Talk:Scranton general strike/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Number of deaths (Ok...what about four to six?)

Which sources specifically say four deaths? Right now only two sources are cited as saying six. The lead probably shouldn't include four deaths if there is nothing in the body that supports that. TimothyJosephWood 19:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe. Who are they?

I dunno if you follow the List of worker deaths in United States labor disputes page at all, but there have been several examples of "stacking" deaths there. I'm really only comfortable with sources that get down to names, unless there are good reasons otherwise. (To give some examples, when labor violence ties in with racial prejudice, temporary itinerant workers, bombings or fires where the number of dead was unknown, etc.) Anmccaff (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

As a general rule, it's probably a good idea to have sources when you tag something as dubious and state that "better sources" disagree. Otherwise that's starting to get a bit into disruptive and certainly unhelpful territory. The two sources over at the list don't include names and seem to say three and four. So that's what we've got for now.

It'd be great to have names, but we don't. If we did it may be a good idea to favor the source with names. But right now as far as I can tell, we have four sources saying three things, none with names, and I'm not seeing a good argument to exclude the two sources that say six, when they are the only sources that seem to have found some agreement. TimothyJosephWood 20:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Ahh, but we do, you know:

In the height of the excitement a volley rang out. The guard had swung into action. Two more volleys followed in quick succession. Who gave the order to fire is not known. Hitchcock said he heard no such order but adds "I realized that self preservation demanded it." The mob scattered. Everyone rushed for safety from the death spitting guns of the guard. Within a minute after the first volley the crossing was cleared, cleared of all but the dead and dying and the guardsmen. Three had been killed. They were Charles Dunleavy and Patrick Langan, of Minooka, and Patrick Lane, of Bellevue. A score were injured, some of whom it was unofficially reported, later died. Scranton never before or since had such stark tragedy. Jubilee history commemorative of the fiftieth anniversary of the creation of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, as mentioned above. Section 23, page 390.

I don't have Bellesiles handy, what exactly does it say, and where does it source to? We have good reason to be suspicious of Bellesliles sourcing, don't we?? Aurend sources to Logan, IMS; why not cut out the middleman? The Hyde Park History says 4 killed or fatally wounded. So does Logan, IMS. Anmccaff (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm still not totally on board. We may need to get a second opinion. I do like that the source has names. But it does report that there were reports others died from sustained injuries, which may be the origin of the disagreement in the cited numbers.

One way or another, at this point we have two sources saying three, one saying four, and two saying six. I'm not 100% comfortable with disregarding three of the five sources. Maybe there is some related Manual of Style indicating that sources with names should be generally preferred to unnamed statistics, but I'm not aware of it. So it doesn't look like this standard is based on policy or guidelines.

There may be a way to more expansively discuss the disagreement among sources in the article itself and avoid the problem of having to settle on any one number at all. TimothyJosephWood 21:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The threes and fours aren't in disagreement, actually: three dead, one mortally wounded. Then look at the total killed in -both strikes-, '71 and '77. That would be two and four, and you've seen how easy it is to conflate them in some sources. Like I said before, who has actually seen Bellesiles lately, and what does he say, exactly? Or is this another case of people quoting someone based on Google-snippets? Anmccaff (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Bellesiles says "shot and killed six miners" (google book version doesn't include page numbers). TimothyJosephWood 21:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

No sourcing? Anmccaff (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

PS: found the sourcing. Logan...which is to say, Bellesiles is being Bellesiles. This is not a good source. Anmccaff (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

PS:" History of Scranton, Penn: With Full Outline of the Natural Advantages, Accounts of the Indian Tribes, Early Settlements, Connecticut's Claim to the Wyoming Valley, the Trenton Decree, Down to the Present Time" Craft, David H. W. Crew, 1891 - Scranton (Pa.) -584pp on page 232 we see all four names. Anmccaff (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(I'm getting really tired of having to fix everyone's formatting here.) Nothing else has a source. At any rate if one of the surrounding citations in Bellesiles covers the number, neither of us can tell because the citations aren't included on the google book.

Found the sourcing where? TimothyJosephWood 21:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, the two sections of mine you added indents to were contemporaneous with the outdent. That's the problem with wiki's software, not with me -or you. Searching the Bellesiles book for "scranton" brought up the cites: Logan, and a couple of others: the Pennsylvania legislative investigation, and some from the local newspaper, the Republican. So far, none of it has panned out. Let me know if you have any luck. Anmccaff (talk)

Sorry Timothyjosephwood for struggles learning proper formatting here. It seems to me we should stay on topic. There is agreement that a major strike took place in Scranton in 1877, that involved different industries, that a big event of that strike was a shooting in which 4-6 workers were killed. It seems to me that's a good start. There are a number of sources. These can be expanded. It's now a good mix of secondary and primary. I believe a few more can be added... One of Anmccaff original complaints was that there was no place for such an entry. But it seems to me we've moved beyond that, or that Anmccaff is not arguing along those lines... Another was that the article was biased. That has devolved into a discussion of sources. But I think if you look at the entry, the language covers for possible divergences in interpretation... A third, also from Anmcaff, was that this was original scholarship. It is all based on secondary material and only readily available primary sources... Just trying to make this a useful discussion again. Thank you for your patience and work on this. Verita.miner (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Just for reference, this is pretty much the ideal for talk page discussion as far as I'm concerned, and the farther it get's away from it, the less productive it tends to be. Getting used to formatting is a process. No one is good at it automatically.

I went through the Pen Legislature source some and didn't find anything useful. It's a primary source besides, and more so, whatever is in there is going to be an eyewitness testimony, so there's a few layers of unreliability. Right now I'm leaning toward four honestly. I'm not sure why Logan is apparently seen as unreliable, but if all the six sources trace back to one original, then multiple agreeing independent sources probably wins, maybe with a note explaining that there are other sources out there which differ, for those immensely interested, and maybe to restart this discussion at a later date if more material comes to light.

I'm not saying the article doesn't need work. All of Wikipedia is a work in progress. TimothyJosephWood 23:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Some articles are equaller than others. Anmccaff (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Logan's perfectly reliable,a very good source, but he contradicts Bellesiles's and Aurend's view, and he appears to contradict MB on facts. Yeah, the hearings are a bit like the sourcing for Ordinary Men; everything has to be taken with a huge grain of salt. Anmccaff (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Logan would be counted by scholars as a primary source, and not a secondary, as he was a participant. Also as a participant, and one moreover involved in the shooting, he has a certain position to defend. This does not disqualify his testimony, but it should be put in the balance, and we are obliged to consider secondary sources on the events. My opinion is that Anmccaff is dismissing too many other sources--NYTimes, Foner, Bellesiles, Aurend, Schroeder, etc.--because they seem to contradict his/her preferred version of events. The latter two, in their footnotes, do reference other primary sources, not just Logan. And of course, Logan was not a scholar and did not claim to be one. I still think however it is possible to have an entry that acknowledges ambiguity in sources. This is normal in historical writing. Verita.miner (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Now, now, no need for the defensive projection; your niche is safe here, no one else wants it.Anmccaff (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Bellesiles lists three sources, all of which I've mentioned, and none of which appear to support his contention. Quite aside from his very real reputaion for mendacity and sloppy scholarship, this cite isn't particularly useful because it doesnt pin down a source, but is mere handwaving at a large primary document.

"Dismissing the NYT?" That would be a lie, Inveritata. I pointed out that the times articles were being cherry-picked for a desired cite, rather than being read, digested, and worked with. Anmccaff (talk)

Like many local historians and memoirists, Logan shifts modes constantly, and that makes him tricky as a source...but not for checkable particulars, like names, indictments, and so forth.

Here we go again with accusation of lying and now projection(?). My point on NYTimes was that you rejected its use of the term "general strike." That's all. As for projection, I am not interested in a niche. Are you able to proceed with out smears and accusations? Please note I am steadfastly avoiding such methods. I don't quite understand why you must. Let's just try to stay on the question of content. Verita.miner (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Just a tip, since the topic of formatting has come up. It's probably a good idea to get out of the habit of replying in the middle of other's comments. If nothing else, it separates their signature from the remainder, and makes it look like someone either failed to sign, or that all the text from your comment above is actually being said by you, with a random indention mixup. You don't always have to reply at the bottom of a thread, but you should always start your reply after the signature of the comment you are replying to. This is probably part of the reason that the conversation at the top of the page is very difficult to make sense of in places. Keep in mind that per WP:TPO, editing others comments is only permitted in specific circumstances, and never when done in a way that may change the meaning. TimothyJosephWood 00:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

And judging from the number of times I had to fix typos in that last comment, I think it's time for bed. TimothyJosephWood 00:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 1

What about something similar to this. I don't remember exactly which source said a dozen injured. So that needs to be added, or taken away and replaced with something like "up to 50". Still is probably more accurate to say between 12 and 50, unless we don't have a consensus on that. The note section would appear at the bottom of the article directly prior to the references section. TimothyJosephWood 13:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Three men from the crowd were shot and killed. One was severely wounded and died a few days later, for a total of four deaths.

^{Note 1} Between a dozen and 50 were wounded.

Notes

1. ^ Some sources put the death toll at six, but these in-turn appear to all be based on an eyewitness account of a man involved in the shooting.

References

References

It may be better to go into more detail as to who Logan is (e.g., an eyewitness involved in the shooting, Logan LASTNAME, who was a RANK, in the UNIT at the time).

The overall idea here though is that if there is disagreement in the sources, we should include that disagreement as unobtrusively as possible, rather than make a command (potentially WP:OR) decision on which sources we want to go with and which we want to throw away. Just explain the situation and let the reader decide. TimothyJosephWood 13:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Logan is a last name, and he was a fairly prominent local chronicler. No, every single decision about sourcing should involve weighing the source, not just this one. The presence of two of the 20th century's most prominent academic frauds says a good deal about the sourcing so far. Anmccaff (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable solution to me. Verita.miner (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

No, on several levels. Where is the cite for 6 sourced to? The answer is, "we don't know," because Bellesiles's alleged references are a mere handwave at a hundred pages or so of text. Anmccaff (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Next, you seem to be attributing the "six" figure to Logan, who appears, strongly, to prefer "three," even breaking them down, like Powderly, between a leader of the mob, on the one hand, and two members of the crowd, on the other. That is, Logan...and the indictment, from the look of it, made the distinction between someone who was leading a riot, and someone just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Anmccaff (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, where is there a decent backed source for 50 seriously injured? There are as many as you'd want for 20; where's the final source for this doubling? Anmccaff (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Section for sourcing

I'm starting this section because I'm tired of reading something and then not remembering where I read it, and because this is generally getting confusing. Feel free to add additional quotes and page numbers (please also page numbers) so we can hopefully better keep track of who said what where. No need to sign, it'll just end up cluttering things up. Just add to the list as you can. Please carry on discussion in the above section and leave this portion as only a list of what sources said what where. Much thanks. TimothyJosephWood 17:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Hyde Park History". Retrieved 2015-09-11. - 4 killed 16 wounded

"Four had been killed or fatally wounded, and it is estimated that no less than a score of persons, including those killed, were injured." (NO PAGE NUMBER)

• Logan, Samuel Crothers (1887). A City's Danger and Defense. Or, Issues and Results of the Strikes of 1877, Containing the Origin and History of the Scranton City Guard. Philadelphia: J.B. Rogers Print. four killed, unknown wounded

"Three men lay either dead, or evidently dying and one supposed to be mortally wounded, while the blood-stains, traceable in three directions, gave signs of the greater number that were more or less wounded. The number of wounded has never been learned, as both friends and physicians carefully concealed the facts." (p. 99)

• History of Scranton, Penn: With Full Outline of the Natural Advantages, Accounts of the Indian Tribes, Early Settlements, Connecticut's Claim to the Wyoming Valley, the Trenton Decree, Down to the Present Time" Craft, David H. W. Crew, 1891 - Scranton (Pa.) -584pp four killed

"The names of the four who were killed were Charles Dunlevy, a young man about twenty-two year old; Steven Phillips, a married man living at the Chutes; Patrick Langan of Davis's Patch and Patrick Lane, of Bellevue." (p. 232)

• Powderly, Terrence V. Thirty Years of Labor. 1859-1889 pp 213-219 three killed

"They killed two innocent men, and one who was engaged in leading the men on to destruction." p. 218

• Aurend, Harold (1991). "Early Mine Workers' Organizations In The Anthracite Region". Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies, Vol. 58, No. 4. six killed, 54 wounded

"In July, 1877, employees of the Delaware, Lackawana, and Western mines near Scranton struck for higher wages. They followed the traditional method of marching to spread the strike. They encountered a special police force commanded by W.W. Scranton on one of these marches. The police fired into the crowd killing six and wounding 54." (p. 304. Foonote takes us to two Scranton newspaper articles plus Logan.)

• Schroeder, Steven Patrick (2006). The Elementary School of the Army: the Pennsylvania National Guard, 1877-1917. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh. pp. 56–57. "many" killed/wounded

"In Scranton, a vigilante group was formed and led into action by William Scranton, superintendent of the Lackawanna Iron and Coal Company.156 The violence intensified and many workers were killed and wounded in pitched battles with the vigilantes. The vigilante group held its own against the rioters until National Guard troops arrived and pacified the city. 157". footnotes: 156 Blatz, “Titanic Struggles,” 96.

• Keystone of Democracy: A History of Pennsylvania Workers Howard Harris, editor ; Perry K. Blatz, associate editor ; 96 Six killed, >50 wounded

“killing six and wounding more than fifty.” Harrisburg : Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 1999.

• Bruce, Robert V. 1877: year of violence. [1st ed.] Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill [1959] three dead, "many" wounded

“When it ceased, three of the mob lay dead or dying on the street. The number of wounded was never settled, but there were many.” page 298.

Discussion section

Aurend puts it at 6 dead and 54 wounded. He bases himself not just on Logan, but on several newspaper articles. It is a well-researched journal article. The page in reference is 305. Footnote on page 310. Harold W. Aurand Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies, Vol. 58, No. 4, Papers from the Eckley Conference. Anthracite Mining Unionism and the UMW (October 1991), pp. 298-310Verita.miner (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Schroeder puts it at "many" dead. Schroeder, Steven Patrick (2006). The Elementary School of the Pennsylvania National Guard, 1877-1917. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh. pp. 65. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verita.miner (talk • contribs) 18:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I broke this off into a new discussion section to try to keep all the sources in their own little box. Can you provide the exact quote (at least the relevant sentence would be super) from these and the quote page number it comes from? We can add to the above list. There is a function in Template:Cite also where we can add the quotes to each citation in the article once we get to that point. TimothyJosephWood 18:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, too. I'll get the hand of this. Here is the quote from the Schroeder dissertation, p. 56. "In Scranton, a vigilante group was formed and led into action by William Scranton, superintendent of the Lackawanna Iron and Coal Company.156 The violence intensified and many workers were killed and wounded in pitched battles with the vigilantes. The vigilante group held its own against the rioters until National Guard troops arrived and pacified the city.157". footnotes: 156 Blatz, “Titanic Struggles,” 96.

157 Samuel C. Logan, A City’s Danger and Defense, (Scranton, PA: James Rodgers Co., 1887). The Citizens’ Corps would eventually evolve into a Pennsylvania National Guard Regiment, the Thirteenth Regiment. Logan thoroughly covers its exploits throughout his massive work.Verita.miner (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is from Aurend: "In July, 1877, employees of the Delaware, Lackawana, and Western mines near Scranton struck for higher wages. They followed the traditional method of marching to spread the strike. They encountered a special police force commanded by W.W. Scranton on one of these marches. The police fired into the crowd killing six and wounding 54." p. 304. Foonote takes us to two Scranton newspaper articles plus Logan.Verita.miner (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

No. That is, as I've come to expect, untrue. Aurend cites to Logan pages 55-79. The cites to the Scranton Republican are from the 26th of July -before the shooting. Anmccaff (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Logan says nothing about the shooting in this part of the book at all that I could see. Zip. Nada. None. Anmccaff (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh I see Anmccaff's point. The footnote referencing the Scranton articles is not germaine to the discussion of shootings as they appeared before. Point well taken. I don't think it disqualifies Aurend as a source however. Verita.miner (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

His only cite, then, is Logan...who does not support him. Bad source, at least here. Anmccaff (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is another source that I should have added sooner. Not sure how to paste above, but we can get it footnoted in the entry text. This is the text of the actual historical marker in downtown Scranton. It is approved by the Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission, which requires it's own rigorous application process including sourcing. It's text reads: "A riot occurred here on August 1, 1877, in which armed citizens fired upon strikers, killing four. Many were injured, including Scranton's mayor. As in numerous US cities, this labor unrest was a result of the US depression of 1873 and a nationwide railroad strike in 1877." Not sure how to add this in to the box above... BTW, don't agree with Anmccaff's interpretation of combined footnotes, or his definition of the term "vigilante". See: "vigilante" "a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate." Pretty precisely what happened in Scranton. On combined footnotes, see: Chicago Manual of Style. Verita.miner (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

That is a historical marker, not a source. It should not be added at all. It has no sourcing, no provenance, no nothin'. Now, a document describing why it was placed, that did have some scholarly underpinning, might be another thing, but that's just cruft. Anmccaff (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The citation is not categorically disqualified, depending on how it is used. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, which placed it, probably did not do so on a whim. That said, the text of the marker does not support the sentence it was cited with, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be useful elsewhere. Unfortunately, I have to go out of town quite early, and I will have probably close to zero internet access until Sunday. Sorry, but there's nothing I can do about it. Try to keep things civil. Try to build on our pool of sources as best we can and we will pick this up when I return. Remember, there is no WP:DEADLINE. TimothyJosephWood 00:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick note. I see that Anmccaff took out the footnote I added on the PHMC sign without consensus, just as Anmccaff previously took out "general strike" without consensus and added "dubious" to source without consensus. Here, nonetheless, is a 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. Can Anmccaff agree to no longer make controversial changes without consensus? Especially while Timothyjosephwood is away? Verita.miner (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I want you to just consider what you wrote. You have seriously suggested, in writing, that a group of people should come to a consensus that a cite was bad, and then leave it there, with a cute little tag. Does that actually make sense to you? Anmccaff (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Next, I'd like you to note that User:Timothyjosephwood has already explicitly noted that the text of the marker does not support the sentence it was cited with, which means he agrees with removing it, at least from that place. Anmccaff (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Enjoy your time off! Richly earned. I'll not do much if anything with article in interim. I'm awaiting a couple more secondary sources that I hope will clarify. Verita.miner (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Two more secondary sources on this particular question, though I think User:Timothyjosephwood's proposal for handling this remains the best option. Also, I anticipate being able to find 1-2 secondary sources.

Bruce, Robert V. 1877: year of violence. [1st ed.] Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill [1959]

“When it ceased, three of the mob lay dead or dying on the street. The number of wounded was never settled, but there were many.” page 298.

Keystone of Democracy: A History of Pennsylvania Workers Howard Harris, editor ; Perry K. Blatz, associate editor ; 96 “killing six and wounding more than fifty.” Harrisburg : Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 1999.

Verita.miner (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

"In Scranton, a vigilante group was formed and led into action by William Scranton, superintendent of the Lackawanna Iron and Coal Company.156 The violence intensified and many workers were killed and wounded in pitched battles with the vigilantes. The vigilante group held its own against the rioters until National Guard troops arrived and pacified the city.157". footnotes: 156 Blatz, “Titanic Struggles,” 96.

...which ignores the accepted meaning of "vigilante," which is an extralegal or illegal organization. The weren't, and using sources that use the word loosely to imply it was is at best sloppy, and at worst mendacious. Interestingly, this is about the third time that you've messed up the name of Schroeder's dissertation; why? Anmccaff (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the actual meaning of the word isn't really that important, and these kinds of arguments can lead to a form of WP:OR. For example, the Iraq War wasn't a war by the international legal definition. However, the consensus among secondary sources is that the name of the event...policing action...military intervention...armed conflict...whatever, is in fact "The Iraq War" or "The War in Iraq". The sources always trump the definition if they are in broad agreement. TimothyJosephWood 01:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course the "actual meaning of the word" is important, if the quote is being used to support an interpretation that relies on the standard meaning. The City Guard was legally constituted; any use of "vigilante" is metaphorical, or represents an POV, or a gap in scholarship. The essence of "vigilante" is its extra-legality or illegality, and the group in question was neither. Anmccaff (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it isn't. If the word is generally used by sources then it is correct to include it. If it is not, then it is not. It is not our job to fill in a "gap in scholarship". That is the definition of WP:ORIGINAL research. I'm not saying the point you're making is wrong; I'm saying the argument you're making is wrong. TimothyJosephWood 10:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Claiming that something is used by "sources" based on a single source seems just a bit disingenuous. Next, no one said anything about "filling a gap in scholarship," merely about noting one. We know from most sources that McKune formally made the Citizens Corps a city police, and that it evolved into a National Guard unit. That is to say, we know that it was not, in any legal sense, a "vigilante" group. Using a minority source that uses this wording looks a good deal like tendentious searching for sources that support a particular point of view... as does the selection of title for the article, BTW. Haven't you noticed that none of the secondary sources gathered so far use it? Anmccaff (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

And now you're starting to get it. If this is the only source which called them vigilantes, then the term is probably inappropriate. But it has everything to do with usage in the sources and nothing to do with the meaning of the word. TimothyJosephWood 14:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I'm starting to get anything here; that's been DFO from the very beginning, and I think equally dead obvious to anyone who reads the sources rather than do scholarship-by-search-engine. The cites generally do not use the wording the article does, nor do they take the POV the article initially did. Most speak of the event on Lackawanna as a "riot," not a "parade;" they do not use "Scranton General Strike" as a proper name, but very occasionally use "general strike" as a descriptive; most do not denounce the Guard as "vigilantes," but instead describe them as everything from men hemmed in by circumstance (Hitchcock & Murphy) to heroes (Logan). Several sources see the villain, if there be any, as Mayor McKune, who was unwilling to emphasize and publicize the Guard's existence, but willing to allow it to develop into a deadly force. Powderly implies that if the rioters had known Bill Scranton was waiting with legal authority and 30 men with winchesters, they might have calmed down, or at least broken other heads in other places. Murphy, IMS, ascribed this to the usual politico's desire to please all sides, with tragic results. Anmccaff (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "scholarship-by-search-engine" is supposed to imply, but there's nothing wrong with using online tools like google scholar, google books, or even open web searches to look for sources. The part about "getting it" was that arguments based on dictionary definitions mean nothing. Only arguments based on secondary sources do.

For what it's worth, I'm willing to concede removal of "vigilante" as loaded language unless someone can produce other sources that use the wording.

As is outlined below, multiple sources have been provided which refer to the event at a general strike. It has been shown furthermore to be part of the larger national strikes in 1877 and so calling it a strike seems appropriate. The name may not be perfect, but it is certainly better than the Scranton Parade. TimothyJosephWood 17:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Vigilante

The city Guard was legally constituted; whether it should have been is another question. It was not a vigilante group, except in the looser, pejorative, and metaphorical sense. 23:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The following passage seems to weigh against the use of the word vigilante:

"A fragment of the legally recognized "Citizens' Corps" (Logan p. 90) TimothyJosephWood 14:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Throop as source for riot

It is not necessary to deal in detail with all of the events which immediately preceded the riot and its heroic quelling on August i, 1877.

In fact, Throop seems to cover the period with "see Logan." He does, however emphasize that this was not a "parade" attacked by "vigilantes." Anmccaff (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Foner and overciting

(Undid revision 720571703 by Anmccaff (talk) R/v undisclosed removal of citation. Please provide evidence that this work in particular has been discredited before removed citation.)

I submit that an author so widely accused of failures of scholarship as Philip S. Foner should be avoided unless there are particular reasons to accept him. Given that the are where this cite was removed from bordered on WP:Overcite, I think its removal is appropriate and should be noncontroversial. Anmccaff (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

1) WP:OVERCITE is an essay and not WP policy.

2) The section in question had two citations, which is not at all close to over-citation.

3) Foner seems to have been involved in scores of publications, and there has been no evidence presented that this work is plagiarized.

4) There has otherwise been no evidence presented that the information here attributed to Foner is somehow false, or even particularly controversial, and that Foner should not be relied upon because he is contrary to the general consensus among sources. TimothyJosephWood 19:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's an essay, one that makes a great deal of sense. There is no need to pile on superfluous cites, especially from a writer whose scholarship is basically suspect.

Foner was a plagiarist, and had real problems with reliability of his own references because of that. He's a bad source, in general. The fact that this article is based on him and Bellesiles speaks volumes. Anmccaff (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Every source notes they were easily acquitted.

That same say the jury found all 22 defendants not guilty

Every source that addresses it notes this, and several make a point about the political motive behind the charges. I also suspect a word or two was left out there. Anmccaff (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, meant same day. Good catch.TimothyJosephWood 18:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

"Secret Police"

Now, there's a nice, NPOV identifier. Anmccaff (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Another typo. Azzarelli called them Special Police. TimothyJosephWood 19:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Trial

Can we get another citation pump going with regard to the trial? The passage is currently marked as dubious. I believe I remember reading that they were actually tried for manslaughter and not murder. What details do we have of the trial? TimothyJosephWood 15:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"Scranton, along with the others, was put on trial for manslaughter, but all were acquitted by the court." Labor Unrest in Scranton

By Margo L. Azzarelli, Marnie Azzarelli. Google books is not giving a page number. Verita.miner (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Didn't see this before, which also weight in on dead and wounded question.

1870s: Economic boom surges in city By Borys Krawczeniuk Published: April 23, 2016. Scranton Times-Tribune. http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/1870s-economic-boom-surges-in-city-1.2033862

" The next day, the strikes spread to Scranton, where a confrontation between striking Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad workers essentially shut down mines that could no longer transport coal.

On Aug. 1, a local militia organized partly by William W. Scranton, superintendent of the Lackawanna Coal & Iron Co., confronted angry workers. Six people died and 54 were wounded. Over the next two days, Gov. John F. Hartranft called in state and federal troops to restore order. Mr. Scranton and 52 others were indicted for voluntary manslaughter but acquitted in November."Verita.miner (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, there is a richly-sourced discussion of this on a separate entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lackawanna_Steel_Company, Lackawanna Steel Company. That article supports both the manslaughter charges and its eventual acquittal. Verita.miner (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I've renamed the Consequences section Aftermath, as it is a more inclusive section title, and I have rearranged some content from elsewhere in this article as well as the Lackawanna article. The cites from the Lackawanna article still need to be searched for to find online versions if possible. TimothyJosephWood 17:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Murphy gives good secondary coverage of the Republican's reportage. Anmccaff (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Anmccaff:Where is the location for Murphy? TimothyJosephWood 13:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Part 21 discusses newspapers in general; good background but not directly mineable for cites. Page 391 in part 23 mentions that John Barrett's description of the rioting and response was widely considered the best, and got him (temporarily) fired from the Republican by Bill Scranton's brother. Anmccaff (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hitchcock's History of Scranton, 499 onward, covers the same ground, and notes, among other things, how the number of people who rescued the mayor, and shot up the mob, started at 38, grew to 52 with public adulation, and shrank back down to 38 when legal charges were spoken of. Anmccaff (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

See, now this is incivility....

(→‎Aftermath: Remove apparently disruptive editing.) (undo

...and a classic failure to Assume Good Faith. That's a shift key error, not "disruptive editing." Anmccaff (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

When someone ignores multiple warnings, and responds with essentially, "if you don't like it take me to ANI", yes, my WP:AGF meter ticks down a few notches. If that bothers you, I would suggest not doing things like inserting the word "bullshit" in an article. TimothyJosephWood 11:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)