All except one of the victims would be found dead on the ninth floor.
I've added a "citation needed" to this line, as I was under the impression that all those killed had been on the ninth floor. Then again, that doesn't mean that I'm not wrong, either. Furthermore, even if it does turn out that this statement is indeed correct, is should be rewritten. As it stands, it suggests that all (but one, of course) of the victims were found on the 9th floor; there is no wat this could be the case if, as was the case, peope jumped to their deaths from the ninth floor.
All except one of the victims would be found dead inside the building. The survivor (Hayman Meshel) was found in the basement immersed in water up to his neck.
Which is not any better, really, than the previous version. The specifics of the exception (one Hayman Meshel, apparently) adds to the paragraph, but there still needs to be a reference. Probably a rewrite, too. — AnnaKucsma (Talk to me!) 18:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Several of the victims jumped from windows and died when they hit the pavement. These victims were not found dead in the building.66.10.94.35 (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Image dates
Two of the images in the article have weird dates in their details:
I agree thet Image:Triangle Factory fire 004.jpg almost certainly wasn't taken in 2006. Since the fire, the building was bought by NYU and turned into classrooms; given the damage, the picture probably would have been taken well before then. Furthermore, given the crowd formation, it was probably taken the day of the fire. — AnnaKucsma (Talk to me!) 13:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Both of those were the result of vandalism on commons. I have reverted the vandalism and the dates are now correct. --rogerd16:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Ahah, they were Commons images and deleted after discussion there. I think we could make a case for Fair Use of at least one of the images being acceptible as Wikipedia:Non-free content, per it being an iconic image of an historically important event that cannot be recreated. We don't know the full source info, but we know some of it and in particular we know the date (at worst to within a day or so) based on the content of the image (I can't believe that was such an apparent sticking-point in the Commons discussion). Maybe even could claim them as Wikipedia:Public domain, given they were clearly taken in 1911, and hence before 1923. Or is the problem that though the image might be PD, the chain of custody might not be (I don't know how copyright of an image is when it's published in a copyrighted collection)…do we need to find an "original" image and scan/photograph/etc it ourselves? DMacks18:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Strange that they were talking about a lack of evidence that it was taken before 1923. If I remember the picture correctly, it clearly showed the aftermath of the fire, and people in c. 1911 dress. (I mean really, what did they do? Stage another fire?) Mere lack of external evidence doesn't mean there's no evidence at all. — AnnaKucsmaSpeak!14:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Some of this is silly. There are many dozens of newspaper photos from 1911 which could be included. Many are horrific, but it would give some real bite to the article. I realize you don't want to take an outraged tone because all of the pompous Wiki stuff, but the photos speak for themselves. It's like Alice in Wonderland that there could be any discussion about these photos being copyrighted. A 1911 newspaper shot from a dead newspaper? That's ridiculous. NaySay (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I should add that this incident is a very emotional one for me. My grandmother was an employee of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory as a teenager. She survived the fire. Although a very gentle and soft-spoken lady, who spoke very little English, as a result she became a tireless and dedicated trade unionist and it is a family heritage passed on to us all, which we treasure. NaySay (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Wages?
"Some of the women were as young as twelve or thirteen and worked fourteen-hour shifts during a 60-hour to 72-hour workweek, sewing clothes for a wage of $7.00 per week (approximately $150 per week in 2006 dollars), which was less than 10% of the average wage level at the time."
This sentence strikes me as odd somehow. If $7 per week back then is $150 per week in 2006 dollars, and if this was less than 10% of the average wage level, doesn't this imply that the average wage level was more than $70 per week back then, or $1500 per week in 2006 dollars? So the average wage level in 1911 was the equivalent of around $75,000 in today's dollars? That seems pretty unlikely to me. There is no source, but I have no real idea of what part of this makes no sense so I didn't fix anything... just thought I would raise the question here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Since you brought this up, I started looking at this. I have found a citation for how much an average worker was paid at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. From Link to History Matters Interview
"My own wages when I got to the Triangle Shirtwaist Company was a dollar and a half a week. And by the time I left during the shirtwaist workers strike in 1909 I had worked myself up to six dollars....The operators, their average wage, as I recall - because two of my sisters worked there - they averaged around six, seven dollars a week. If you were very fast - because they worked piece work - if you were very fast and nothing happened to your machine, no breakage or anything, you could make around ten dollars a week. But most of them, as I remember - and I do remember them very well - they averaged about seven dollars a week. Now the collars are the skilled men in the trade. Twelve dollars was the maximum."
So now at least we can substantiate the wage information. The next thing that we need to do is find out how much this wage would be in adjusted dollars and how much the average wage level was at the time. Remember (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
So now it seems that the $7 number is more or less reasonable, and the $150 in 2006 dollars is more or less reasonable. So this leaves the bit about "which was less than 10% of the average wage level at the time" as being questionable. What were average wage levels in 1911? (I think the question is a bit odd, wages for whom, but I guess the idea is to compare to overall earnings to illustrate that this was a relatively low-paying occupation).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Unrelated Reading
How is this link related?
"A Sabbath Rose" - The story of Rosie Goldstein, a young girl who had the courage to refuse to work on the Sabbath. By Goldy Rosenberg—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprusso (talk • contribs) 00:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Slow-motion long-term changing of death count, usually between 146 and 148. We have cited refs that count 141, 146, 148, and 159. Let's make an editorial decision here. 141 seems to be described as immediate or at-the-scene, whereas higher numbers include hospitalized victims. 146 is from various websites and written works, 148 is from a newspaper at the time. 148 is WP:V from WP:RS: Tribune newspaper report the next day. It seems likely that several would die shortly after the event or not yet be fully accounted, so erring with 148 rather than 146 makes sense to me. However, I do not know the actual original or most authoritative source of the 146 number to compare the date and authoritativeness of its report. The 159 is my count of the of names of deceased on a website that provides a cite (drawn from many sources) for each name listed, so this could be the ultimate tally, but I have not seen that value listed anywhere else, so I'd be more comfortable with the more WP:V 140somethings, assuming there's not just a circular or echo-chamber effect there. DMacks (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
At least nine references I have found put the death toll at 146. I've put five of them in the article. The Tribune, which wasn't a local paper and might have made a mistake, is basically the only source that says 148. So why are we using 148 again? --NellieBly (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
And now that I look at it, the Tribune number is blatantly completely unreliable. The article in question was published the day after the fire; many of the victims hadn't even died by that point, and the fire department hadn't even counted all the bodies! I'm removing the 148 reference completely: reliable sources including the FDNY, the Labor Department, two published books, the New York Times, the City of New York, two biographies of notable related individuals (Francis Perkins and Alfred Smith), and even the government of Canada (!) give the count as 146. The only benefit of the Tribune's account is to show that newspapers aren't always reliable. --NellieBly (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Building Plaque and geotag (request to a New Yorker or visitor)
When one enters the text "Greene Street and Washington Place, New York City, NY" into http://maps.google.com, the street view can give a person a close-up view of the building as it looks today. There appears to be a plaque on the building's corner, readable from the sidewalk on the first floor. Could someone in New York verify the plaque's existence and take a picture of it for this article? Also, a geo-tag of the building's Long/Lat coordinates would allow us to place a wiki article link on maps.google.com. Tsarevna (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The address and Long/Lat coordinates are:
"23-29 Washington Place
New York
New York, NY, US
Postal Code: 10003
Latitude (N/S): 40.729811
Longitude (E/W): -73.995424"
There are two plaques. One is a
"Historical marker raised by:
[New York Landmarks Preservation Foundation]"
and
"There is an adjoining marker from 1991 from the National Parks Service designating it as a national landmark."
"..was one of the largest industrial disaster in the history of the city of New York..". Wasn't it the largest? was there a larger industrial disaster in NYC? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I've answered the call to copy edit this, but I've also taken the von Drehle book out of the library and I've added a number of citations from that. There are some things in the article, though, that seem to be just thrown in there with no reference to reliable sources (such as the suggestion of arson, which the evidence doesn't support - no matter how shady the owners appeared at the time, would they really burn down the place right when their own children were paying a scheduled visit?). I've also tried to cut down on calling the victims "women"; most of them were women but almost thirty were men, and they died in the same conditions as the women. Please give it a look and see what you think. --NellieBly (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
So what is the actual correct name for the facility?
NY Times ran a correction back on Feb 16, 2011:
An article on Tuesday about an artist who is commemorating the 100th anniversary of a famous factory fire in Manhattan misstated, in some editions, the name of the company that owned the factory. It was the Triangle Waist Company, not the Triangle Shirtwaist Company. An Inside The Times capsule summary also misstated the name.
In the Cemetery of the Evergreens on the border of Brooklyn and Queens, there is a haunting stone monument to the garment
workers who died in the Triangle shirtwaist [a] factory fire of 1911 but were never identified.
(story continues by following the work of a researcher who identified more of the missing)
The source I go by is this trial transcipt, which states on pg. 22: "That they (Blanck and Harris) were the lessees and tenants of the said floors, and were doing business there as partners, under the name of the Triangle Waist Company". We can be very sure that a legal document like that from a criminal proceeding that prominent would get the exact name of the company in question correct.Shirtwaist (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I had always thought it was the "Triangle Shirtwaist Company", but User:Shirtwaist's posting of the link to the trial transcript has convinced me that the actual name of the company was most likely "Triangle Waist Company". However, I do believe that the article name should not be changed, because (right or wrongly) "Triangle Shirtwaist" is how it's become known to history, and we should always go with the common name since that's how people will reference it. History is a fickle thing, and doesn't always get things right, and we need to accommodate that.
As for the cemetary monument, often things like that are produced based on what people called a place, rather than the legal name, so it's quite possible that "Triangle Shirtwaist" was the colloquially accepted name of the factory -- which may expalin why it's come down to us with that name.
Yes, I believe the current title of the article is appropriate, in that it describes an event, rather than just the company involved. It combines the name of the company, the type of business involved - "shirtwaist factory" - and the type of disaster.
However, because the words after "Triangle" are not part of a proper name (unless "Triangle Shirtwaist Factory" is now considered a "proper name"), they should not be capitalized in the title, just as they wouldn't be cap'd in a sentence. (See: WP:TITLEFORMAT)
So the question becomes: Has "Triangle Shirtwaist Factory" become the proper name of the business? If not, I don't know how to change the article title to its proper form, which would be "Triangle shirtwaist factory fire", other than to create a new article and transfer the old article body over.Shirtwaist (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikimedia software has a specific "Move" feature, which is how pages are renamed (you move the page, including its full edit-history!) to a new name rather than copying the content (which loses history, and therefore violates licensing policy) to a new page. WP:RM has details about how to do it. Might want to take the formal-discussion approach, since that would draw additional editors to look at the sources and help establish WP:CONSENSUS about it. DMacks (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
New section needs to be added as prefice to "fire" section ... new section should be "N. Y. Garment Workers Strikes of 1909 and 1910
just saw a pbs documentary (American Experience) of the fire and they spent first half telling us about the strikes that i had never even heard of before that preceeded the fire ... long story short, the triangle employees did not gain a Union Shop for the company and thereby still did not have say so over safety conditions at the time of the fire--70.162.171.210 (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
If those events are significant, they deserve their own wikipedia entry. There's material, all unsourced, on the ILGWU entry. What this entry could use instead, IMHO, is a Background or Context section of 5 or 6 sentences to set the stage: growth of the NYC sweatshop, lack of govt regulation of working conditions, union attempts to raise working condition issues. Short and to the point, with citations. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Bmclaughlin9. The background info on the 1909 Triangle strike is not only significant, but is directly related to the major issues involved, and would add greatly to the reader's understanding of the overall picture of the Triangle fire and its aftermath. Another tragic example of "Tombstone Engineering" (improving objects, systems, or safety practices only after a lot of people have died because of their poor design).Shirtwaist (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Mistaken for "International Women's Day"?
I had never heard of this holiday until today (3/8/2011) and everyone is jumping all over it on Facebook even though no one ever did before. The first paragraph of the Wikipedia article I believe is making up a fictitious fire/murder incident when the real one is the one more accurately covered by this listing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Women%27s_Day—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.218.197 (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Something to add to this article?
There's a famous (infamous) court case associated with this which is probably worth mentioning in the article. The short version is that one of the lawyers had a survivor of the fire prepare and practice her testimony to the extent that it was scripted. The opposing lawyer cried foul, and had her repeat the testimony: she cried at exactly the same points, repeated it verbatim, et cetera... The testimony from the witness was thrown out (if I remember right), and it's now used as a cautionary tale to lawyers in preparing their witnesses not to create a specific script or otherwise make witnesses artificial. SDY (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
This and this hint at it, though neither meets RS. The raw testimony is here. Honestly, it's something I was told about in new hire training since I work in a field where we're sometimes asked to testify in court and this came up (i.e. what lawyers are not supposed to do in preparing witnesses). I'm guessing we need a law school textbook on witness preparation. SDY (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe that the horse-drawn fire engine in the photo is actually going to the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire as claimed by the caption. It was almost 5pm when the fire began. The clock in the window shows this picture as having been taken rather earlier than that, around 2:35pm. 69.47.96.131 (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The image comes from a Cornell University repository about the fire, where it is clearly identified. Further, the top signboard, partly in shadow, quite clearly says "Waist Company", and above the circular crest lettering that seems to say "Triangle". I'm not quite sure where you're seeing a clock, unless you mean the circular object underneath the stream of water from the fire truck on the left. If that's it, I don't know how you can see the hands well enough to know the time - I certainly can't. In any case, if what you're seeing is a clock, and the clock indeed says 2:35 (you're inferring "PM", of course), we have no idea if that clock was accurate, or even working at the time. I think it's quite enough that Cornell vouches for it, and we have a bit of evidence from the image itself to show it's the right building. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Beyond My Ken about the provenance, but I think 69.47.96.131 is referring to this image, which is in the Library of Congress archives - listed as "Title: [Horse-drawn fire engines in street, on their way to the Triangle Shirtwaist Company fire, New York City] Date Created/Published: 1911 March [25]". I tend to believe the Library of Congress checks the sources of their photographs rather thoroughly, but if someone can produce evidence that the photo is not what the LOC says it is, I'd be happy to look at it.
I also believe the clock in the upper right corner, that apparently does in fact read "2:37", was either wrong or broken, because the shadows of the fire wagon and bystanders are too long to be occurring at that time of day - they look more consistent with 4:45 pm to me(around the time the first fire alarm was sent). One can easily test this hypothesis by standing on an east-west running New York street today at 4:45pm (actually 5:45, as Daylight Saving Time didn't start in the U.S. until 1918) and see what their shadow looks like. My guess is that it would look very much like those that appear in the photo.Shirtwaist (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I was unclear about which image the IP was referring to. I think you are correct about the shadows, which place the image in the early evening rather than in mid-afternoon. It would be interesting to try and identify which east-west street they're on. They're heading east on a rather wide street with a rather tall building behind them. The church and the row houses could very well be gone, but there's a chance that the building might be there, and identifiable. Too bad the resolution isn't good enough to read the street sign on the lamppost on the corner. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
time does not match
time under the picture is 4.40 PM . Time in the story is "fire started at 4. 45" .Firefighters were there 5 minutes before fire? 65.35.249.125 (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Corrected. I originally put the "4:45" in there with a ref from Stein which said the first alarm was sent at 4:45. My mistake. A few minutes must've elapsed between the start of the fire and the triggering of the alarm by the guy on the street who saw smoke coming from the building. The people on the eighth floor called it in shortly after 4:45.Shirtwaist (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Building address
About the address of the Asch Building: the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission consistently refers to building by all the lot numbers the building occupies (where the standard lot is, IIRC, 40 feet wide). Thus, when the NYCLPC says that the building is "23-29 Washington Place", that's technically correct, but not necessarily how the building would be comventionally addressed - for mailing purposes or on stationery, for example. As far as I know, the owner of the building can choose which of the lot numbers to use as the building's address.
Today, NYU uses "29" for the building's address, but I haven't been able to ascertain what the conventional designation of the building was in 1911. It's true that the trial transcript consistently uses "23-29", but since that's the legal designation of the site, it really doesn't answer the question. Many of the contemporaneous newspaper and magazine accounts of the fire (or the preceding strike in 1909) use a description such as "the northeast corner of Greene Street and Washington Place", which really doesn't help, and the NY Times archive has about equal numbers of "23 Washington Place" and "29 Washington Place" references, plus a couple of "23-29 Washington Place" to confuse the matter.
Without evidence of what address was in conventional use at the time, the question becomes do we call the building in the article by its (for want of a better expression) "full name" ("23-29 Washington Place") or by the current conventional address, which is "29 Washington Place"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I think "23-29" is more appropriate considering the accompanying text stresses that the Asch building "was located at", not "is located at". We may not know how people of the time referred to the address, but since the two strongest sources we have for the accurate form of address, the transcript and the NYCLPC, both say "23-29", that seems to me to be the best encyclopedic choice. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing any company documents - letterheads, etc. - that have the address on them. That may change my mind.Shirtwaist (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, I thought at first that it would be best to go back to "29", but now that I've looked into it a bit more, I have no strong feelings about it. (Except, again, I wouldn't take the NYCLPC as a model to follow, as their usage is more a matter of their internal style choice, used in almost all multi-lot buildings, and is not based on historical precedent.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from Haryo18, 7 April 2011
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Benin, Leigh; Linne, Rob; Sosin, Adrienne; Sosinsky, Joel (2011). The New York City Triangle Factory Fire. [(Charleston, South Carolina)]=: Arcadia Publishing. ISBN978-0-7385-7403-5.
User:SchmuckyTheCat has been adding the "link farm" tag to the article, despite that:
I've gone through the links, removing those that were unnecessary
All the remaining links are non-commercial in nature
All the links are directly pertinent to the subject
I do not believe the number of links (14) is excessive, nor do any of the individual links fail our policies. I have removed the "link farm" tag and asked SchmuckyTheCat not to re-add it without first discussing the issue here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
It's bordering on excessive. Most of these should have immediately relevant material incorporated as references rather than being linked to. That's just another piece for future improvement. Toodles. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
If, in your opinion, the links could be used as references, then there cannot be any question that they're acceptable as ELs. Articles are not monographs, and ELs can contain much more information that can be used in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Deadliest Claim
This article claims to describe "the deadliest disaster in New York City until the destruction of the World Trade Center 90 years" with 146 deaths. The PS General Slocum article makes the same claim with 1,021 deaths. Further specificity needed here, such as "the deadliest disaster in Manhattan," "the deadliest building-related disaster," or some such restriction. Ekhcser (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Googling around, I find most sites that make this type of claim about the Triangle Shirtwaist fire phrase it as the "deadliest workplace disaster", or "deadliest industrial disaster..." prior to 9/11. DMacks (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Already claims it's the deadliest New York industrial disaster (even after 9/11) and fourth worst US-wide. That seems like enough ranking. With PS General Slocum in second after 9/11 for worst in NY, perhaps best is to simply remove this sentence. Ekhcser (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The documentary "New York: A Documentary"--originally a series of episodes from "American Experience"--dedicates a segment to the factory fire. Very good and worth including here. (Note this is from 1999 and not the more recent "American Experience" episode on the fire.)
One "Mark Herrison" is listed as the oldest victim, but the reference given to back up this claim does not mention any "Mark Herrison" and web research will show that the only mention of a "Mark Herrison" related to the fire is on this very page.
The syntax of the sentence makes it look like "Mark Herrison" was a name-check that wasn't caught. I've removed it, added the actual name, and made it clear that the age of some of the victims is not known. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The destruction of the WTC was an act of terrorism. Not an industrial accident.
Unknown why the two are conflated - and on an emotional level, it is somewhat angering that corporate negligence is somehow lumped in with the most horrible act of terrorism ever committed on U.S. soil.
Don't know if it was an honest mistake, or capitalism's shameless self promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.160.24 (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The two are not "conflated". Please read the lede again. The fire -- which was a tragic loss of human life which had a similar affect on people at the time as the WTC attacks did in ours -- is described first in terms of an industrial accident, and then, in general terms as a disaster, at which point it is compared to Slocum and the WTC. There's no conflation whatsoever. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Isaac Harris in Stephen King short story
I attended A Conversation With Stephen King on Friday (12/7/2012). He read a new, unpublished short story that featured Isaac Harris of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory as a clerk in Purgatory. I didn't catch the name of the story. Rich (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Centennial edition of Leon Stein's "The Triangle Fire"
Wanted to note that there is a centennial edition of Leon Stein's book, published in 2011 by ILR Press, an imprint of Cornell University Press. It can be obtained from the link in the page using the "view e-book" button, so it is probably not worth changing the link. It is basically the same as the 2001 edition in the Google link, with the introduction by William Grieder supplemented by a short new forward by Michael Hirsch.[1]Roches (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
References
^Stein, Leon (2010). The Triangle Fire, Centennial Edition. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ISBN978-0-8014-6250-4.
IPC
I propose removing the following entries from the IPC section:
door knob - minor appearance
The Triangle Factory Fire Project by Christopher Piehler - no indication of notability for either play or author
The Dark of the Flame by Evin Anderson - ditto
"Coming of Age" - ditto
The Spider Goddess - fire is not significant to the work
My apologies for not responding to this, I completely forgot that I had asked you to discuss on the talk page. Let me take a look at your objections. BMK (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, let me go through them in your order:
Doorknob - it appears in two episodes, so I'm not sure it's "minor". This source ([1]) isn't RS, and therefore can't be used in the article, but they do give a fan's view of the importance of the doorknob
Dark of the Flame - I agree, I can't find any notable productions
"Coming of Age" - Bridges looks like it may be a notable journal. Take a look at this.
Triangle Shirtwaist Fire- Last Survivor Dies at 107
On March 25th, 1911, just before their break time at 4:45pm, a dropped match sparked a fire in a rag bin. Rose Freedman was just two days shy of being 18 years old. Mrs. Freedman escaped death by following company executives to the roof to be rescued. Rose became a lifelong fighter for worker safety, telling and telling the story that the Triangle workers died because the owners were not concerned with their welfare. Rose Freedman died in her apartment on February 24th, 1999 in Beverly Hills, California at age 107.
^Thompson, Ashlee. "Triangle Shirtwaist Fire- Last Survivor Dies at 107". Wikipedia. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
Hi. I'm not sure what you meant by this comment, but you did prompt me to add a bit about Rose Freedman's death - sourced by a New York Times piece - to the article. BMK (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Names
I think the list of names should go here. i placed a specific link to the names from the cornell library website. The 2016 Oakland warehouse fire had a large discussion about adding the names, and it was done there. i know it would seem like we are memorializing, but its more than that. those people are what makes this article so important. if it was an abandoned building, it would be a minor blip in ny history. so they are why this article matters. adding their names may be a way to provide NPOV, by not de-emphasizing the loss.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Please do not change the reference style from the consensus one used in the article without first getting a consensus to do so from the editors on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
You've changed the references from those in use to a style of your own choice. That's not acceptable.. Please get a consensus here for the reference style you prefer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
There is no remotely consistent style in use. I am converting the lack of style to a consistent style. On what basis is that unacceptable? And why could you not have replied to my question before? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. The arbitration committee ruled in 2006:
Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.
As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article.
Do not ping me again, and this is the last time I will tell you that you need to get a consensus to change the references to a style of your choice. Whatever the references are now, they are not in the style you chose, so you must get a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken:and this is the last time I will tell you that you need With all due respect, nothing you tell me overrides the central consensus which intentionally used the phrase "change an article's established citation style [emphasis added]". Logically, if you cannot establish that there is an "established citation style", you cannot determine that an "established citation style" was "change[d]".
With respect to building a consensus, are you willing to work toward consensus-building? Because it would help to know what concerns you have, if any.
Additionally, as you can tell by the net few thousand bytes that my edits added to the article, the edits were adding material in large part – it was not a mere stylistic change. So on what basis was that also reverted? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
If you change the references without a consensus to do so, it will be reverted, and your behavior will be taken to the noticeboards. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The additional material was reverted simply because it could not be easily viewed due to all the other changes (spacing, etc.) that you made. If you want to add that material only, editors can evaluate it separately from the references issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I will participate in this discussion when other editors enter it. As of now, there is no consensus for you to impose your own choice of reference style. If you're going to bring that "there is consensus" argument to the noticeboards, you're not going to prevail. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
No - The article has 80 references, each of which was added by individual editors aware of the content of the references when they added them. Changing to the style chosen by one editor would put a burden on the editors of this article to check every single reference to make sure no mistakes have been made in the transition, and the added value of the chosen style is almost nil by comparison. There has been no demonstration that there is anything wrong with the references as they currently exist, and therefore no showing that the imposition of one particular style (chosen by an editor with no history of editing the article) is necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: I have been checking each individual reference, so that isn't an issue. Moreover, WP:OWN says that raising concerns with an edit because of (1) the effort needed to review it or (2) the fact the editor has insufficient experience editing that particular article are examples of ownership behaviour. With respect to something being "wrong", I think it's fair to say that the issue is the inconsistency. And what reference style do you think would be more suitable? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes – The article has no consistent reference style. Assuming that the article is to have a consistent reference style, no issues have been raised with the style I was using. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the ref format changes seem like a small but worthwhile improvement. Certainly the other copy edits are improvements and should be restored, especially the full Schneiderman quotation and the nesting of headers per WP:ACCESS. The only error I noted was one misspelling, of "xoalition". Station1 (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about the typo. That would have been in the process of my correcting the capitalization. Thanks for pointing it out – I'll be sure to fix it. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't much care. I guess it's OK. I see at least one ref was changed from a raw URL and hand-written description to {{cite news}}. I approve because templates are objectively better IMO as they standardize things and are a little easier to read. (Standardization is overrated but I guess it's usually good for refs.) As to the PM->pm deal, WP:MOSTIME does say "12-hour clock times end with lower-case a.m. or p.m., or am or pm...", so I suppose that that format change is justifiable (I wouldn't do it). The change to {{sfn}}... maybe it's an improvement. It is replacing raw text with a template, but makes it harder to read, maybe. I guess you could say it's just roiling the text to no gain. I guess it's improvement though, maybe. It was OK before, it's OK now and possibly improved. Myself, I wouldn't worry about it and I'd let it lie.Herostratus (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Indifferent and yes With regard to short foot notes versus unlinked references, personally I think that short foot notes are neater because they link to the work cited but I am indifferent. Elsewhere the IP user replaces open references with structured data references using a Wikipedia citation template. I always support any unstructured references being reformatted to structured references. Structured data is better for present readability and future translation and remixing of the data. Besides the reference changes the IP editor makes other changes. If there were multiple edits with different kinds of changes, I think it would be easier to discuss which should pass and which should pause. Overall I appreciate the interest that different people have in engaging with this article. Blue Rasberry (talk)13:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Please note the box above where it says "An editor has requested comments from other editors..." As the editor asking for comments, I will decide what question I'm asking for comments on, not you. Do not change the format of this RfC again. And this is the fourth time I will have asked you not to ping me. Do it again, and it gets reported. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:RFC is clear that the originator (or "the editor") does not have exclusive domain over the question. And are you refusing to provide a "self-contained" statement in accordance with WP:RFC? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
What objection do you have to the additional question I added ("Should the article have a consistent reference style?")? And why did you just remove my comment? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Stop fucking with the RfC's format, and your comments won't get accidentally deleted when you include them in the same edit. I'll restore it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Please refrain from needless profanity – that's hardly constructive here. And you didn't answer the question: "What objection do you have to the additional question I added ('Should the article have a consistent reference style?')?" 142.160.131.202 (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken No one gets any benefit from personal attacks against other users. There are lots of ways to resolve conflict without being hostile. I appreciate what you do for Wikipedia. At the same time, I will ask that you commit to refrain from aggression in Wikipedia. It makes you look bad, Wikipedia look bad, and does not advance the discussion. You are justified in expressing frustration in ways that draw attention to problems but Wikipedia is a place for civil discourse. Blue Rasberry (talk)13:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment The style in all articles must use a single style of references. The present interpretation of "should" in the context is that we always do it. (The more difficult question is what to use if existing references are in various styles) If the style of referencing being used is consistent, it is not acceptable to change it to another style. Such changes have been uniformly considered as disruptive. Which style is better is not relevant, if both are acceptable. Personally I regard the shortened footnote style as relatively unfamiliar to most editors here, and would not adopt it for a new article except possibly in the traditional humanities where most active editors in that field can be presumed to be accustomed to it. But if it is already present consistently in an article of any type, it is required that I use it for anything I added. (The more difficult question is what to use if existing references are in various styles)
If the refs were made by a plethora of various editors, then whatever. But if the RFC OP worked on the article a lot and put in the refs and formatted it that way.... "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox as she treadeth out the corn". People here are volunteers and are working hard as volunteers. All things being equal, they should at least have the satisfaction of getting to decide small things like how to format stuff, how to phrase stuff, and so forth. Don't come in after and muck around with other people's work without sufficient cause. OK?
Yes I understand about WP:OWN and I know that there is a WP:ALPHABETSOUP encrustation of various rules blah blah blah, but I mean, this is common courtesy and good sense. It's good staff development practice to not nitpick and micromanage the workers, OK?
Now... if an argument can be made that a change in one of these small matters is 1) objectively an improvement, and 2) significant enough an improvement that it is worth fighting over, messing around with other people's work, and engendering some level of bad feelings, then that's different.
This "RfC" fails WP:RFC in that the question is neither clear nor neutral. No explanation is given as to what "style" is referred to, what the current or previous "style" is, or what the difference is (or what various options there are). It also names a specific editor, rather than being a neutral question. Softlavender (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. 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.
Why is this article called "Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire" and not "Triangle Waist Company fire"? To my knowledge, there was no Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, and, even if there was, this fire was at the Triangle Waist Company. Rochkind (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Because that seems to be the common name for the event (see WP:NAMINGCRITERIA & WP:COMMONNAME). I think almost all the sources I have seen call the event the "Triangle Shirtwaist Fire"(Smithsonian Magazine) or the "Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire" (OSHA), History Channel, Smithsonian Magazine or even "Triangle Factory Fire"(Cornell University). I am unaware of any references that state the name of the event as the "Triangle Waist Company fire". Besides, it seems to me that the company itself didn't burn down and the company's owners didn't die...the factory burned and the factory-workers died. Shearonink (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
(ec) On Wikipedia, article titles are governed by WP:COMMONNAME. If you do a Google search on "Triangle Waist Factory fire" it brings up 1,760 results, many of which point to entries that are themselves titled "Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire". On the other hand, a search for "Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire" brings up 133,000 hits, a clear indication that whatever the legal name of the company was at the time, the fire has come down through history being referred to by "Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire".I'll point out that Triangle Waist Company redirects to this article, as does (now) Triangle Waist Factory fire which I've just created.My only question to other editors here is this: if the company was legally the Triangle Waist Company, then "Triangle Shirtwaist Factory" is a description of the factory owned by the Triangle Waist Company, and not a name per se. If that's the case, then the article should probably be at "Triangle shirtwaist factory fire" (note capitalzation). This is not a big deal to me, but I mention it here in regard to Rochkind's question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I'll go ahead and say it...that just looks wrong, having all the words except "Triangle" start with small letters. No Wikipedia policy or guidelines cited, it just looks wrong somehow. Shearonink (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks, everyone. I can see it this way: The name of the fire is not the same as the name of hte company whose factory had the fire. I would prefer to see the title changed to "Triangle shirtwaist factory fire". Rochkind (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
This has been discussed several times. I (still) think that it's more significant that it's an industrial-workplace disaster (as the target of the link is) and intrinsic to its workplace rather than just a tragedy that happened to have happened there. DMacks (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you DMacks. In my opinion - to align the fire with a terrorist attack diminishes both. The fire happened in a workplace due to management's negligence and greed, the 9/11 attacks happened because people outside those various workplaces planned it so it would result in the willful murder of thousands. And just because one source makes the comparison doesn't mean the Wikipedia article has to also include it. Shearonink (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
The comparison is made -- and is a reasonable one -- because it makes it easier for a contemporary audience to judge the magnitude of the event by comparing it to something they are familiar with, which is the only other event of similar size to happen in NYC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Here are the texts of the two previous discussions on the subject:
This article claims to describe "the deadliest disaster in New York City until the destruction of the World Trade Center 90 years" with 146 deaths. The PS General Slocum article makes the same claim with 1,021 deaths. Further specificity needed here, such as "the deadliest disaster in Manhattan," "the deadliest building-related disaster," or some such restriction. Ekhcser (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Googling around, I find most sites that make this type of claim about the Triangle Shirtwaist fire phrase it as the "deadliest workplace disaster", or "deadliest industrial disaster..." prior to 9/11. DMacks (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Already claims it's the deadliest New York industrial disaster (even after 9/11) and fourth worst US-wide. That seems like enough ranking. With PS General Slocum in second after 9/11 for worst in NY, perhaps best is to simply remove this sentence. Ekhcser (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. DMacks (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
and
The destruction of the WTC was an act of terrorism. Not an industrial accident.
Unknown why the two are conflated - and on an emotional level, it is somewhat angering that corporate negligence is somehow lumped in with the most horrible act of terrorism ever committed on U.S. soil.
Don't know if it was an honest mistake, or capitalism's shameless self promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.160.24 (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The two are not "conflated". Please read the lede again. The fire -- which was a tragic loss of human life which had a similar affect on people at the time as the WTC attacks did in ours -- is described first in terms of an industrial accident, and then, in general terms as a disaster, at which point it is compared to Slocum and the WTC. There's no conflation whatsoever. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Mikebreakrun3 (talk) 23 February 2019
I do not believe “"workplace tragedy" and "industrial disaster" are significantly different. Certainly, that's not why I fixed that first sentence.
Initially, I thought it was going to be a simple a grammar fix, because the sentence was obscure and vague with regard to “one of the deadliest in U.S. history,” and simply incorrect with “was the deadliest industrial disaster in the history of the city” (which begs the question: Until when??)
After reviewing the inadequate citation for the text, I dlved further and found the answers to my confusion in a link to the original citation, published by the same reference. I then included the answer to the two unanswered questions posed in the inarticulate sentence in an informative change.
I don't care about differences between “workplace tragedy" and "industrial disaster,” however, “workplace tragedy" is in my citation, and I don't recall "industrial disaster" being used in the citation. Again, that's inconsequential to me. I made the change based solely on the history of “was deadliest.”
Having self-important Grand Poobah “editors” revert improvements with egotistical reasons such as “Better before,” is the single biggest failing within the Wikipedia community. I invite those interested in this page to read the ‘before,’ which is poorly and erroneously written with the edit I provided to avoid the confusion presented by the sentence before I fixed it. Perhaps I should have just tagged it {{confusing,}} because one never knows who might be laying in wait, ready to protect their personal article, as if they own it.
Do whatever you guys want, you will anyway. I waste too much time fighting with “editors” that watch pages so they can revert improvements that bruise their egos. Peace, out. mhMikebreakrun3 (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
So the two lede sentences being discussed are:
The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City on March 25, 1911 was the deadliest industrial disaster in the history of the city, and one of the deadliest in U.S. history.
and
The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City on March 25, 1911 remained the deadliest workplace tragedy in New York City's history until the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center 90 years later.
Without initially speaking as to the validity of a comparison between this fire and 9/11, I find I prefer the former sentence stylistically. I feel that the lede of an article should sum up the subject, and presenting it as "the fire was X" is preferable to "the fire remained Y" (I feel that the latter doesn't really tell me what it was or why it was notable; it strikes me more as 'well this used to be important until something worse happened'). NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Typical. Only the incestuous Wikipedia cabal would consider less information to be “stylistically” better for an encyclopedia, LOL. “The first thing any human social group does is determine who and what they wish to exclude.” - Donelson R. Forsyth. Truth is offensive to offenders, is it not? Mikebreakrun3 22 feb 2019 Mikebreakrun3 (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOTAFORUM. Wikipedia article talk pages are for discussion about how to improve the article, not for general ruminations about the subject in general or about Wikipedia in general. Further postings of that nature will be deleted.
One of the reasons that the Triangle fire is important -- aside from the loss of life -- is that it directly lead to the passage of the first workplace safety legislation in the US, and was instrumental in empowering the growing labor movement in the city. These are consequential results, and relate to the fire as a workplace event. This is more than sufficient reason for the lede to emphasize that aspect of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Strange paragraph
There is a strange paragraph in the section called "Consequences and legacy" where it talks about angels and some guy named Tammany... I didn't read the whole article, but nowhere else are either angels or this guy Tammany mentioned. Couldn't really make much sense of this paragraph.201.178.41.180 (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I’ve added Leon Stein’s “The Triangle Fire” to the “In popular culture” section. David von Drehle’s book was already listed. Both books are in the bibliography and are cited in the article. However, are they really popular culture? They’re factual, referenced accounts of the disaster and its context. Several other entries are also factual, such as the American Experience TV episode. It seemed better to include both books in the pop culture section than to not include them there. Perhaps there could be a full catalog of works, separated into fictional and non-fictional sections, which includes those not used as references for the article. Roches (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
This article is offensive.
This has has turned into a political rally. Elizabeth Warren's grandstanding does not belong here and is a menace to the memory of those who died. This is about the fire and should not even mention modern politicians. This is why Wikipedia loses its credibility. Articles are NOT to be used to advance political aspirations and this truly does. It should be about the fire, the investigation and the laws that improved safety. THAT IS IT! I'll go elsewhere to get the actual facts, so will other readers. MagnoliaSouth(talk)22:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Beg pardon, but I highly doubt that two reliably-sourced sentences about a politician's speech regarding the event discredits the entire article. You'll note that the sentences are neutrally-written and neither promote nor discredit any politician or political ideology; they simply mention that a modern politician made a speech referencing the fire. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 22:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
