Jump to content

Talk:Rock Springs massacre/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

I hearby nominate this article for a peer-review at WP:FAC. I understand that User:IvoShandor feels the article has a few minor issues. I would be happy to help fix whatever they might be. In my opinion this article has it all. Ok! 18:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Passed

[edit]

I have reviewed the article and believe it meets all points at WP:WIAGA. I was careful to pay particular attention to all sentances to look for pov, especially in regards to previous discussions on the talk page. I was unable to find either any information that seemed non-neutral or any claims/assertions that were not supported by a relevant reference. Everything else with the article, images, image captions, coverage of the topic, well written, stable etc all apply. I do however have a few recommedations for improvement especially as I feel that this article would do well to be nominated for FA status.

My biggest suggestion for improvement is to shorten some elements of the article. There is a considerable section for example both on the background to the massacre and the aftermath - post massacre violence section. Although interesting I think the entire post massacre section could be incorporated into one or two summarising paragraphs rather than the long section it is now. This article is about the massacre and although it is important to set both the context of events and the immediate aftermath it does seem that the article is almost a general appraisal of anti-chinese relations and the massacre rather than just the massacre alone. I feel that this over coverage does not affect the article from being GA status but rather that it would prevent it from reaching a future status of FA. Furthermore the information contained in the lead section, assertions etc are referenced and elaborated in the main article but perhaps it might do well to include a few of the references from the main article to support the lead section? Anyway great work and well done to all who contributed to improve.LordHarris 13:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some tweaks in this area in preparation for some expansion as well as some source diversification. Please do take a look. I can't figure where to trim the Wyoming immigrants section, I cut it some, but maybe you could help me out with some tips, if it needs to be trimmed at all. IvoShandor 14:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the recent edits have made it a lot more concise, at least in regards to post violence e.g. the new article at Washington. I dont see the need to trim it any further and the Wymoning section as it stands is a good precursor to understanding the context for the massacre. Good work. LordHarris 00:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion/Sources

[edit]

I will be working on improving this article past GA status now. I am just going to make some important notes below, for my, or anyone else's use. IvoShandor 15:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources

[edit]
  • Sources incorporated into the text and footnoted, sent to the references section or listed in further reading are marked with {{done}}.
  •  Done Grant, Frederic James, "History of Seattle, Washington," (Google Books), American publishing and engraving co., 1891. Retrieved 29 April 2007.
  •  Done Camp Point Butte," National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, Diocese of Cheyenne. Retrieved 29 April 2007.
  •  Done Saxton, Alexander. The Indispensable Enemy: labor and the anti-Chinese movement in California, (Google Books), University of California Press, 1971. ISBN: (0520029054). Retrieved 30 April 2007. (contains verification for description, offers additional perspective)
  •  Done Larson, Taft Alfred. History of Wyoming, (Google Books), University of Nebraska Press, 1990, Pg. 141-144; (ISBN: 0803279361). Retrieved 30 April 2007. (good source, complete section on the riot)
  •  Done Daniels, Roger. Asian America: Chinese and Japanese in the United States Since 1850, (Google Books), University of Washington Press, 1990, pp. 61-63, (ISBN: 0295970189). Retrieved 30 April 2007. (Another decent roundup)
  •  DoneWaley-Cohen, Joanna. The Sextants of Beijing: Global Currents in Chinese History, (Google Books), W.W. Norton & Company, 1999, pp. 176-177, (ISBN: 0393320510). Retrieved 30 April 2007.
  •  Done Yep, Laurence. True Heroes, (EbscoHost), Academic Search Premier, Horn Book Magazine, November/December 2002, Vol. 78, Issue 6, (ISSN: 0018-5078). Retrieved 30 April 2007. (Contains information on a "Grandma" Williams, who heroically sheltered Chinese in Rock Springs until the territorial militia arrived. This article lacks context, however).
  •  Done Healy, Patrick Joseph and Ng, Poon Chew."A Statement for Non-Exclusion," (Google Books), 1905, pg. 238-239. Retrieved 2 May 2007.
  •  Done Lyman, Stanford Morris. "The Rock Springs Riot: A Moment in Exclusion's Proactive History," Roads to Dystopia: Sociological Essays on the Postmodern Condition, (Google Books), University of Arkansas Press, 2001, pp. 132-134, (ISBN 1557287112), Retrieved 2 May 2007.
  •  Done Pletcher, David M. The Diplomacy of Involvement: American Economic Expansion Across the Pacific, 1784-1900," (Google Books), 2001, University of Missouri Press, pp. 148-149 , (ISBN 0826213154). Retrieved 3 May 2007.
  • "Paying the Reckoning," Harper’s Weekly, 17 October, 1885, pg. 677. Retrieved 3 May 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IvoShandor (talk • contribs) 10:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Gardner, A. Dudley. "Chinese Emigrants in Southwest Wyoming 1868-1885," Annals of Wyoming, 1991, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 139-144, (ISSN 0003-4991).
  • Laurie, Clayton D. "Civil Disorder and the Military in Rock Springs, Wyoming: The Army's Role in the 1885 Chinese Massacre," Montana, 1990, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 44-59 (ISSN 0026-9891).
  • Carroll, Murray L. "Governor Francis E. Warren, The United States Army and the Chinese Massacre at Rock Springs," Annals of Wyoming, 1987, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 16-27, (ISSN 0003-4991). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IvoShandor (talk • contribs) 11:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Done Jackson, W. Turrentine. "The Governorship of Wyoming, 1885-1889: A Study in Territorial Politics," (JSTOR), The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 13, No. 1, March 1944, pp. 1-11. Retrieved 6 May 2007.
  • "The Chase of the Chinese," Harper's Weekly, 26 September 1885, p. 638. Retrieved 8 May 2007.</ref>

I haven't included all sources added since GA here, just FYI. IvoShandor 13:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

[edit]
  •  Done Diversify the sources for the actual description of the riot, the NRHP form seems pretty good.
  • Have several now, should be suffcient. Some of the details, I have only found in the Chinese account so far, which makes sense because they are pretty specific. IvoShandor 07:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Verification on some of the connections wouldn't hurt, the book above seems to be just that.
  •  Done Use NRHP form to expand prior activity in Rock Springs section.
  •  Done - needs expansion Feels like something else is missing, a significance or further context section, I know the riot affected treaty negotiations between the U.S. and China b/c of delayed victim's compensation. I require further verification for this, but I think it merits a section. IvoShandor 16:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The treaty, while connected, is three years post-Rock Springs Massacre. I have removed the reference as the treaty negotiations were only loosely connected to the riot. Instead I have expanded upon the core diplomatic problem, victims compensation. Still need to expand on Cleveland and Warren and the KOL, politically after the riot. IvoShandor 10:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Areas where it could be expanded: treaty detail, F.E. Warren, Cleveland. Was there any relation to Warren's dismissal the next year? It seems not from what I have read but more research may reveal otherwise. IvoShandor 07:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering moving this section to the end and retitling (Political context or something). It may serve as a better conclusion. Adding that issue to the list below from the GA review. Any thoughts? IvoShandor 10:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done It is becoming clearer that the Knights of Labor were the driving force behind this event.
  • Have included several pieces of info regarding the Knights, may merit a more concise summary, either as an expanded graf in the causation section or its own subsection somewhere. This also helps put Powderly's reaction into context. IvoShandor 07:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This will be worked on in my user space. I will post it to the article when I have something significant.
  • Based upon some of the sources used here and their assertions about Storti's thesis, I think that the current mention of the Knights of Labor, sporadically and not in its own section or paragraph, is appropriate and correct. IvoShandor 19:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Added this stuff to this list well after it was completed, just here for your information. Expand aftermath to include military deployments.
  • Working on this right now, in user space, probably won't be ready til tomorrow sometime. I am pretty busy working until Sunday morning, we'll see, maybe this afternoon. IvoShandor 13:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IvoShandor 21:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC) IvoShandor 12:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other

[edit]
  •  Done - mostly Images, may need to enlist some help here.
  • Or not. I have added several free use images, portraits of Terence Powderly and Grover Cleveland to the Reaction section. Two images, one of Gov. Frances E Warren and the other of federal troops in Rock Springs in 1885, to the immediate aftermath section. I added an 1885 editorial cartoon from harper's weekly to the riot section, though I think it satirizes the diplomatic gaffe that the riot led to and would be better suited for that section once it evolves. Could still use something to illustrate the actual riot with. IvoShandor 17:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another peer review in order after this?
  •  Not done Have just foregone the peer review process, which is rather weak these days anyway, in lieu of direct requests with a few editors, including those who have helped with this page in some way. IvoShandor 17:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done Copy edit.
  • Copyeditors: Please sign below, add section(s) edited, or just note the whole article if that is the case.

This list will quite likely change with time. I curse the Hagermanbot. IvoShandor 15:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review items

[edit]
  •  Done Over coverage - LordHarris has acknowledged, above, that the outstanding points about condensing the article, made on the passing GA review, have been suffciently addressed. IvoShandor 09:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done - Unless concerns are raised (Cites can always be added easily) Which leaves the lead, my understanding is only extraordinary claims need be referenced in the lead if the are everything is referenced in the article. We will have to see what may warrant citation in the lead after it is rewritten pending further work. IvoShandor 09:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Better way to conclude the article? IvoShandor 10:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick suggestions

[edit]

Here's a couple of quick structural things at a glance, I won't get around to reading it until tomorrow:

    •  Done Section titles should not repeat the title of the article (WP:MSH), could just be Massacre.
    •  Done There's should be some kind of linking to the monetary unit when the mention of money first appears ($150,000 --> $150,000 or US$150,000.
    •  Done It looks slightly more aesthetic when several refs appear together to have them in numerical order.
Have gone back and fixed this, done again. IvoShandor 12:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"consequences" as concluding section

[edit]

 Done

Some of the more lasting consequences could be gathered into a concluding section, such as :

In U.S. domestic politics the perceived slow reaction by Cleveland may have contributed to the Republican victory in the 1888 election that followed. There is no proof that the Knights of Labor were behind the massacre at Rock Springs but the group's strong anti-Chinese position was weakened as a result of the riot.

Moreover, a brief bit of modern-day commentary could be included in that section as well (?)

Good work! Ling.Nut 13:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of my sources actually has the full text of the letter . . . the quote should be footnoted, and have some context provided, IMO. IvoShandor 06:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is footnoted. As for wider context, I haven't read anything else on the topic. You're on your own there, kiddo. :-) Ling.Nut 10:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that, I will add something about the letter. I am working on some stuff in my user space, see User:IvoShandor/Rock Springs Massacre work page, some of it is not relevant any longer. IvoShandor 10:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This quote: Chinese immigrants... segregate themselves from the rest of the residents and citizens of the United States and... refuse to mingle with the mass of population... As a consequence, race prejudice has been more excited against them, notably among aliens of other nationalities...? It isn't footnoted from where I am looking. IvoShandor 12:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking around each other. The relevant footnote is #22, immediately following the colon that immediately precedes the blockquote. :-) If you're saying you want it after the quote itself, then it shall be so. Will do that now. :-) Ling.Nut 12:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we are. I saw the note when I went in to make some tweaks, moved it myself, you may not realize this but I have seen this page way too much. ; ) IvoShandor 12:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I didn't. IvoShandor 12:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know how you feel; I feel the same way about other articles. ;-) Anyhow, the relevant note is #22. Please put it anywhere you think it seems best. :-) Ling.Nut 13:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I am writing in my user space has to end up in the causation section, any ideas for "modern day commentary"? I am not sure how this article should conclude, is it okay as is? IvoShandor 13:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article

[edit]
  •  Done I enjoyed reading this article. One point - the geographical co-ords at top right are usually seen on articles about a geographical location, not on historical articles about an event. If the c-ords refer to Rock Springs, put the co-ords template in the article somewhere and say this explicitly, otherwise it is just confusing. At the moment, the co-ords point to a car park between Bridger Ave and Elias Ave in Rock Springs. Carcharoth 13:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done Also, are there any memorials in present-day Rock Springs to this massacre? If there is any mention of it, or a verifiable present-day location (are the mines still there?), then that should be mentioned. Carcharoth 13:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Also, your first link to Wyoming is to the article on the state (incorporated in 1890), rather than your later link to Wyoming Territory. Your other links to Utah and Washington territories seem to be OK, but it might be worth checking through for this sort of thing. Also, you seem to switch between saying "Wyoming" and "Wyoming Territory" in the article - either say Territory once and then Wyoming thereafter, or consistently say "Territory" the whole time. Not sure how to handle the links to modern towns and cities whose articles are at "XYZ, Wyoming". Carcharoth 13:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roger that, will look for that. As for modern day towns I think ideally, if the article on the city of Rock Springs were to become featured it would cover the town's history through the territorial days too. IvoShandor 13:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just went with Wyoming on second reference and after, checked the others, they were all correct except for the link to Montana, it now points at the territory. IvoShandor 13:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen "company" and "department." This is one where I would like to employ the gentle collaboration, a request for some of the Wyoming project members to help with the red links has been made. There are five I think. IvoShandor 14:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I added another massacre to the see also. If that gets a bit long, create a category to cover US-Chinese racial tensions in this time period. It seems we have a fair number of articles on the subject. Carcharoth 13:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it warrants it we should just go ahead and do that now, I created this plus the articles linked from the Washington article and Oregon article (Chinese Massacre Cove). I saw the link you added, coolio, I wasn't sure if there was an article for that one, I didn't really look though. IvoShandor 14:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

there is, I say with deep regret, a very large amount of info on Anti-Chinese Violence in North America. Should this be a cat, or should there be an umbrella article with links to individual incidents? Ling.Nut 14:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both. That way the main article can provide a general overview with links to main articles throughout, or it can be linked from the individual articles, whichever is easier. Categories are just useful in their own right, this one would be anyway. IvoShandor 14:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cat name should be a small 'v'. Check other categories to get a name that is consistent with those. Have a look at Category:Racism. That should show how this has been tackled elsewhere. Most concern modern racism, though historical racism might be in some of the slavery categories. You are already aware of Category:Racially motivated violence in the United States - browse around from there and see what you find. Carcharoth 14:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also: Category:History of immigration to the United States. Carcharoth 14:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memorials

[edit]

Per comments above from Carcharoth, so far I have been able to find nothing on any memorials. No listings on the National Register of Historic Places exist related to the Massacre. There was once some remaining buildings from Camp Pilot Butte that comprised a historic district but they are no longer extant and don't appear on the National Register any longer. I checked the closest National Forests and Recreation ares sites for anything as well as Rock Springs city website. Nothing came up. There is, however, a Historical Museum and society in Rock Springs, I will shoot them an email and see if they may be able to point me in the right direction about a memorial and somewhere published to verify it. IvoShandor 14:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask them if the mine is still open, and when it closed. Carcharoth 14:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. IvoShandor 14:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I lied. They don't have an email address posted. I am just going to email the mayor of Rock Springs, surely he will have their email address, I could just call them I suppose but taking notes about potential sources and publications they point me toward is hard over the phone. IvoShandor 06:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It must be the dark ages out there ; ) The mayor doesn't have an email posted, none of the council members do! I will see what I can track down, may take a few days though. IvoShandor

(undent) I sent an email to the Rock Springs Chamber of Commerce because I found an email address, chambers are usually pretty well connected so they should be able to at least point me toward someone who would know. IvoShandor 18:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new paragraph

[edit]

I wrote a new paragraph, take a look at it here. Any input on where to put it in the article? IvoShandor 19:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to Causation. IvoShandor 13:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open questions - To-do updated

[edit]

This is basically an updated list, consolidating comments from above as well as anything I originally listed as outstanding when I started working on this post-GA. IvoShandor 13:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open questions

[edit]
  •  Done Conclusion? See below.
  •  Done Cleveland and his 1888 loss - I can only find one mention of the 1888 election being influenced by the massacre, none of the scholarly material I have read mentions this influence at all. I am thinking about removing the sentence. Thoughts?
  •  Done Warren? See below.
  • Anything glaring?
  • Style problems?
  •  Done Should there be a non breaking space between only measurements and numbers or should something like 52 miners have a non breaking space as well?
  • Links: Anything irrelevant linked or anything relevant that is not linked? Look for any unlinked full dates or any linked months/years, especially in the footnotes. IvoShandor 15:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any individual years that provide enough context to be wikilinked (I am a bad judge of this ambiguous guideline)? IvoShandor 16:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Are the refs formatted well enough, there may be a couple of minor consistency errors. Anything missing?
  •  Done - Unless more concerns are raised Lead length?

To-do

[edit]
  • None of the academic papers I have read seem to mention Warren's dismissal and the Rock Springs Massacre together, I will need to consult some other sources on this because some web sources (which I would consider to be reliable) have implied that Warren's dismissal/resignation was affected by a scandal which may or may not have included his involvement with the Union Pacific Railroad Company and thus the events surrounding Rock Springs. Hmm. I wouldn't include much, as most of the material I have been reading is much better suited for the article on Warren but anything relevant to Warren and the Rock Springs Massacre should be included I would say. Comments?
  • I have a pretty good idea what to say here. It is really a big unknown. Yes, Warren was involved with land dealings and dealings close to UP before the riot, his reaction to the riot may have been influenced by this but it was also likely influenced by a desire to protect the Chinese miners.(Chokell). The "scandal" I referenced above really wasn't. It was a matter of political differences. Cleveland was a dem, Warren was rep, to put it simply. The Dept of Interior received letters for and against Warren for govt, including one from UP president supporting him as governor. In the end two lawyers sent lengthy treatises charging that Warren had illegally used federal funds and illegally used his position in his land dealings. Instead of go through with the circus or whatever he resigned. When Benjamin Harrison took office in 1889, he was reappointed governor of Wyoming. That's the skinny of it anyway. I will clean this up and such. IvoShandor 18:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Causation - racial factors.
  •  Done The KOL was important to labor history (not the most important - of course) and the Rocks Springs Massacre was significant to the KOL (but not the most significant event - Haymarket et. al. had much more influence on the group). Found this in a book review (one of many widely panning Craig Sorti's conclusions) on JSTOR.
  • This idea should be added, I have the cite already ready already.
  • Copy edit
  • On going
  • Did some, mostly stubby, the UP one is the best of the three. The other two I am having a hard time turning up reliable info on, may just delink them for now. IvoShandor 12:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Conclusion: I was thinking significance: Could talk about Camp Pilot Butte's listing on the Register and what happened to it, the military's stay in Rock Springs and how Rock Springs was seen as the worst of the incidents even though it didn't have the most casualties and why. Just a good wrap up basically. Also talk about the lasting affect on Warren - if there was anything relevant (see above) as well as the Knights of Labor and them distancing themselves from anti-Chinese agiatation in Rock Springs to avoid condoning the massacre. (NYT article c. 1885).
  •  Done Rework lead (again)
  • Memorials: ongoing, still trying to find out if there are any.
  •  Done Anti Chinese cat?
  •  Done Add other ethnicities of white miners (Irish and one other: must read source again), make sure it is clear that basically everyone was an immigrant.
  •  Done Immediate aftermath: the failed strike a month or so after the riot, which was not supported by the national Knights of Labor org.
  • Images: Riot itself and Causation could use illustrations of some sort, another image somewhere in the article would probably be useful. Any help would be appreciated. IvoShandor 17:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done It seems that there is some contention over the number of dead. I have seen at least two published sources say 51, as if there was no dispute, I had chalked this up to a simple discrepancy because everything else said 28. We may need to add the qualifier confirmed, I have found a source from the University of Wyoming that states some who fled were never heard from again and that "40 dead" may be more accurate. I think that this should be added in the two main instances where the number of dead is asserted (the lead and the massacre section). IvoShandor 18:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I have a citation somewhere that talks specifically about the miner's wages, this would be relevant in the causation section. IvoShandor 18:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Present day location. I am waiting to find out some more information before I proceed. This information would be best where? The conclusion? Any thoughts? IvoShandor 18:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to add to this. IvoShandor 12:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added bit about images, need help here. IvoShandor 17:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

[edit]

Here are just a few thoughts about the article after Ive read through the new updates. Most of my comments are just comments and might not need addressing, they are just thoughts, anyway:

  •  Done Firstly reading through the lead, it does seem a bit long? I also feel that some of the statements need referencing, even though they are later referenced in the actual article itself e.g. After the men were released, the mining company dismissed 45 white miners for their participation in the lawlessness. and No connection was ever established between the riot and the national Knights of Labor organization.
  • Two people say to long so when I rewrite it I will shorten it (yes I am going to rewrite it again). I will add the refs, are those the only two sentences in the lead that need them? IvoShandor 11:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the grafs just too long? WP:LEAD says three to four for an article of this size and that it should represent a stand alone summary of the entire article (not too too much detail). Any advice here would be helpful. IvoShandor 11:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done In 1880, Rock Springs was home to Chinese laborers, miners, a professional gambler, a priest, a cook, and a barber - reference?
  • Added.
  •  Done There is a new sentance, which is entirely in brackets - either it shouldnt be a new sentanced or the brackets should be removed - (In 1882, the organization had worked for the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act).
  •  Done They ran in every direction: some up the hill behind coal pit number three; others, along the base of the hill at coal pit number four; others still, from the eastern end of the town, fled across Bitter Creek to the opposite hill; and more fled from the western end of Chinatown across the base of the hill to the right of coal pit number five. - is the reference for this the one at the end of the paragraph?
  •  Done In the days following the riot, many of the Chinese immigrants in Rock Springs fled 100 miles west to Evanston, Wyoming. - reference?
  • Added.

Overall though a great article, not too far from being a featured level imo. The psot massacre violence section is much better concise as it is. Hope some of these comments are useful. LordHarris 22:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Automated Peer Review

[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Don't see any months etc linked, any irrelevant links? IvoShandor 15:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know about this one, Causes maybe, the massacre section has to stay put, maybe outcome? don't want to make it too short, I am pretty satisfied with the length of readable text overall. The Post-massacre violence section was broken up per summary. 15:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Working on this - have applied the first section of exercises and am working through more. As for the vague size terms, I will clean this up, a few of them should be okay, as exact numbers aren't really available. IvoShandor 15:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 13:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some more thoughts

[edit]
How about a late 19th century Chinese-American vegetable peddler in Idaho? There are also some shots of some mines in Wyoming, not sure where one could go though. IvoShandor 16:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either or both would be perfect. Depends on the balance of pictures and text. It is nice you have the portrait shots of politicians and others involved, but ones of Chinese immigrants and miners would be nice to balance it.

Carcharoth 16:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found several images from the Library of Congress (these are but a few candidates: [1]: (miners in Ouray County, Colorado - some possibly Asian); [2]: (Charles Denby); [3]: (Chinese at work on the railroad in the late 1860s); [4]: (Chinese railroad workers posing with their white foreman)
The only thing is that it appears that these images may only be qualified under fair use, though I am fairly certain a few of them, at least, are in the public domain in the U.S. due to their age. The "rights and reproductions" notice is linked from each page, they are all pretty much the same, the notice mentions fair use but also leaves it open as to what the licensing is. What do you think? IvoShandor 18:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The links aren't really working (they are temp links - better to give the LoC ID number), but I think I found the pictures you were talking about. I know what you mean about LoC copyright issues - you need a date to be certain the copyright has expired. Can't help much more than that, I'm afraid. Good luck with FAC. Carcharoth 21:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the date wikilinking is fine as is, and that there is no suitable infobox. Carcharoth 15:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just linked to Qing Dynasty. I feel something about the background of where the immigrants were coming from would be nice. Maybe a brief recap on the state of China at the time and relations between China and the US. Were the immigrants coming across the Pacific, or coming in from the east? Carcharoth 15:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a couple sources that talk about this. A lot of them came across the Pacific to San Francisco, a kind of Ellis Island for the west. From there they spread out, depending on the location in the American west the immigrants hailed from different areas of China. Many of the Wyoming immigrants, especially those in the Rock Springs-Evanston-Green River area, were from Guangdong, which is why you saw the protest from citizens there in Canton. American Chinese relations were really in their infancy as far as diplomacy and mutual cooperation goes. How long should this be? A short paragraph should suffice I am thinking, basically what I wrote above, cleaned up for tone and cited. ? IvoShandor 15:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention for years after this (and of course 1882) treaties between the U.S. and China excluded much Chinese immigration. IvoShandor 16:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you said, but keep it very short. If you have more information, find another article to put it in. Carcharoth 16:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference format

[edit]

I recommend the split references/notes format, e.g. that used in Alcibiades or Theramenes. I've started formatting the references this way. Also, I've linked to the NYT articles directly, and not just through ProQuest. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't realize they were available, that would have been a lot easier. : ) IvoShandor 07:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess they have to be purchased, but a couple of them would have saved trips to library, I originally tracked all of this down via microfiche. Blah. Talk about taking forever. IvoShandor 07:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do these links require a subscription? What's the point of linking to them in that case? There must be some mention of subscription-required pages in the relvant policy or guideline. Ling.Nut 10:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't check them myself, some NYT articles do some don't, the ProQuest can usually be accessed at most libraries though. IvoShandor 20:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed in "Background" section

[edit]

"In 1880, the Chinese in Rock Springs worked in occupations outside of mining, though, most Chinese workers were employed in the coal mines around Wyoming and Sweetwater County."

1) Isn't Sweetwater County in Wyoming? If so, then "... around Wyoming and Sweetwater County" needs to be clarified. Either specify another location in Wyoming ("Sourwater County and Sweetwater County"), or indicate inclusion: "in Wyoming in general, and particularly, in Sweetwater County". Let me know what the intended meaning is, and I'll try to phrase it more clearly.

2) In the first clause, is the intent that the Chinese in Rock Springs worked only in non-mining occupations, as opposed to those who mined (coal) in (see #1 above)? Or is the intent that they worked other occupations in Rock Springs as well as being employed in coal mining in Rock Springs? Again, say intent, and I'll re-phrase the original. Unimaginative Username 18:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese in Rock Springs in 1880 weren't really miners at this point according to sources, the intent being that even though that wasn't the case in Rock Springs it was in the much of the county and the rest of the state. Thanks btw. : ) IvoShandor 20:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Done. Let me know whether the edit captures your intent properly. Unimaginative Username 21:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Exclusion Act quote

[edit]

"In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act required that "from and after the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, etc."

If the quoted portion is a complete sentence of the original Act, then "From" should be capitalized. If the original sentence in the Act starts before "from", that fact, and the omission of the preceding portion (ellipsis) should be indicated by "...from". (three dots) Advise which. Unimaginative Username 18:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original suffers from horrendous punctuation, thank you 1882: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and until the expiration of ten years next after the passage of this act, the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States be, and the same is hereby, suspended; and during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come, or, having so come after the expiration of said ninety days, to remain within the United States." IvoShandor 20:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not horrible punctuation, just typical formal legalese :-). It does answer the question, though: There is an omission of words (ellipsis), so the dots go in ... Unimaginative Username 21:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More less the capitalization: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the expiration of ninety days I got their legalese right here! IvoShandor 06:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the only additions you made that I didn't like was the readdition of "had" in a couple places where I thought it was redudant, just thought I'd see what you thought.
  • "had asserted": redundant - same meaning with just asserted
  • "in 1882, the Knights had worked for the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act": same thing here.


IvoShandor 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get into a discussion of past perfect or pluperfect tense here, but check http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pluperfect&x=0&y=0. We have been taken back in time to 1883, and then the narrative tells us of something that *had* already happened at this previous point (1883); namely, that in the previous year (1882); the Knights *had* done thus and such. Same with the guy who had already said something five years earlier.
In other words, if the narrative follows chronology (from the starting point in the past), use regular past tense:

"I came home at 6pm, and my wife made dinner." (past/past)

But if the narrative starts at a point in the past, then refers to something that *had been completed* (or done) earlier, use the past perfect:

"By the time I came home at 6pm, my wife had already eaten dinner." (past/past perfect).

Clear as mud? Unimaginative Username 20:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Muddy as clear. I knew there was a reason I avoided the English department. : ) IvoShandor 06:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic: broken sentence

[edit]

"In China, the governor–general of the Guangdong region suggested that Americans in China might be the target of revenge for the action in Rock Springs the U.S. government decided to capitulate."

"...the U.S. government decided to capitulate" doesn't fit into the rest of the sentence. Is it "...unless the US govt. etc...", or perhaps "... so the US Govt..." ? If not, what is the intent of these two unrelated sentences? Unimaginative Username 20:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woops. Will look. IvoShandor 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove it. Remainder of some editing. IvoShandor 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Roger that. Done. Unimaginative Username 21:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the building really owned by saints?

[edit]

"The two buildings were owned by the Catholic Church, Saints Cyril and Methodius in Rock Springs."

Are we to understand that St. Cyril owns one building and St. Methodius owns another? Clarify, please :-) Unimaginative Username 22:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a church called "Saints Cyril and Methodius". See here. I've rephrased the sentence as "The two buildings were owned by the Saints Cyril and Methodius Catholic church, in Rock Springs." Carcharoth 23:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, much clearer :-). I also capitalized "Church" as part of a proper name, e. g. "Second United Baptist Church", etc., although it's not capitalized by itself.

Hope you didn't take the question as sarcasm or criticism. People naturally want to know why an edit was made, and sometimes it's hard to explain what sort of misinterpretation could result from their text without sounding critical. Same with all the other edits.

The article looks really good now. Good luck with FAC! Unimaginative Username 00:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gratuiously linked to Roman Catholic Diocese of Cheyenne and Saints Cyril and Methodius, but stuck it in a footnote, as it's not really relevant to the article. Interesting link back to Eastern Europe though. Carcharoth 23:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And getting back to the Chinese, we see that by the early 1900s "Chief among the immigrants in Rock Springs, following the exodus of the Chinese, were the Slovenes" [5], which explains the name of the church. Carcharoth 23:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found a nice website

[edit]

Found a nice website. Any use?

Some quotes:

  • "We are stopping now at a coal station, and have come upon the first signs of life except the miserable little house that adjoins the wood stations. There are coal mines around, on the hills on my left I see smoke rising out from the hills, it is a mine or fire, nearer us smoke rises from some tall chimneys of manufacturing buildings, we have come to the first busy looking place for many a long mile but the houses are all of the poorest description and look temporary. There is no appearance of home about them as there was in even cold and dreary Lamarie. There the land is cultivable and settlers have made homes there, here the fetid water's make mans stay here one of necessity never of choice."
  • "The houses of the miners are built in an abrupt ravine, the walls of which form one of the sides of their houses. The roofs and sometimes a window project above the surface of the ground -- the roofs are covered with dried earth and clay, and the whole settlement has such a queer appearance. Just now a "heaten Chinee" passed us trudging laboriously along with a big piece of raw meat at one end of a long branch he carries over his shoulder and a heavy sack on the other end. We have come to the region of chinamen. The valley around us is so queer flat with sudden fissures running through it."
  • "The Slovenes were, not, however, the first ethnic group to inhabit Rock Springs. As discussed with regard to Coal Camps, by 1885, Chinese constituted the largest population group in the area. In September of that year, festering resentment boiled over at Pit Number 6, resulting in the massacre of a number of Chinese and the burning of their houses. The resentment was as a result of a belief that the Chinese were keeping the wages down and by a favorable assignment of work at Pit Number 6 to the Chinese."

The best stuff though is in the third link above, relinked here. Have a look and see what you can use. Carcharoth 23:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen this site. But I doubt it meets WP:RS. That music makes me want to shoot their webmaster. IvoShandor 12:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Harpers Weekly stuff

[edit]

Wow. Harpers Weekly have a whole webpage for the Chinese-American experience. The Immigrant and Ethnic America website from Harpers Weekly is at http://immigrants.harpweek.com/. Samples:

Can any of that be used? Carcharoth 23:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you might imagine, I have come across much of this stuff in my research, in particular I was trying to figure out how much to work in about the commission as the illustration is a good one (all of the old Harper's ones are really, in general, good). Probably would fit best in the arrests section (arrests and investigations or the like). The Seattle stuff would go well in Seattle riot of 1886, we could use something to illustrate the section here. Much of this could be helpful, I don't want to rely too too much on primary sources, though for descriptions of events they are often the only sources. I think much of this could be useful here and in subsequent work I would like to do in this area. IvoShandor 06:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memorials, again

[edit]

I never have heard back from the Rock Springs Chamber of Commerce, perhaps this isn't something the city likes to remember. My guess is, there isn't much commemorating it, probably a plaque or marker or something but probably not a full-blown memorial, just based on the descriptions of the present-day locations, I would guess if there were a marker or memorial it wouldn't be completely unreferenced in the writings about Rock Springs today. Hard to say though. There are some articles listed above somewhere, two from the Annals of Wyoming and one from Montana, which I cannot find around here which would be helpful, not necessarily about the memorial but they could easily contain a remark about that topic. I cannot find them around where I am at (Illinois). IvoShandor 06:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Okay, I had a bunch of comments typed up and my fucking computer konked. Like I was saying before my computer took a dump, these are mostly just suggestions/questions. I don't have the patience to type them all up carefully again, so these will be quick and choppy:

  •  Done Why is the monetary unit again unlinked again when it first appears? See WP:$.
  •  Done I think "approximately" would sound more formal than "about" in the last sentence of the lead's opening para. Also, I guess leaving "in" out is fine but "in property damage" sounds better to me.
  •  Done I positively hate citations in leads so I would cut that one.
  •  Done "In the immediate aftermath of the riot, federal troops were deployed in Rock Springs. The troops escorted the surviving Chinese miners, most of whom had fled to Evanston, Wyoming, back to Rock Springs a week after the riot." I think you could start the second sentence with "They escorted..." It would be clear who you're refrerring to and it avoids saying troops twice in close quarters.
  •  Done "Rioting and mob actions broke out in Seattle, Tacoma, and Issaquah, Washington, in the months following the Rock Springs Massacre." This could be changed to "Rioting and mob actions also broke out in Seattle, Tacoma, and Issaguah, Washington." The months following seems unnecessary and redundant as it obviously occured afterwards. The new wording does add a dreaded additive term but it cuts out some extra words. Just a suggestion.
  • I wanted to make it clear somehow that despite the connection to events in Rock Springs that the other West Coast violence wasn't necessarily immediately following the riot. IvoShandor 12:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Why are there endashes instead of hyphens in Maintenance-of-the-way workers?
  •  Done It's kind of perfunctiory since the sentence contains the source but someone might ask you to put a inline cite on this sentence as there are quotation marks: "Racism against Chinese immigrants was widespread and largely uncontroversial at the time. J.R. Tucker, in the aforementioned 1884 article, referred to Asian immigrants as "...the Asiatic race, alien in blood, habits, and civilization." He also noted, "Chinese are the chief element in this Asiatic population.""
You think? Even with the article being cited inline in the first citation within the body of the text? IvoShandor 12:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Generally Footnotes go above the Bibliography from what I've seen. WP:GTL seems to indicate that as well.
  •  Done "A Chinese immigrant child, c. 1900. Chinese children were rare, and not typical of late 19th and early 20th century Chinese immigrants, who were overwhelmingly male." Shouldn't this be adult males? Children can be male as well.
  •  Done "The increase during the decade 1870–1880 was" — "decade 1870–1880" is kind of clunky, I've never heard a decade referred to that way before you could just leave out the numbers as you've mentioned in the opeing of the para you're discussing the 1870s. Or you just say 1870s again.
  • Likewise again in the last sentence of the para, maybe that's just something I haven't seen and am not used to.
  • The opening section is stat heavy, which is fine if you're good with some of thoise fancy computer programs maybe you can create some kind of graph and left align it for illustrative purposes.
  • If you can, I'd prefer you combined any refs that appear in succession. They can be combined using the system in Tourette syndrome, this only works for refs that aren't repeated.
  •  Done "The white miners at Rock Springs felt that Chinese laborers, in accepting lower wages, drove wages down for the white miners, comprised of mostly Swedish, Welsh, Irish and Cornish." This sentence reads a little awkwardly.
  •  Done "According to a deposition taken by the Chinese government and signed by 559 Chinese from Rock Springs, the Chinese there knew of ill–will from the white miners." Same deal as the sentence with the quotations in it.
  •  Done "They declared that the Chinese laborers had no right to work in a particularly desirable "room" in the mine; miners were paid by the ton, so it was important where in the mine one worked." The use of one seems awkward here, I guess it's alright though.
  •  Done "which by this time had grown quite large." This seems kind of informal.
  • Massacre section could use osme kind of map if possible.
  • I don't know if I could come up with one without it being OR, I would need some help from someone with access to a good library in Wyoming, probably, I haven't seen any maps of Rock Springs from that era, I have a few written descriptions but they aren't exactly very clear. I will go back to the library here, perhaps there is something in one of those books I can use for reference, this may take some time. IvoShandor 12:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "As the white miners moved into Chinatown, the Chinese became aware of the riot and that two Chinese, Leo Dye Bah and Yip Ah Marn, residents from the west and east sides of Chinatown, had already been killed." I guess these names are important but they kind of clog up the flow of the sentence.
  •  Done "The massacre was in full swing by a little past 3:30 p.m." — in full swing is kind of informal, also "a little past" violates this but I guess there's no more specific term that can be used.
  • "The situation in Rock Springs was stabilized as early as September 15, when Warren first requested the removal of federal troops, but the mines at Rock Springs remained closed for a time." I guess this is "for a time" as we don't have a specific time period?
  • The last two paras of the "Immediate aftermatrh" section are a little confusing because it goes chronologically then suddenly goes backwards. Also the "for a time" sentence is throwing me off. What is the exact date the mine re-opened? When the company re-opened the Rock Springs mine they fired 45 white miners, which makes it seem as though some were still employed (105 given the earlier info) then later it says after the mines re-opened for a time no whites were working there. What I'd like to know is: the date the mines opened; the date the whites returned to work there; how long the whites strike lasted after the mines opened.
  •  Done Those arrested as suspects in the riots were released a little more than a month later, on October 7, 1885. On their release, they were "…met . . . by several hundred men, women and children, and treated to a regular ovation," according to the reporting of The New York Times. —"the reporting of" appears to be redundnat extra wording.
  •  Done "For its own part, the coal mining company discharged 45 white miners for their participation in the riot.[17]" This is already stated in the previous section seems redundant to mention it twice.
Oops. IvoShandor
  • "corps reported rising anti–American sentiment" I'm a little unsure of the use of hyphens and endashes overall, I know endashs go on certain adjectives. I guess I might need to read up on that.
  •  Done "Powderly blamed the "problem" of Chinese immigration on the failings of the 1882 Exclusion Act. He blamed lax law enforcement, not those involved in the riots, for the attacks at Rock Springs." Saying blamed twice that close together makes for weak prose.
  •  Done The New York Times refs should have pub dates.
Okay, done. Quadzilla99 10:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You may have noticed I had to step away from this one for a bit. It just got to be too overwhelming. I will be looking at it again soon and will consider all comments that have yet to be unaddressed on the talk page very carefull. I will post some responses to a few of the above comments that I already have in mind. IvoShandor 12:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{[done}} One other nitpick, it should be Rock Springs massacre (lower case m). As in Columbine High School massacre, Saint Valentine's Day massacre, and all the articles on List of massacres. All this nitpicking aside, the article is very good overall and I expect you'll be going for FA on it soon right? Ping me when you do. Quadzilla99 13:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still left to do before FAC

[edit]
  • Rewrite lead.
  •  Done Change image in background section.
  • Immediate aftermath section : The last two paras of the "Immediate aftermatrh" section are a little confusing because it goes chronologically then suddenly goes backwards. Also the "for a time" sentence is throwing me off. What is the exact date the mine re-opened? When the company re-opened the Rock Springs mine they fired 45 white miners, which makes it seem as though some were still employed (105 given the earlier info) then later it says after the mines re-opened for a time no whites were working there. What I'd like to know is: the date the mines opened; the date the whites returned to work there; how long the whites strike lasted after the mines opened. (Comment from Quadzilla99.)
  • Have revised the chronology, it should read much better now. Nothing like a couple months away to give my eyes a tune up as far as this article goes. I am still working on specific dates and think I may be (emphasize may) able to find them, or at least really close to the exact day, via the New York Times. It is possible they neglected to follow up. IvoShandor 12:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Map of area during massacre.
  • So what's the deal with WP:DASH? Perhaps seek input.
  • Reference combining.
  • Not sure how this works or if it is necessary, not opposed to it just seems like a lot of work for what is already a pretty easy to interpret citation system. 10:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This is what I see. I think a couple more copy edits by me and a couple others wouldn't hurt its chances either. IvoShandor 10:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Made sure that Rock Springs massacre appeared lower case throughout. Which brings up whether or not it matters whether its called a massacre or a riot throughout the article, it was both so any input here would be helpful. IvoShandor 12:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

Hi, IMO the article is excellent and would be happy to support it at FAC. The sections have been expanded and reference extremely well since its GA. I had a look and was unable to find any significant problems or major errors requiring a copyedit. I do have a few points to raise:

  • Is it possible to expand this section (given that there are many references and that this is one of the causes of the massacre) is it possible to expand on anything related to their belief that Chinese drove down wages? The white miners at Rock Springs, comprised of mostly Swedish, Welsh, Irish and Cornish immigrants, believed that lower paid Chinese laborers drove down their wages.[10][11][12][13][14][15]
  • The image caption could be expanded? Federal soldiers on South Front Street in Rock Springs, 1885 What are they doing on South Front street, whats their purpose etc/
  • The following is a long quote, perhaps quote template could be used? Powerful Knights of Labor leader Terence Powderly wrote in a letter to W.W. Stone (excerpts of which he included in a report to the U.S. Congress) that, "It is not necessary for me to speak of the numerous reasons given for the opposition to this particular race – their habits, religion, customs and practices . . ." Powderly blamed the "problem" of Chinese immigration on the failings of the 1882 Exclusion Act. He faulted lax law enforcement, not those involved in the riots, for the attacks at Rock Springs. Powderly wrote that the U.S. Congress should stop "winking at violations of this statute" and reform the laws which barred Chinese immigration, which he believed could have prevented incidents such as "the recent assault upon the Chinese at Rock Springs"

These are just a few suggestions but really well done. Drop me a message when you go FAC. LordHarris 20:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at all of this but to be honest this is just getting to be too much (and I don't mean that to degrade you or anything) but I have worked and worked and worked and worked on this article and it still doesn't seem to be good enough. I am handstrung and am giving up. IvoShandor 06:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, there are a few things that can be addressed if they will hold up the FAC. Perhaps I will nominate it and see where it goes. IvoShandor 06:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say

[edit]

Thanks to everybody who worked to make this article what it has become. : ) We made it to FA! Woohoo! IvoShandor 13:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, IvoShandor! I know you've been working very hard on this. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 14:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wha?

[edit]

What? No star? : ( IvoShandor 14:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superb work

[edit]

I edited The Asian Pacific American Heritage: a Companion to Literature and Arts (Routledge: NY, 1999) which won an American Library Association award as "One of the Outstanding Academic Books" of the year. I write to express my admiration for this article, which is living up to all we once hoped Wikipedia might be, despite the presence of hot button topics like race, immigration and class. It's fair, balanced, beautifully researched and beautifully written. It faces up to two embarrassing facts-- the immigrant Chinese willingness to be scabs; and the union willingness to exploit racism and even to turn a blind eye to wildcat acts of violence by its members. It is American history at its most troubling and unpleasant. But it's true. Congratulations on this work. Profhum (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truckee, CA: Similar incident

[edit]

Very fine job.

A similar pogrom happened in Truckee, California, which at one time had one of the largest Chinatowns in the state (perhaps the 2nd largest, after San Francisco). Or maybe it was a series of pogroms. Wikipedia doesn't have much about it, but there is a date of 1886, which would imply an influence of the Rock Springs Massacre. Truckee was a railroad town (Central Pacific), and there was lumbering in the area. I don't have time to research this, but I hope someone will. Oaklandguy (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Oaklandguy 9/2/09[reply]

Ironic

[edit]

Although the Knights would grow into one of the first de facto labour unions, this article demonstrates how early labour movements were undermined by pitting labour against itself by never discouraging and perhaps even encouraging conflict focused along racial lines. At the same time, employers were using early globalisation techniques to reduce the cost of labour, encouraged to keep doing so by bottom-line economics and by a government reluctant to acknowledge that any violation of civil rights had actually occurred. After all, the difference between this and modern-day globalisation is only that of shipping in labour vs. outsourcing parts of the labour structure in their entirety.

One wonders how much has actually changed. Repeated riots even up to modern times remind us that such perceptions are still very close to the surface. What civil rights can be claimed by illegal immigrants is still a matter of debate. Even today in this talk page, the role of the Chinese in the prelude to the conflict discussed in the article has been dismissed as "scabs", a concept that would not have applied within their cultural background and just barely within the historic economic background, but completely out of context -

"When God had finished the rattlesnake, the toad, the vampire, He had some awful substance left with which he made a scab.... the modern strikebreaker sells his birthright, his country, his wife, his children, and his fellow men for an unfilled promise from his employer, trust, or corporation." - Jack London

Note that London's assumptions don't apply in this case. In fact, since those workers were brought into the country specifically to provide cheap labour, the Chinese were caught between the choice to assimilate into the labour/cultural collective and not receive employment in future (being Chinese) or to be employed and not assimilate. If they would not be "scabs", they would be nothing, at least not in the United States. In effect, there was no birthright, family etc. to sell and at best a possibly filled promise to gain ... for the Chinese, at least. - Tenebris

A Couple of Problem Areas

[edit]

First, the whole Knights of Labor thing. It looks to me as though some supporter of the current Knights of Labor (do they still exist?)or a friend of theirs has been through the article trying to mitigate the responsibility of the National group for the actions of the Rock Spring chapter. Quite a lot of the article is based on a deposition made by the Chinese workers to the Chinese consulate (if you go to the list of victims, there is a link to this document), and that deposition is very clear that it was the Knights of Labor who instigated, organized, and carried out the massacre; and that this involved pre-planning. While it needs to be said that the riot was likely not instigated by the National organization, the article as it currently is seems to go quite a distance towards denying the KOL had anything to do with it, and that's clearly not the case. So maybe something needs to be said specifically about the relations between national organization and local chapters. And did the national organization ever issue any kind of statement that clearly condemened the actions of the local chapter? If they did not, then that is a significant fact that needs to be noted.

Second, the mutilation of the bodies. Currently, this is asserted to have happened, but the way it's written, it isn't clear whether it happened in this riot, or whether it happened in other riots at other times. The deposition by the miners themselves makes absolutely no mention whatever of any of these atrocities, so that ambiguity needs to be cleared up.

Theonemacduff (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in terms of the national organization's response to the massacre, I believe that's addressed toward the end where it says the Knights' leader, Terence Powderly, basically blamed the whole massacre on not enforcing the Chinese Exclusion Act strongly enough, and clearly endorsed white laborers' opposition to competing with Chinese, while saying nothing to condemn the local Knights' actions. Pirate Dan (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did think the local chapter's culpability was made evident in the article. But I cannot find a source that says the national organization had anything to do with the instigation, I suppose they did in the sense that they supported the local chapter. I will take a look at the second concern noted above but I'm not sure what I can do with the first unless some other sources come to light. This event has not been very well covered in academia. --IvoShandor (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also the KOL were dead by 1900, I am not a shill for labor unions, and I don't appreciate the implication that I am. The deposition is mostly used to describe the events of the riot only, almost no other parts of the article come from that source.--IvoShandor (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sic?

[edit]

"To murder an industrious Chinaman is the same kind of fiendish work as the murder of women and children – it is equally a violation of the rights of the defenceless (sic)." What's the "sic" for? I can't see what's spelled incorrectly. 115.64.118.162 (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is the "defenceless" which is ok in British English, but wrong in US. Maybe back when the quote was made that was the current spelling, so really the "(sic)" should only be present if in a source (otherwise it would be original research/incorrect).--Commander Keane (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I suspected. My concern being that Wikipedia would be teaching people that British English is just an incorrect form of spelling. Probably not the best thing for an encyclopaedia site to be doing. 115.64.118.162 (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I consulted the source, and fixed it. Twas the result of a misunderstanding of the usage of "sic", that's all, sorries.--IvoShandor (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review

[edit]

An IP can't initiate a review of a featured article, still, I request one to get interested and capable editors to rewrite portions of this article to make it a proper featured article including a clear, concise lead section that is a summary of the event and unbiased reporting of the event throughout the article. The article's primary owner has been notified, and even he appears to admit above that the problems with the article exist, and, while insulting users who raise the issues, demands they have to read the entire article to understand the lead section. This is not correct. The lead of an encyclopedia article should be a well-written summary of the entire article. In addition, primary sources should not be picked from to choice what an article is about. That's why encyclopedias rely upon secondary sources: no original research. I will also notify the wikiprojects Wyoming and LabourProject. --68.127.233.138 (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personally, I see nothing wrong with the lead as it now stands. . Indeed, the Main Page editors just featured it on the main page, which (I would argue) indicates no real problems with the article's FA status. I would not support a review of FA status. - Tim1965 (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How's that point of view? That's what happened, and it says it in the article, much farther on.[6]

And, indeed, the article writer says that I must read the entire article to understand the first paragraph. So, since the article writer says it violates FA criteria, you're arguing with FA criteria? --68.127.233.138 (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lead is a summary, it cannot include every bit of information in the article. I'm not sure what you are proposing but how can you say the article doesn't meet FA criteria when you won't even read it? The article has gone through multiiple peer reviews, a GA review, and an FAC. Numerous editors assisted this process. The lead can be tweaked if it needs to be, but this article is neutral, fair and accurate. --IvoShandor (talk) 04:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to have everything. But the massacre was the murder or killing of Chinese immigrant miners by white immigrant miners due to the Chinese being hired more for their willingness to work for lower wages, or so it appears so far. If you're talking about a massacre someone has to be killed, and if that's the title, the killing should come right away, and some proximate and ultimate cause also. This is not every bit of information, this is sufficient to tell about the massacre, and it's how encyclopedia articles are written and designed, even on wikipedia. --69.225.8.92 (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I dont own this article. You are free to make changes yourself, just bring sources. I would also welcome a FAR, which I know this article will pass with flying colors and may even lead to some minor improvements. So go right ahead. I don't see a FAR as a threat, but a chance to improve the article further, nothing is ever "complete" around here.--IvoShandor (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that improves it some, but more work is needed, imo. We're in agreement on FAR, it seems to be a call to improving the article. I think the article could use some development as it appears to be written in couched language that detracts from providing good information.
I think I already pissed someone off, since he/she couldn't be bothered to do anything but call my changes POV, without explanation, although I only included information from the article. I assumed information in the article is sourced. As an IP it's almost impossible to edit a featured article, no matter what. I've been reverted for removing vandalism from a FA, simply because the assumption is IPs are morons/vandals/useless/expendable. I'm a paleontologist and I edit a lot of geology featured articles and am used to my edits being reverted and ignored, but they're accurate and eventually get in. I had heard of the Rock Springs massacre and wanted to learn more by reading this somewhere else. --69.225.8.92 (talk)
Well I don't view IPs as "morons", or at least try not to. It is a problem on WP though, and it has much to do with how a lot of IPs edit. Definitely something that needs to be addressed, but that's another issue altogether. I really don't think the article is written in couched terms, it was very difficult to keep the text neutral on this one, which is really what I was trying to do. Anyway, sorry if I was brash at first, mostly just a misunderstanding of what you wanted here, which I am still not entirely sure of but if you have some ideas please do share them here. I'm sure we can work together to address any concerns you might have but please be specific. I still think the lead does a good job of summarizing the content here, again, every little detail cannot be worked into the lead but we can find a way to alleviate any concerns you have, this, I am sure of.--IvoShandor (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition the very first paragraph states it was a riot between white and Chinese minors, touches on the labor dispute and racial tensions that led to the massacre and tells the number of Chinese that were murdered, as well as noting the amount of property damage the rioting caused. I'm not sure what you think it is missing, but please, expound on this issue.--IvoShandor (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that your efforts. It would be easier for me to just rewrite the introduction, but my edits will be reverted for being "POI" which I suspect means "IP-edits." I will revise and post my revisions here since your'e trying to work with me on this. --69.225.8.92 (talk) 05:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't y'all work on a lead here on the talk page space? Paste it to the article when it's as close to agreement as it can get. --Moni3 (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's what we agreed to try. It's a good idea to work off article space some times rather than being bold, particularly when you're an IP. I bet we'll come up with something. --68.127.234.44 (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Not the most significant event"?

[edit]

The article says that "the Rock Springs massacre and the exclusion of Chinese workers were not the most significant events in the history of the Knights of Labor." How can this not be a subjective statement and violation of NPOV? To the dead Chinese, their families, and many of their sympathizers, the Rock Springs massacre probably was the most significant event in the Knights' history. To 19th century Eastern urban laborers and industrialists, of course, the Knights' labor organizing activities in the East would be far more significant. Why should the article arbitrarily side with one group? Pirate Dan (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historians have, the article just compiles what has been written. History is inherently subjective. If you have a source that counters that, by all means, present it.--IvoShandor (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hear hear, Piratedan! Wiki needs to keep in mind that this is a fight to strive for objectivity. One should not have to provide an alternative source to omit a redundant statement. Ph33rspace (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's a goal to be objective but not at the expense of what has been compiled about any event. We cannot arbitrarily substitute our own opinions over what is available in the sources either. Piratedan was not commenting on a redundant statement that I know of, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Nothing I assume.--IvoShandor (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the article about?

[edit]

I suppose it's well-written, but usually you can tell what a featured article is about in the first sentence, at least in the first paragraph. Hopefully someone writes an introduction to this article that says what it's about, for example, the Rock Springs massacre was the murder of Chinese immigrant miners in a racial riot about wage inequity or something. I don't know, it's taking too long to read the article and would require research to figure out what it's about for me to rewrite it. --68.127.233.138 (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first paragraph, I'm not sure how much clearer it could be. That graf pretty much sums it up I think. Are you even reading the same article? ;-)

The Rock Springs massacre (also known as the Rock Springs Riot) occurred on September 2, 1885, in the present-day United States city of Rock Springs, Wyoming, in Sweetwater County. The riot, between Chinese immigrant miners and white immigrant miners, was the result of racial tensions and an ongoing labor dispute over the Union Pacific Coal Department's policy of paying Chinese miners lower wages than white miners. When the rioting ended, at least 28 Chinese miners were dead and 15 were injured. Rioters burned 75 Chinese homes resulting in approximately US$150,000 in property damage.[1][2][3] ($3.55 million in present-day terms[4])

--IvoShandor (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a massacre. Who got massacred by whom should be the first sentence. It's a riot, why they rioted should be up front. Racial tensions between Chinese and whites caused the Chinese to riot because they got lower wages? Then they were killed for rioting for getting lower wages? Really this explains nothing. Describing a riot and a massacre should be pretty simple, somehow conditions existed, a riot was started, during the riot some people got killed. What conditions existed, how the riot got started, who was doing the rioting, and who got killed. So, no whites were killed or injured? Who killed the Chinese miners? It seems as if the whites were rioting because the Chinese got lower wages. That doesn't make sense.

No, it's not clear because you've danced around the facts. I'm not going to guess them. And I'm not going to read any more when you haven't bothered to start the article with the basic facts. And I don't think the whites were rioting and killed Chinese because Chinese got lower wages. No one who actually read this would consider it clear or summed up at all if you don't say who was rioting and who got killed by whom in a massacre, in particular when you lead off with it seems the cause of the rioting was the lower wages, the Chinese would be the ones rioting due to lower raises, yet they're the ones killed in the massacre. By other Chinese? By the whites? By the police?

A massacre involves who got massacred by whom and why. That's how you're clear. This is not clear. --68.127.233.138 (talk) 06:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously the article is too long for his/her little brain to comprehend...love how they think they could rewrite the article even though they couldn't read it closely enough to understand what it's about! Pathetic... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.206.121 (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What your looking for is summarized in the lead and included in the rest of the article, but since you can't be bothered to read it I don't know what to tell you. your understanding of this is minimal, obviously, but your statement that it doesn't make sense that Chinese miners were hated by white miners shows the depth of your lack of knowledge. Please read the article before criticizing it.--IvoShandor (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia. The article is not written for an audience of one, you. It's written for a general audience to learn about the topic. If even you admit that the article is only understandable if you already know everything about the topic, and if even you feel the need to insult people for not understanding the whole topic before reading the article this article should not have been featured. It fails, and is only an article written by and for one person. It did not belong on the main page.
Please read about featured articles, the lead paragraph should be a good summary of the entire article and the reader should be able to read only that and understand the topic.
Since you did not provide such a lead to this article and you admit the article requires that you read the entire thing to understand it you don't seem to have written a featured article. --68.127.233.138 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lower wages caused (in part) white miners to riot because the coal company then preferred to hire the Chinese for the lower wages, this angered the white miners. It's in the article, read it, instead of just bantering senselessly about nothing.--IvoShandor (talk) 07:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not in the lead. And it's the main idea behind the article. This is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia has writing guidelines for both featured and non-featured articles that can help writers make better articles designed to be read by the general audience of an encyclopedia. In other words: informative articles that don't require someone to know all about the topic in order to understand the article. Thanks for the insults. But no thanks for the poor article. --68.127.233.138 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The riot, between Chinese immigrant miners and white immigrant miners, was the result of racial tensions and an ongoing labor dispute over the Union Pacific Coal Department's policy of paying Chinese miners lower wages than white miners. This sentence absolutely sums up the crux of the cause of the riot. The only thing I can think of that its missing is a statement that spells out that this made the coal company hire Chinese over whites, which I thought should be plainly obvious. I don't know what you want, your argument isn't really cogent. But you are criticizing a piece you didn't even read by your own admission. I am not going to respond to you because this is a fine article, and the community agrees on that, thus it was given FA status. I will add a explanatory sentence to the lead but I really think it is overkill, it should be obvious to anyone that workers who accept lower wages will be hired over those that want higher wages. And I wasn't insulting you, your rambling about the fact that the Chinese should riot over lower wages and not the other way around was senseless, in that it is supported by nothing other than your assertion, which began with the phrase I think. I didn't say your were senseless, I said your rambling was. Which it was, it didn't make much sense to me that you would base your criticism of the article, which you said you didn't read, on what you think, on your opinion of why riots should start. I'm sorry if that offended you but I was commenting on the content of your comment, not on you as a person. As I said I will add what I interpret as what you are asking for.--IvoShandor (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You also called me a troll when I commented about your insults on your talk page, and chose to bring the discussion back to the article talk page, and this reinforced my conclusion that you meant it as a personal attack. I'll rewrite the lead in a way I think makes it work better as a stand-alone paragraph, and then you and others can edit it, and discuss the differences. --69.225.12.99 (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's only because you instigated a FAR, outside of the rules of FAR, which made it seem like you had an ax to grind, and struck me as trollish behavior. I have apologized for being brash and perhaps quick to judge your intentions. I had assumed that this was in the past. We probably can't work together if either of us hold grudges. As I said, I am sorry. If that isn't good enough for you, I don't know what to tell you.--IvoShandor (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about start out assuming good faith and avoiding all name calling of other wikipedia editors ever? In all instances, that someone really doesn't understand the article because the introduction is worded strangely making it hard to figure out who is who, an that an editor who expresses concern about the content is concerned about the content. Assuming good faith will take you far. I instigated a FAR, with a clear statement that the purpose was to get other editors working on the article. Have you ever tried to find something on wikipedia when you didn't know where or what it was? First, I'm an IP, so I get crap like the Sandy guy just reverting my edit, with no discussion whatsoever. And, of course, he can just revert, and ignore all of my questions, because I'm an IP and I don't matter. Then you personally attack me, belittle my comments, and call me a troll. Then I get attacked, called a troll, my motives questioned, simply because I'm an IP. I was focused on improving the article, making it readable.
And, then you say to me, "I am not going to respond to you because this is a fine article, and the community agrees on that, thus it was given FA status." Dismissing me completely, and have the nerve, on top of calling me a troll, personally attacking me, and dismissing me, while another editor is reverting and ignoring me, to imply that I'm the one holding a grudge?
It's also easier to see what's going on when you're not name calling. My opinion: calling someone a troll goes nowhere useful faster than a lead weight. --69.225.12.99 (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call the waaaabulance, haha, loser. I dont give a fuck what you do, I hope you are reverted every single time. Piss off, Wikipedia is schmuck ville anyway. I am so done with this fucking place, go cry on someone elses time dipshit.--IvoShandor (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, whoa, IvoShandor. You need a break. Seriously. Take some time off before you get blocked for incivility. 69.225.12.99, let's focus on article content. Let's get away from what people think others' motivations are. Give some suggestions for what you think the article should look like. Back it up with sources. If you continue to complain about nebulous concepts without offering constructive suggestions, what else are others to think than you are here to complain without a point? Both of you need to be constructive. --Moni3 (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– capitalization of proper names per WP:NCCAPS and its included reference proper noun and Talk:Chicago Race Riot of 1919#Requested move 23 October 2014 Hmains (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"well-established" - only by inertia. I remember when the Rock Springs Massacre article was de-capped and it didn't sit well with many; the response from the de-capper was invoking MOS, without any reference to what sources use. I just did a quick scan of Canadian titles of a similar bent - the Anti-Oriental Riots of 1907, the Winnipeg General Strike, the Riel Rebellions, the On-To-Ottawa Trek....the Regina Riots title is a redirect to a section on the On-To-Ottawa page, as "Regina Riot" though most histories use the plural form....the Komagata Maru incident title is lower-cased but most sources using that phrase use capital-I on the "incident" part...... and re lower-casing, it's maniacally obsessive in my experience, e.g. "Fraser river" and the like. Like it's been applied by a robot without considering the proper usage.Skookum1 (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For "especially when the current titles are well established," please read "especially in cases in which the current titles are well established." I'm not stating an opinion here, just advising that moves like these (which were listed as originally listed as "uncontroversial requests") are unlikely to be uncontroversial. Dekimasuよ! 20:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Ngrams is not at all favourable to this request. We can largely discount the cases where "the" is capped, because most of those would be titles with title case. And please remember WP's overriding rule: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization." Tony (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Later: Ngram for "Coushatta massacre". BTW, adding "the" yields no data. But by parity of reasoning with the argument concerning the primary article, this too stongly disfavours upper case. Given that many instances with "the ... Massacre" will also appear in titles that use title case, by further parity of reasoning the available ngram results do yet more to discredit this request. Strong evidence here—"golden+dragon+massacre"+-wikipedia&oq="golden+dragon+massacre"+-wikipedia in a raw google search—for one that has too few hits to turn up on ngrams. Of the the hits that reveal the phrase at all, 24 or so favour lower case, and only 16 favour upper case. "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization." Tony (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I really don't know where you got "24 or so favour lower case" as in the preview listings of the 50 results on GoogleBooks I got show 16 with the caps, 16 without, and a bunch with no highlighted quote where the content must be in the linked item; do you mean you've read them all? In any case, I think that quantitative counts of source-usages is mechanistic thinking, and note that in TITLE somewhere it says plainly that a usage need only be widespread to be valid and that the majority of sources can be set aside for various reasons. Of the 18 unaccounted for, which are the other eight that use the lower-case as you appear to be claiming? And what do the other ten use? I'd say this is a draw, not any kind of conclusive proof against the all-caps title.Skookum1 (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and request Hmains stop his campaign of treating all descriptive titles of particular events as proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that the editors who want to lower case everything do not discuss the relevant MOS WP:NCCAPS and its incorporated article proper noun. Instead, they just want to do things the way they want to do them, even getting so excited about this subject that they are unable to contain themselves for the duration of this discussion and are going about reverting upper case names right now. This emotional reaction does not create a rational discussion. So how about confirming that the guidance we are to follow is not personal opinion, but is WP:NCCAPS and its incorporated article proper noun and then review its content. If quotes from these articles are to be used, then the location and context of the quotes need to be noted and not just inserted here as quotes from who knows where. Hmains (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not the first time that players move pieces during a discussion to "make their case" that it's the "norm".Skookum1 (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NCCAPS is pretty much accepted by all. The problem is editors who want to declare descriptive titles to be proper names; MOS:CAPS advises against this, and suggests looking to sources to help decide what names are considered to be proper. Dicklyon (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's plenty of sources that do use caps on this title, I haven't looked at the others yet, so it's not like "editors...want to declare descriptive titles to be proper names" - many historians and other writer and newspapers regularly do as per my comments about Tony's alleged google above. The ironclad "the world must obey Wikipedia guidelines" impilcit in your comment is hokum, as is the insinuation that those who title articles that way are not following sources, which it can be seen by that same google that they are.Skookum1 (talk) 06:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The Tony1/Noetica evidence (see #Discussion, below) cinches it, but as I already said when controverting attempts to move these and many other similar articles to upper case via WP:RM's "non-controversial technical" moves process, articles like this cannot reasonably be mass moved, ever, because in each individual case, it's a matter of a detailed WP:COMMONNAME analysis. I disagree with Noetica's view that we couldn't use near-universal capitalization in external reliable sources as an indicator of proper name status (we actually do so routinely – it's why World War II is at that article name, not World war II), but a) that's only applicable when looking at general-audience sources not specialist sources which habitually overcapitalize (see the essay WP:Specialist style fallacy for an explanation of the severe logic problems in failing to distinguish between these two kinds of sources when it comes to style matters); and b) the case for Golden Dragon Massacre still fails that test. So does over-capitalizing Rock Springs massacre [7].

    The cases of Wah Mee massacre, Rufus River massacre and Coushatta massacre would need more research, but I'd bet good money they're not conventionally capitalized. A case can be possibly made for capitalizing Ponce Massacre [8], but the ngram shows a huge spike in favor of capitalization in a very narrow time period, and the low number of sources involved almost certainly means that a single book was the source of the capitalization, and that most capitalization since then is due to direct quotations or citations to that source. The kind of detailed analysis done for Golden Dragon massacre would have to be done for Ponce massacre, and the proponent hasn't done that. There's no evidence the capitalized form is the common name for WP purposes.

    (PS: Quite a number of similar moves were performed by this nominator using RM's "non-controversial technical moves" process, despite myself and I think some others contesting them (I'm not sure why; there's been some discussion at WT:RM about whether process was followed properly, and I submit that it was not). These need to be discussed on the merits individually in normal RMs, if not outright reverted to status quo ante as moves made without consensus. Same goes for nom's recent mass-moves of river articles from "Name River" format to "Name (river)", most if not all of which appear to violate WP:NATURAL policy. In cases where the river's name is not of the form "Name River" in English, the format "Name river" is more likely to be preferred, except in cases where the "Name" part already includes a word for "river", e.g. Spanish rio.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: I agree that the arguments advanced by Tony in the discussion below pretty much convinces me that the grounds for capitalisation are not founded. They are merely descriptive and not proper names at all. -- Ohc ¡digame! 11:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Pulled from proper noun: "It is often indeterminate both whether an item qualifies as a proper name and whether it should be capitalized." It's very clear that these are not proper names and thus, per WP:TITLEFORMAT are not, by rule, exclusively capitalized. It thus essentially comes down to usage and whether the common use employs sources capitalized "massacre" or not. I have thus far seen no indication made that the common usage is capitalized.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Comment I just ran a googlebook scan for Wah Mee massacre and 8 of the first ten items in the results use "Wah Mee Massacre", on the next few pages it's 50-50 or so, I didn't look at all 157 results.Skookum1 (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • A googlebooks search for "Rock Springs m/Massacre" gives eight out of ten on the first page of results are capital-M, with only one preview showing lower-case 'm', the others with no previews.Skookum1 (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Be aware that Google Books uses case and title status in its rankings, pushing capitalized uses toward the first page or two of hits; look at second and third pages for a more balanced view of usage, and you'll typically see an overwhelming majority are not capitalized. In the case of the "Rock Creek" (not Springs) massacre, the caps are mostly from the book title by Jones, not uses in text. Besides, the one you searched for is not a subject of the present RM, and is a mythical, not historical, event, so more likely to be given a proper name. Search for Rook Springs as you should have and you find many more lower case, though you do still find a lot of hits to work titles with caps, and some other caps usage; no evidence of proper name status in books as a whole. Dicklyon (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rejoinder. First of all, talking of Skookum hokum, your googlebook scan is for the Cambodian (Khmer) WP. Second, it's not even for English-language texts. Please be careful in gathering stats.

Here is the exact URL for Googlebooks search results. The search line reads precisely as follows (recall that Google searches are insensitive to case):

"golden dragon massacre" -wikipedia
I asked Noetica for an opinion, since he has considerable experience in independent analysis of such matters. I received this response not long ago, in relation to what he says is a representative example, "golden dragon massacre":

____________________

There were 57 hits, which is a reliable report of the Google holdings because it is low (not affected by Google’s controversial “1,000 limit”). The actual texts of all hits are shown in the appendix [Tony1: available as a Word file on request, since it's a long and detailed list of the 57]. Of the actual shown texts in hits, shown on the results screen, for the phrase "golden dragon massacre":

  • 21 have massacre
  • 15 have Massacre
  • 0 have both
  • 36 is the raw total of hit reports (on the results screen itself) that show one form or the other.
Of the 15 that show Massacre, two have it plainly in a title that uses title case (hit 1, "Golden Dragon Massacre: Pain Still Felt a Decade Later") or as a qualifier in an expression that is itself treated with capitals independently (hit 35, items in a list "Gold Star Recording Studio Location ... Golden Dragon Massacre Site"). In other hits the usage may in fact be title-like; but setting that consideration aside, the conservatively adjusted count from a reduced total of 34 is that:
  • 21 hit texts out of 34 (61.8%) support lower case in the phrase
  • 13 hit texts out of 34 (38.2%) support upper case in the phrase
Conclusion

Just for the sake of argument, let's temporarily assume:

  • That nearly universal capitalising in printed sources is a useful way to determine Wikipedia’s best choice (it is not).
  • That WP’s guidelines genuinely do call for deciding from sources what is a “proper name” (they don't; indeed they can't, because capitalising is not a good guide to status as a proper name, even in the thinking of our so-called reliable sources).
Accepting those errant notions, the evidence still opposes the styling "Golden Dragon Massacre". The evidence runs 62% to 38% against that choice. I don't understand how anyone aware of this evidence can still support “Golden Dragon Massacre”. The beginning of the lead at MOSCAPS is itself sound and widely accepted: “Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization.” How can capitalisation chosen by only 38% of print sources even begin to count as necessary?

____________________

Tony (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply I used your search string on that search; "Skookum hokum" is rank NPA as is Dicklyon's slag of Hmains; but nastiness from MOS types I've had experience with before re WP:MOSHYPHEN and WP:MOSHYPHEN, which was misapplied to Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District and endless MOSDASH manipulations/misinterpretions/claims were used to try and block reversion to the proper title; MOS is not Holy Writ but its advocates pretend like it is, including in their resistance to changing it (little club="consensus"). In this case 38% is not insignificant, and if the capital-M is used in chapter titles, that says something write there about what could/should apply on Wikipedia article titles. But no, MOS is sacred and mechanistic "thinking" will always prevail,and those touting it engage in personal slurs like those against me and Hmains here.Skookum1 (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re the GoogleKhmer search, that can't be helped; I'm in Cambodia and I can't get to "google.com"; as far as I know it's English-language results that are being generated...I certainly don't see any results in Khmer.Skookum1 (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Skookum: I couldn't resist the "Skookum hokum", and half-assumed you'd used "hokum" on purpose to ring with your username, which would have been quite clever. Concerning you, personally—no negativity. Concerning your visit to Cambodia: will you visit Angkor? I've never been, but a friend of mine is part of an archeological project there—on the water pipe system for irrigation (back so many centuries ago), and more recently using radar imaging to uncover underground structures. Sounds fabulous. Tony (talk) 09:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not that clever, nor have been "Snookums" and others used around Wikipedia...and '-okum' and 'hokum' don't rhyme. I was at Angkor last year and have lots of pics....but as far as somewhere to visit, unless you're willing to hike, and camp out, in the jungle away from the main ruins, it's not much; too many tourists ruining the views and overrun at the exit with masses of tourist-trap stalls like any major world attraction.....and Siem Reap is a hole...I'm on a beach near Sihanoukville......what I saw of inland Cambodia on the trip from Siem Reap to Phnom Penh to here was not appealing (flat and dusty with bad roads); the coast between here and the Thai border though is quite beautiful and, so far, mostly unspoiled and relatively wild. Around here, Koh Rong is about to get an int'l airport and will go the way of Samui and Phuket, though four years ago there was only one bungalow operation there.....Skookum1 (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rock Springs massacre. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 17:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Rock Springs massacre. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 11:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rock Springs massacre. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 05:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Wow!"

[edit]

This is a really well written, gripping piece. Only gripe is that the header makes it look like the Chinese were rioting over the civil rights issue of equal pay. Just looking over the account of the "riot" makes it look more like a good old fashioned pogrom / extermination campaign of whites protective of their jobs and mad at strikebreakers (black Americans were also used in this fashion, much to the displeasure of mostly white workers) Great that it was featured, I would never have noticed it. A lot of Asian American topics are very sparse, but this looks good. I have to check to see if there is a general article on anti-Chinese or anti-Asian violence as this was hardly the only similar incident of the period. Bachcell (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's a pogrom. Thanks for the clue. Yes, nice to see an article about Asian-American issues as a featured article, if only the article were clearer about what it's about. --68.127.233.138 (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The riot, between Chinese immigrant miners and white immigrant miners," - this sentence is a blatant mischaracterization of what occurred. The Chinese didn't riot, they were massacred. None of the many accounts that I've read suggest that the Chinese miners made even a perfunctory effort to defend themselves, let alone that they took any offensive action. What they did, if they had the barest chance to do so, was flee for their lives. Although I don't see any reference to it here, I have read elsewhere that a single Caucasian was killed. I have rephrased the sentence. Irish Melkite (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rock_Springs_massacre/Archive_2&oldid=1221719149"