Talk:Scranton general strike/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Court documentation

If it helps at all, Court docs related to the libel lawsuit are located here. It looks like maybe a previous case was challenged based on something inappropriate in the closing remarks? May make actual sense to someone more familiar. TimothyJosephWood 15:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The cite in the section just above covers the suit fairly well, and, indeed, covers the incident pretty well. Powderly's autobio mentions the widespread belief that the forged W. Scranton letter that set off the rioting was seen as a deliberate management ploy by many in labor at the time. Anmccaff (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that cited in the article. TimothyJosephWood 17:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Reasonably complete NPOV description of the rioting and aftermath.

Jubilee history commemorative of the fiftieth anniversary of the creation of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania Head down to part 23, pages 387 onward.

Paints a very, very different picture, doesn't it? Anmccaff (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Per page 387, I see two deaths, but the article right now has claims of three and six. Maybe a good place to put in a range (e.g., between two and six deaths)? TimothyJosephWood 17:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The deaths mentioned on page 387 occurred 6 years before the subject of this article. Take a look, that is referring to 1871. Anmccaff (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

(Derp. Posted in wrong section.) (Also derp, didnt notice the year for that paragarph.) TimothyJosephWood 17:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

in wrong section I was about to ask; that didn't look particularly "biting.". Anmccaff (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

year of the paragraph It's worth reading the whole damn thing, though, because it gives a broader sense of the subject. Anmccaff (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Markers as reliable sources

Shooting: yes the text of a marker prepared by a historical society is a RS whether on paper or on a plaque)

I have to disagree, except in the narrowest sense: a physical marker is a reliable source that there is a physical marker. Aside from the real issue of spoof, artistic, humorous, and fraudulent markers, historical societies and similar groups have varying degrees of accuracy, especially over time, and, in the case of governmental bodies, are often influenced by politics as well as scholarship. The mere fact of a marker, even an authenticated one, says little about the factual accuracy of its claims.

Next, markers seldom have footnotes. There's plenty of good, honest scholarship that's based on sources since proven wrong, and some of that winds up cast in metal. Without an idea of the source, it's impossible to verify its accuracy.

Finally, historical plaques often stovepipe back to single sources. Use of both can lead to an inaccurate impression of wider consensus.

If you wish to argue that Pennsylvania's markers meet a high standard, or did during this plaque's period, go ahead, but looking directly at the paper behind it would be much more reliable -in the ordinary, not wikipedian, sense. Anmccaff (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

when a serious historical society makes an official public statement about an event it has studied professionally, that is a reliable secondary source. Putting the statement on a website or on a marker or in a book does not lessen the validity. If it's going to be so public, I suspect the director paid much more attention to the wording. Perhaps Anmccaff will point out the errors he sees in that marker and provide his alternative reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Not every historical marker is a product of a serious historical society; not every historical society keeps all of its standards appropriately high through its entire history. Unlike the background research that justifies and explains it, the marker itself is neither directly verifiable or falsifiable. Perhaps Prof. Jensen will answer that point rather than dance around it. Anmccaff (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Here again is the link to the application for the PHMC marker, which is quite rigorous and requires sources: http://www.phmc.pa.gov/Preservation/About/Documents/Historical-Marker-Nomination-Form-2015.pdf. Also, the PHMC itself has a volume, "Keystone of Democracy," in which the events in Scranton are discussed by Prof. Perry Blatz of Duquesne University. Verita.miner (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding alternative reliable sources, perhaps Professor Jensen will read the discussion above, and at the articles this one sprung out of. I have mentioned Powderly, Hitchcock, Murphy, and indirectly though him, Barrett. I have read, in the distant past, Bruce, and have now read the parallel section of Bellsiles'..."homage to Bruce", might be the politest description of it. I've read Aurend and Crew, and seen how Aurend appears to draw exclusively on Logan, who contradicts his numbering of the dead, and how Bellesiles sources his assertion largely to many pages of a prolix public document, which I am not yet through reading. (It's never a good sign when a simple factual statement is sourced to a hundred or so pages.)

Specific objections? A riot occurred here on August 1, 1877, in which armed citizens fired upon strikers, killing four. Many were injured, including Scranton's mayor. Does this suggest to you that the "armed" citizens were special police, who fired only after the mayor had been assaulted and battered? That seems to be the gist of every detailed description; do you know of any exception to that? And the inactive-voice weasel-wording "a riot occurred," like it was an outbreak of bad weather? Pfaughhh. Anmccaff (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Anmccaff seems to have missed the recent book that deals in large part with the strike in Scranton: Azzarelli, Margo L.; Marnie Azzarelli (2016). Labor Unrest in Scranton. Arcadia Publishing.. Rjensen (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Professor Jensen appears to have missed the fact that Arcadia publishes local histories with remarkably little further review or oversight; some are excellent, some are horrible...but the pictures are always pretty nice. I've seen references to it, but haven't read it. Unlike at least one "editor" here, I'm rather uncomfortable citing work I haven't read. Have you, and how would you rate it? Anmccaff (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated note, the marker itself probably deserves mention in its own right in the aftermath section. I don't know if anyone here lives in or near Scranton, but if someone could take an independent pic and upload it to wikimedia commons, it would be helpful. TimothyJosephWood 11:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

yes it was called a general strike

Yes scholars do refer to Scranton 1877 as a general strike in the city: see 1) Nella Van Dyke, Holly J. McCammon. Strategic Alliances: Coalition Building and Social Movements. U of Minnesota Press. p. 31. and 2) David Luhrssen (2015). Secret Societies and Clubs in American History. ABC-CLIO. p. 86. Rjensen (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

That was remarkably fast, and suggests search-engine dredging on the fly. It also ignores the point raised, that the sources actually gathered so far here don't support it. Verita.miner titled the article with a term used by -none- of the secondary scholarship she mentioned. That isn't a good sign. Anmccaff (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Reading the cited section, Van Dyke and McCammon do -not- call this particular incident a "general strike," but merely state that "...the former [i.e., Scranton] saw more general strike action than did Cleveland." Luhrssen does refer to "a general strike that paralyzed Scranton." As mentioned above, the strike was no longer general when the shooting began. Perhaps we could call it "The Strike Formerly Known as General." Anmccaff (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

There was some discussion of this Anmccaff talk page a week ago after Anmccaff unilaterally removed the original title while discussion was still going. RexxS there listed three more sources using "general strike".

   "A GENERAL STRIKE AT SCRANTON ..." - NY Times July 25, 1877
   "OLD SCRANTON, as shown in an engraving from about 1875 ... Three years later it had its first general strike" - LIFE magazine 29 Apr 1957
   "Here a general strike in 1877 has halted operations on the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad in Scranton" - Scranton Railroads 2009 ISBN 0738565180

Verita.miner (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

you mean where we see Scranton General Strike . May be a good time to take this to WP:AfD given the author's opinion that it be merged. TimothyJosephWood 00:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

That hardly seems "unilateral." Anmccaff (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

(Comment moved due to editing conflict) Per the following, I think we can put the question of whether this was a general strike to rest for the time being:

• Crosby, David (2009) Scranton Railroads. Arcadia Publishing.

"Here a general strike in 1877 has halted operations on the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad in Scranton" (p. 30)

• "A General Strike At Scranton". The New York Times. July 25, 1877.
• Nella Van Dyke, Holly J. McCammon. Strategic Alliances: Coalition Building and Social Movements. U of Minnesota Press. p. 31.

"...the former [i.e., Scranton] saw more general strike action than did Cleveland." (note: they call it a general strike. Whether they use it as a proper noun or not is irrelevant.)

• David Luhrssen (2015). Secret Societies and Clubs in American History. ABC-CLIO. p. 86.

"In the first labor action during his tenure as a Knight, A general strike that paralyzed Scranton and ended in gunfire and death (1877)..."

So here are four sources all stating it was a general strike. Additionally, it is perfectly acceptable to include the shooting and other related events in an aftermath section, as they occurred as a direct result of the strike. The shootings themselves are unlikely to meet WP:NOTE on their own, but fall perfectly within the bounds of WP:DUEWEIGHT for inclusion in the article.

An argument re "The Strike Formerly Known as General", is pedantic at best, and not productive regardless. TimothyJosephWood 14:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I have added the above sources to the lead, and this should be enough to settle the matter for the time being, unless sources are found which argue against the idea of the strike being general (not simply sources which fail to call the strike general. Omission does not equal opposition). TimothyJosephWood 14:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree it was a general strike-- a) cites given; b) meets the definition; c) it was called locally not as a response to a national call. Rjensen (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If there are no objections, and apropos earlier discussion, could we change the entry title to "Scranton General Strike of 1877," as there are also references to at least one other? Verita.miner (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course there are fundamental objections. Very few cites name the confrontation this, as opposed to very occasional descriptives. More importantly, the railroad workers, and others, had left the strike before the most significant topic of the article, the Lackawanna Avenue Riot. The strike had gone -very- particular at that point.Anmccaff (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the strikes didn't actually stop until many weeks after the shooting. So I don't really see what the problem is. TimothyJosephWood 18:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Every source that lists particulars here details that the railroaders had decided to return to work, and that the riot began partly, at least as a march on other sites which had resumed operation. The article centers on something that happened after an agreement had been reached, and most aspects of the strike appeared to be winding down, according to most of the cites on hand. Anmccaff (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

According to whom? As it currently stands, no agreement was reached at all, and the workers didn't return to work until almost November. TimothyJosephWood 19:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Moreover there is no dispute in any of the sources that the shooting was an outcome of the general strike. It was not a discrete and unrelated event. Verita.miner (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

In any case I thought that the "General Strike" question was laid to rest. I was only proposing we add "of 1877" to it for clarity.Verita.miner (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)