Talk:Kelayres massacre

Little inconsistencies

There are certain inconsistencies in the sources, from spelling on up.

Bruno's brother is either "Philip" or "Phillip". The nephew (also called son-in-law) is Tony or Toney (Anthony) Orlando. "Toney" is the spelling his parents used (letter quoted in Hoover), and I figure there is no point in using the same spelling as the singer. Drug-store operator is "Salidago" in Hoover, "Saladago" in Cerullo&Delena. Most sources spell Chief Detective Buono's first name as "Louis", not "Lewis". I assume the wanted poster, prepared under his supervision, spelled his name correctly. Hoover spells the street as "Centre" for some reason, despite her photograph of the Bruno house today clearly shows "Center" on the street sign. The number of funeral attendees is 10,000 in two contemporary sources, 20,000 in Cerullo&Delena.

Hoover mentions in her introduction that a Salidago was badly wounded in the shootings and died a few months afterwards, but not one account, not even Hoover, attributes his death to the shootings.

The description of the massacre mostly follows the account as made official by the prosecution. Cerullo&Delena point out that this might be problematic. Choor monster (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

m or M?

Sources use both "Kelayres massacre" and "Kelayres Massacre". Choor monster (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources and motive

@KDS4444:: please be careful of WP:OR. I kept myself to things I found in the sources, and tried to include close to the maximum I could (without getting into endless trivia). I may have missed things, and if you think something is obvious and belongs in the article, but it might be OR, ask and I'll doublecheck the sources.

Believe me, the motive question is quite delicate. It's also quite possible it was simply revenge for the harassment he'd been getting over the past two months. Or both. Choor monster (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I grant you that. The political motive seemed obvious to me, and I find it hard to believe that this motive was never discussed in the relevant literature (was it never?). I didn't make the effort to pursue new sources, which is my bad— you appear to be the expert on the subject, please correct my assumptions there if you feel they overstated the issue (also there are some problems with the links in some of your sources— the ones for "Hoover 2014)" just "link" right back to this article, which is circular— but I don't understand what this is about. Maybe you do??). KDS4444^Talk 19:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The political motive is of course "obvious" to everybody, but when the sources try to discuss it, they point out it's a quagmire and shy off from a definite statement. It would be good at some point to add a section on analysis and speculations regarding motive done by RS, but anything less than that is probably not allowed, OR, NPOV, etc. The bit I put in is simply Democrats quoted as saying point-blank it was political. That they said so is independently interesting, regardless of whether it was "true".

Hoover 2014 and so on are {{sfn}} and thus internally link to the references down in the Further reading section. However, I left out the "ref=harv" parameters at the bottom, and have put them in, and it works properly now. My fault. Choor monster (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the fact that the shooting was called political by politicians at the time means we can comfortably go with the assumption that politics was at some level involved, even if it was not the only motive and maybe wasn't even definitive, without slipping into original research territory— contemporaries of the event said it was so, and it seems clear why it would be so, and no claim is being made that it was so that is not based on these contemporary accounts. But I also agree that a section that does nothing but discuss motives would be very interesting and useful indeed, since the motives were clearly far more than just political (oh, what a slimy, dark pit Pennsylvania politics was in the 1930s— I suspect the Italian mafia had its finger in the pie from the beginning, too, but THAT goes into not only OR but flat out "baseless personal suspicion" which is territory into which even the most careless editor dare not stray!). KDS4444^Talk 20:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference between us saying it was political, or even partly political, versus quoting politicians saying so. As part of the lede, I think it's too clumsy to do more than what's implicit with all the mentions of Democrats/Republicans/elections.

Yes, people tried to connect Bruno with organized crime at the time, especially regarding his escape. Rocco Garramone apparently had a long record, and the reference I give to Garramone's arrest also mentions that he was wanted for questioning in the Amber Lantern "Flag Day" massacre, generally blamed on organized crime. As with motive, it's all murky and the sources are uncertain, so it's best left to a full section or nothing at all.

I believe there are about six or seven of these phantom sections altogether, things that are relevant but no RS is definite. It's a fascinating and forgotten bit of history, and when I stumbled upon it while researching Charles J. Margiotti, I was blown away. Choor monster (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

When I read the article I was incredulous that it had not already been written under some other heading. But no, this is it. So, so overdue. KDS4444^Talk 20:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Wait, you know what that means... It means "DYK"!! KDS4444^Talk 20:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. I avoid DYK in general, since most of it seems pointless, but I'll participate here. I suppose the hook "DYK the Kelayres massacre happened?", while honest, isn't acceptable. And yes, I had also been surprised to learn it wasn't on WP already. I've been happy creating articles on books nobody but me reads and about lesser Pennsylvania politicians and historical figures. Choor monster (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Double bolding in the lede

As to the bolding on Joseph James Bruno in the WP:LEDE, I did so because it says there:

• However, if an article is about an event involving a subject about which there is no main article, especially if the article is the target of a redirect, the subject should be in bold

Based on this, I think the double-bolding is appropriate—I've seen it elsewhere—but the example on the style page is irrelevant. I will not act on this at the moment, but will ask on the Talk page over there tomorrow. This is really two articles merged into one, per WP:BIO1E. (Although in the case of Bruno, his escape perhaps means he's BIO2E.)

A different way of making this argument is:

• When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms.

Both titles Kelayres massacre and Joseph James Bruno are appropriate for this article. It's one article because the overlap is so strong.

I believe a second infobox for Bruno himself would be appropriate.

Note that his name isn't part of the first sentence because readability takes priority. Choor monster (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

---

• For examples of double-bolding different "article titles" in the lede, see Captain America, Batman, Superman. The second (and even third) bolding occurs way down in each case. Choor monster (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)