines it is clear the article is giving too much weight to an individual theory- that 57 people were killed due to a fear of cholera- when the reason for the killings is totally unknown and there is only one skull which shows likely signs of being shot- and as mentioned that could have been a mercy killing per the source.
Source 12 (Archeology) is just a blurb, and an incorrect one at that. There was no contemporary account of 57 people dying of cholera at Duffy's Cut, just a reference to it in a document from 80 years later, which cannot be considered definitive or a primary source. The theory that has been devised is that there was thus a cover-up of the deaths, but at this point that's also just a story, just like the notion everyone was shot by vigilantes. The Archeology article then goes on to what sounds like editorialize with "some of the first bodies excavated show signs of having met extremely violent ends at a time when anti-Irish sentiment was high"- when the later accounts we get of the bone analysis say maybe one was shot for reasons and at a time uncertain. I thus don't think there's any value in even citing this particular document.

In summation- the sources used to validate this sentence do not say what the wikipedia article currently says they do and this is a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartan84 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So all you want to take out is that some may have been shot?--Philly jawn ^(talk) 20:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to make sure the entire article sticks to the facts, perhaps a section on Theories if people feel necessary it is important to include that. A lot has been said to create a narrative on what happened at Duffy's Cut by certain proponents. Issues I notice:

In the introductory paragraph is an unsourced claim "Less than two months after their arrival, all 57 are believed to have died during the second cholera pandemic". There is no contemporary evidence which proves this claim. It is obvious some people died, but we've only found seven skeletons so far. One or maybe two of those showed signs of being shot.
The above doesn't rule out the possibility others were shot, but we have no physical proof they were, or that 50 of those said to have been massacred even died at all. Yet the general story goes despite no proof they were all murdered in a bloody massacre. Having looked over the sources, it is clear they got their information about the mass murder from the Watsons, who have published a book "Massacre at Duffy's Cut" (quite a loaded title), but there is absolutely no hard evidence of a massacre at this point. Wikipedia is falling into a trap by citing third party sources as definitive which in fact got their own information from the Watson theory. It's a feedback loop.
The first two paragraphs of the History section contain two unsourced claims, and then it sources the line "when it became clear that all would die he buried the rest of the dead in a shallow ditch along the railroad’s right of way without ceremony or funeral" with a New York Times article. However, the article is riddled with misinformation, including that Duffy's Cut is a mass grave for dozens of Irish workers (again, the article relies on Watson for his information and reports his theory as fact. Without physical proof, can only factually state seven are known to have been buried there). The NYTimes actually notes eight dead, buried by a humane blacksmith, yet the sentence I quoted from Wikipedia here that sources this article is found nowhere in the article at all! There is nothing about it "once it was clear all would die he buried the rest in a shallow ditch"- and in fact that story seems to conflict with the mass murder theory which is reported in other parts of the wiki article.
The next line also cites the New York Times article for the line built off the previous unsourced line about Asiatic Cholera killing 40-60% of people, but "in this case, all of the workers are believed to have died, leading to the theory that some may have been killed". The article says nothing about that though, instead stating a speculative theory about some workers on the railroad having escaped, were killed, and then returned in coffins for some reason to be buried at the site. Yet in the same article we also have the definitive assertion that at least 57 died, so these two simultaneous theories running through the article don't add up.
While there is a paragraph (rightfully) about the historical marker- it should be noted the marker states the Watson hypothesis as fact, we actually have no idea if there is a mass grave of 57 people at the site, can only confirm 7. Also note the marker says they died of cholera, even though we have the competing hypothesis woven into the story that they were murdered.
My issues with the August 2009 lines has already been noted. Please note the assertion that the trauma inflicted peri-mortem was the opinion of some but not all of the researchers. At least one thought it was post-mortem damage, however only peri-mortem is reported by the story's proponents, perhaps because it fits their theory.

As you can see, almost every line in this story is problematic. I think the best solution is under History to have just the facts. Either in one paragraph within it or another paragraph called Theories the murder theory can be described, however even just looking over the various articles referred to here are sources, it seems that there are multiple conflicting theories at play which just muddy the water more. The Duffy's Cut story appears to have taken on a life of its own far beyond the facts, and the theory has become noteworthy to mention in the sense that its so widely considered wrongly to be confirmed fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartan84 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones and Beyond My Ken: Could you please comment? Thank you. Philly jawn (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Responding to the ping - I took the photos, have been on-site, and talked to many of the people named or referred to here. I also tried to clean-up early versions of this article. I can firmly state that everybody involved is operating in good faith.
- That said I've always been concerned that the article overstated the mass murder theory. It is a theory, so might be reported as a theory, but is not published in a scientific journal (as far as I know), which is probably the standard we should apply now. Note I haven't really followed this for about 4 years. In the early days of the discovery, I think it was ok to report what newspapers and NPR said, but now we should concentrate on academic sources (including history of course). Most of the "popular culture" material should probably be cut as "undue weight". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, it is nice to have you here. I did a once-over of the article and removed some of the more egregious/underweight/unsourced aspects of it. I also added as a source most recent thing I could find on it (almost everything else has been from the 2009-2012 period), which was a 2019 article from a coroner who says he was asked to look at the bones, did not believe them to show signs of bullets as is typically asserted, and then claims he was cut out of the project. Obviously we can't go on his words as definitive proof, but up until now the article seemed to rely on the other side as being definitive proof of a massacre which isn't the case either. What I envision is a History section for just the facts, and most likely we need a Theories section to explain the state of that. While NPR and New York Times reported on it, their details seem to have come directly from proponents of the massacre theory that dominates the landscape of this story, one which as demonstrated is not currently much supported by hard evidence. Even the fact that 57 workers died is not proven, yet there it is on a historical marker and is repeated as fact in some of these very reputable sources, which heavily tips the scales towards the general perception that the massacre is true. Vartan84 (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence doesn’t make sense.

‘ In 2013[14] the remains of Catherine Burns of County Tyrone who died in Duffy's Cut in 1832 were reburied in Ireland in 2015’

Is this parts of two sentences that weren’t separated with a period? Was she reburied in 2013 or 2015? Should a reader need to click on a citation in order to understand such simple things that ought to have been written so they’re easy to understand? 2600:6C48:7A7F:70B4:1883:C365:46E5:7AA1 (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]