Talk:Scranton general strike

NPOV

This makes several unsourced claims, all tendentiously used. Anmccaff (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Anmccaff, specifics? I came here through new pages feed. I was more focused on overall issues than specific details. TimothyJosephWood 01:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's start with the very name for it. Are there any secondary sources -whatsoever- that call this "the Scranton General Strike", I only see this from a couple newspaper articles? "A general strike at Scranton" isn't the same thing. Anmccaff (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Next, most contemporary sources listed in the Great_Railroad_Strike_of_1877#Pennsylvania unequivocally describe an attack on the Mayor of Scranton. Any actual source for a "shoot to kill order?" Anmccaff (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, I don't really know. I was just doing formatting. This may be a good opportunity for an RfC. TimothyJosephWood 10:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but Anmccaff has expressed some concerns above regarding the neutrality of the article and the choice of title. (I came here from Special:NewPagesFeed and just did formatting and general cleanup. I really have no knowledge of the subject matter.) TimothyJosephWood 12:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Greetings. I am the original editor. If the consensus is that this should be moved under 1877, I have no principled objections. I am new as a Wikipedian and also new writing in these Talk sections--I'm not 100% sure if I am contributing correctly here.

I do have a background in labor history, however, and it seems to me a couple of things can be said in response to Anmccaff objections. First, a general strike is a recognized terms for when a sizable share of workers in any given area strike, regardless of industry. So what took place in Scranton, by Wikipedia's own definition (I will add the link) fits that billing. Additionally, it was called a general strike by at least one particularly important contemporary source (New York Times.) So it seems to me the term is correct on those two counts. Second, the events in Scranton are important because of the violence that ensued.

But references to "the Scranton General Strike", as such, are vanishingly rare, unlike, say., the '26 strike in the UK. That was known as such, with plenty of good secondary cites from both sides of the issue. "the Scranton strike has gone general" is not the same thing.

Any actual references in secondary scholarship to "Scranton General Strike?" Going twice....Anmccaff (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Next, there are remarkably few sources that describe the shooting as a "massacre" of "workers." the event took place en route to the area where there was a real enough labor confrontation, in which by almost every account, the Mayor was attacked and injured by strikers, and by most accounts, protected from further injury by other strikers. He was in no position to give any orders to anyone directly.

Most contemporary accounts describe the people fired on as rioters, and mention, unequivocally, that they fired first. There was a good deal of concern about the proportionality of the response, but next to none that it was provoked.

Throughout, you have written up what shows in the majority of accounts as if it is a story concocted by a limited number of people, and you have based this article [on] a secondary source that disagrees with you, [and] a partisan plagiarist known for sloppy scholarship. Anmccaff (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Verita.miner (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Are you calling me "a partisan plagiarist known for sloppy scholarship"? I do not understand the origin of this invective. Is there no code of conduct on Wikipedia? As for the factual record, I don't think there is any dispute that a large gathering of workers took place, and that this turned violent. There are charges that the mayor was attacked, which are included. There is not a dispute that the citizens group opened fire killing a number of workers.

No, I am calling Philip S. Foner a partisan plagiarist known for sloppy scholarship. I have a good deal of company in this.

There are no "charges that the mayor was attacked," there is complete, universal agreement the mayor was attacked, from sources sympathetic and unsympathetic. Here is Powderly's take: "The mayor had been assaulted, and, with blood streaming down his face gave the order to fire." Powderly describes the group as a mob, and identifies the three immediately killed as "two innocent men, and one who was engaged in leading the men on to destruction." See The path I trod; the autobiography of Terence V. Powderly, 213-219, IMS. Some other later accounts emphasize that McKune did not have direct control over the men Scranton was leading; the firing began as they were on route, and began with a shot from the rioters Others emphasize that some strikers assaulted the mayor, but others helped protect him from further harm...but no source whatsoever disputes that he was attacked, and seriously...except your wiki article. It implies this is an account from a fishy source. Anmccaff (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Verita.miner (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

As for bias, I'm a little unclear as to why this is being charged. I have used qualifying terms to indicate that the source in question is itself biased from the standpoint of the mayor.

Which is complete, utter nonsense. The majority of accounts separated the incident in which the mayor was injured, an event where high feeling turned a meeting violent, from the simple rioting of the shooting incident, and many accounts saw the widespread criminal charges as pure political grandstanding. Anmccaff (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Verita.miner (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)I appreciate your concern Anmccaff with the entry, but do not appreciate the intemperate language. I will take all your suggestions and criticisms seriously. The invective seems superfluous.Verita.miner (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll make a couple of improvements while the fate of the entry is discussed. Thank you for your observations and help. I apologize that I'm still getting the hang of writing entries. Verita.miner (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Verita.miner, I have no opinion or knowledge of the topic, but the title should be the 'general'/most likely term for the event. A broader range of sources might also help to establish the significance of this event. Best of luck. Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Verita.miner (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)I've changed some language that was cited as dubious and added references. I've also added a clause to discuss source of information on shooting, which was written from the standpoint of the mayor and the citizen's guard. This may be the only firsthand account, but readers will benefit from knowing it's origin. I think the Craig Phelan volume on Powderly can be referenced here, to add more verification, but I need to track down the book first. Also, there is a historical maker in Scranton that refers to the events as a "Laborers Strike," which is clearly redundant. Hope these improvements help. I'll try for more. BTW, there is an entry on the St. Louis General Strike of 1877 on Wikipedia, which also arose out of the 1877 Railroad Strike.Verita.miner (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

...and there are several actual books and contemporary usages for that. There appear to be next to none for that usage here. Anmccaff (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Verita.miner (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)I have added a citation and tried to alter language that was pegged as dubious. I will add some more citations as time affords itself. Of course I have not objection to (talk) adding sources. I'm happy to keep improving the entry. It seems that the event's importance warrant an entry-- a major strike that clearly went beyond the RR brotherhoods and that ended in bloodshed. It seems to me "general strike" is the appropriate term to describe those events, as this is a sociological term used to describe strikes in which a large proportion of workers in a given area go out on strike (see Wikipedia's own entry.) Also, the term "general strike" was given to it not just by any newspaper, but "the newspaper of record". To call it a "railroad strike" or "laborers' strike" would obviously be misleading to Wikipedia readers, as the largest group involved were the coal miners. Verita.miner (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The Times did not call this event "the Scranton General Strike." Nobody but you seems to. Wikipedia is not a place for original publication. Period. Anmccaff (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The Times did assert that, far from being a case of widespread grievances, the strike broadened because of worker intimidation, by workers who were well paid in a contracting industry. The price of rail had fallen by nearly a quarter. The Times also flatly asserted that mayor McKune had been assaulted, which you tried to picture as deception. Finally, the times reported, approvingly, that a newsman making some of the claims you have here had been convicted of criminal libel, and also stated that many saw Scranton's use of force as justified. Anmccaff (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You are using sources dishonestly and tendentiously. Anmccaff (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: Your tone is concerning. This is a content dispute and can be resolved. If you edit war and try to assert ownership you will find yourself at one of the drama boards. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

As is yours; you appear to be attempting to steer the course of the discussion by threats of A-N-whatever. Quit it, or open a complaint. Anmccaff (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Verita.miner (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)I am certainly in no way being dishonest, and I resent the accusation. What is the basis of this charge? I see that the General Strike title has been removed, though I don't see that there was any consensus on that question. (talk) elsewhere has accused me of being a user I am not. I don't know how to respond to these charges, as I am new to Wikipedia, but I think anyone whor reads these threads will see that I am earnestly trying to address concerns and improve the entry.

You could respond by noting that the NYT supports, fully, the fact that Scranton's Mayor had been attacked, and that the article you cherry picked explicitly mentioned coercion of other workers by strikers, and that the strikers were far from desperate. Anmccaff (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I have done so in the latest attempt by adding research from a more recent book, 1877 by Bellesiles. I think that this should address some of the concerns on bias.

Bellesiles is a known academic fraudster, who invented supporting data. Some of the data he claimed to have read was destroyed in the San Francisco earthquake, a half century before he was born. I thought the sourcing had reached a low point with Philip S. Foner, but you've managed to find something even worse. Anmccaff (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I note that the term "general strike" has been taken down though I saw no consensus on the question. The Times referred to is as a general strike in the very headline of the article. Verita.miner (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

No. It spoke of a "General Strike," but didn't claim that was the proper name of the even...as, indeed, it couldn't. Such things are decided in retrospect, and off Wikipedia itself.

(talk) please again refrain from personal attacks and baseless accusations. I appreciate your concern over the article and getting things right. There is not a need for invective. Verita.miner (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Nothing baseless about it. You used sources contrary to their actual content. Cut that out. Anmccaff (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

If this abuse continues, is there something I can do? Verita.miner (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Verita.miner (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Sorry. I'm having some trouble getting the hang of this. "talk" above refers to "Anmccaff." Again, I'm happy to take suggestions, and I think I've responded with improvements and modifications already to many of Anmccaff's suggestions. Trying to take the high road here. Verita.miner (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The high road includes honest use of sources, and avoiding loaded terms like "vigilante," "murder," and "massacre," especially when they are untrue, for the first two, and very debatable for the third. Anmccaff (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Verita.miner (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)The terms "vigilante" was used by Schroeder, Steven Patrick (2006). The Elementary School of the Pennsylvania National Guard, 1877-1917. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh. pp. 56–57. I don't think I ever used the term "murder." "Massacre" can be deleted as an emotive term. Can you please proceed without accusation? If you are sincere in trying to improve the entry, I don't think that these things are helpful. More sources to come!Verita.miner (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

No, on several levels. To begin with, there is no such work. Steven Patrick Schroeder wrote "The Elementary School of the Army the Pennsylvania National Guard, 1877-1917." It's a Phd. thesis, not otherwise published...and, it's flat out wrong on this, contradicted by better cites already available here. Anmccaff (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Verita.miner (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Normally major university PhD dissertations are considered credible sources. I did not see on the form how to indicate it was a dissertation. Almost all of these can be accessed through Proquest. Also, I have added another secondary source from the late Harold Aurend, who was a leading scholar on the history of the anthracite region.Verita.miner (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Verita.miner (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Hello. I have removed reference to "general strike." The use of the term, I repeat, was based on the title of the New York Times article describing the event as well as the sociological definition of what a general strike is. But I understand the point Anmccaff makes that the term should be used as well in secondary sources. It also seems to be the major basis of his/her charge that the entry is based on original research, which is not the case. Thank you for the constructive feedback. Verita.miner (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus to move this article unilaterally to another title, so I've restored the status quo. RfC's last 30 days. Numerous sources describe the events at Scranton in 1877 as a general strike (there may actually be a better title using the year as there was a threatened general strike in Scranton in 1945) and there is no reason to distrust solid sources such as the New York Times. --RexxS (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

100% agree that whatever name is used should include a year. Non specific searches I was doing were definitely confounding the two events. TimothyJosephWood 17:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a title such as "Scranton General Strike of 1877" would find consensus? I could source that to:

• "A General Strike At Scranton". The New York Times. July 25, 1877. p. 2.
• "A traditional union town with a modern version of conflict". Life magazine. April 29, 1957. p. 32.
• Crosby, David (2009). Scranton Railroads. p. 30. ISBN 9780738565187.

Primary and secondary sources; newspaper, magazine and book; all referring to a general strike at Scranton in 1877. What more could any reasonable person want? --RexxS (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

               ::To say nothing of the fact that the events described fit the definition of "general strike". I agree with the title you have suggested. I'm new at the Wikipedian business and am not sure how to change title names however. I could probably figure it out but if you'd like to make the change, all the better.Verita.miner (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

thank you for the useful suggestions. i do not know how to change the title! but agree that 1877 should be there. could someone add this in? the original title was "Scranton General Strike of 1877." There was also something called a general strike in scranton in 1865 or 1866, btw.Verita.miner (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

(First comment got nuked by the move.) Verita.miner, per WP:SIGN, convention is to sign only the end of your comments. Just FYI. Part of this is because (as I just did here), many people begin comments by WP:PINGing someone involved in the discussion. So it kindof makes it look like you are pinging yourself to your own comment every time you leave one.

I wonder if the whole goings on with the libel suit wouldn't be WP:DUE weight as part of the aftermath of the event. Would certainly seem to add context and closure. TimothyJosephWood 17:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood:: That's because Anmccaff is incapable of responding to a single post with a single post of his own and has made a dog's breakfast of this section by interjecting his comments within Verita.miner's original post.[1]. --RexxS (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Dog's breakfast, Rexxs? No, if someone can follow the indenting custom, it works out quite nicely. User:Veritaminer is signing her posts, in effect, at the beginning. I can't do much about that. Anmccaff (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You've been warned about it before, Anmccaff. WP:TPG is required reading and if you can't figure out that it makes it impossible for third parties to work out who wrote what, it's time you were banned from commenting on talk pages. --RexxS (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

She's been signing at the beginning of fragments of her original comments because you fragmented them. There's a lot you could do about that if you had even the slightest amount of courtesy toward other editors in you. No wonder we don't keep new editors with the likes of you about --RexxS (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

We could probably do without WP:BITING the new editor...or each other. Also this digression should end, because it doesn't really have anything to do with improving the article. TimothyJosephWood 17:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Reasonably complete NPOV description of the rioting and aftermath.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court documentation

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

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

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

Michael A. Bellesiles

Bellesiles, the man who published a book based on invented data? (Or do you accept his contention that the dog ate his homework?)

From the link above: Columbia University's Board of Trustees decided that Bellesiles had "violated basic norms of scholarship and the high standards expected of Bancroft Prize winners."[1] Anmccaff (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Eh. I don't really see it as a huge issue. This work isn't really related to the controversy over that particular book. Obviously he's not disgraced enough to prevent him from continuing to write and people still publish it. Plus his views seem properly attributed in the article, (i.e., not said in Wikipedia's voice). TimothyJosephWood 17:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I do, obviously. He's been shown to have simply invented data; anything he writes should be taken with a huge grain of salt, and a competent researcher should recognize that. If other sources are available, they should be used; if other sources aren't available, it raises an obvious red flag. Anmccaff (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

   :: I don't think Bellesiles is discredited as a historian for all time. If so, he would be fired from his university post and banned from professional organizations. The book 1877 is published and peer reviewed. In any case, I have added the secondary source Harold Aurend. I believe there is one more major secondary source to be added, but this is a book out of print and I will have to get it from a library. I hope that this will settle Anmccaff's accusations of bias and dishonesty... I should add that elswhere Anmccaff has accused me of being a "sockie" and tried to have me removed from Wikipedia. I have just learned that whoever investigates that determined that this was not the case, if I can understand the lingo...  This has been indeed a very rude greeting to Wikipedia. I am honestly just trying, and I think all can see in this discussion that I have responded to Anmccaff with humility and restraint. However, I wish not to be accused of dishonesty any further, and would also wish that those previous accusations be withdrawn. Verita.miner (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't indent before your post, unless you want it to look

like this.

Just begin it with one more colon than the bit you are responding to. Sometimes a blank line helps show separation, especially when there's been a respnse in between yours and what you are responding to. Anmccaff (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Bellesiles -was- fired from his university post, denounced by a great many of his peers, and had a good deal of difficulty getting a new post at a much lower rung on the ladder. If he's your best source, you should ask why. If he isn't your best source, you should also ask why- why are you selecting him? Is it because he's easy to source? Because he agrees with you? &cet. Anmccaff (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Someone -and I believe it was you, no? - wrote a piece that described the assault on McKune as though it were just a story: {According to an account that attempted to justify the shooting of the workers, the demonstration turned into a “mob” that threatened the mayor’s life. Now, the NYT articles you also quoted were quite clear that McKune was assaulted, and the articles from the Republican claimed it was only because of specific intervention that he wasn't killed. You had good sources that told you one thing, and you wrote another. What would you call that? Anmccaff (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Btw, regarding Aurend: his source that Scranton fired on a harmless parade is...Logan. Does that strike you as likely? Anmccaff (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Finally I should add that elswhere Anmccaff has accused me of being a "sockie" and tried to have me removed from Wikipedia. that's a rather specific accusation, and one showing a level of sophistication and familiarity with wiki that you are otherwise not showing. If you are St o'hara, socking, then yes, you should be banned. One user, one account, except for obvious and open exceptions. Anmccaff (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I certainly agree that we should talk somewhere around 100% less about one another, and instead focus on the article. I'll admit I dropped the ball a bit here by starting this RfC and not keeping up with the discussion very well.

I can see how Bellesiles' past would be supremely relevant if he was used to make a highly controversial claim, but it doesn't look like that's really the case, and at any rate a corroborating source really settles the issue as long as they're in agreement. TimothyJosephWood 19:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

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 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)

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)

Markers as reliable sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

yes it was called a general strike

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

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

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

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

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

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

you mean where we see Scranton General Strike

May be a good time to take this to WP:AfD given the author's opinion that it be merged. TimothyJosephWood 00:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC) That hardly seems "unilateral." Anmccaff (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)