Colorado Coalfield War was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Hey, Eddie891, thanks for your work thus far on the article review! Looked into the edits you suggested. First off, appreciate the AGF on the page numbers of the monographs; will post links if and when online versions become available. Some serious work has been done (which means that some of the numbering on the citations you listed has changed––I apologize for any complications that may cause). Among the edits you suggested was an extended, more prosaic lede. I hope that the new (but largely similar) lede accomplishes that. Similarly, concerns with citations and the lack thereof were addressed to the best of my ability at present. Unfortunately, one case in particular––former Citation 24 now Citation 25, the Congressional document––can not be rectified until I regain access to the print version, which is located roughly 1,500 miles from my present location. Once I acquire the text once more––around the 20th of this month, inshallah––I will be able to plug in those specific page numbers, which likely will be individually denoted citations rather than the excessively listed one currently employed. Regarding the Sunseri source, there is unfortunately no freely accessible online version of this document. I will be attempting to purchase one of the copies in private hands and if I am successful will post it on Google Books or something of that ilk in order to provide readers with a verifiable and accessible secondary source of merit. Again, thanks for any and all suggestions to this page and those related from all. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was frustrated to discover the poor quality of this article (through no fault of the previous editors) relative to articles on other incidents of similar importance and with a such significant academic resources. I am thus doing whatever research I can. This will be a continuing process and will likely include edits over the next two months. Please feel free to add more to the page, as it needs to be contextualized into the 1903-1904 Cripple Creek Strike as well and I am bad at synthesis. Pbritti 14:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Completed most of what I wanted to with this article. Feel good about it. No real need for too much more to make it a complete entry, barring new research changing perceptions and awareness of events. Thanks for all the help building this into something good! ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added a ton of stuff a while back (Jalsing88). Its primarily pieced from a paper I wrote for a Colorado history class. This was all proofed by an instructor that did significant work on Ludlow history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.151.72.162 (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back looking at this article after 5 years. Thank you to everyone who made it great. This is such an important, often forgotten, chapter in US history that deserved a much better article than I was capable of making. -2021
Here's to you, Jalsing88–your efforts helped spike my interest in the topic and led me to focus on the Coalfield War as my topic for my main collegiate paper. Since then, I have visited archives and spent dozens of nights sleeplessly learning about the conflict and improving this page so that other students of history might find similar merit. Thank you for you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I second the motion that this page be expanded. The Ludlow Massacre page is good, but it should obviously be linked to the greater context of the Coalfield War. Moreover, the link between this and the Colorado Labor Wars between 1903 to 1904.
I created this article with hopes that it will be expanded to include information not only about the 1914 Ludlow Massacre, but also the earlier disputes in 1913 and the conflicts after the massacre in 1914. I think that such a prominent event in America labor history is worthy of having its own page.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
clarify in the lede where it took place, more specifically than just 'Colorado', if possible.
It climaxed at the Ludlow Colony, which ended as a massacre when the Colorado National Guard attacked a tent city occupied by about 1,200 striking coal miners and their families this sentence doesn't flow very well
You never mention how the strike ended in the lede
really the lede needs to be expanded to at least two paragraphs that tell the full story of the strike
began when the United Mine Workers of America organized southern Coloradan coal field workers when? what day?
and state regulations on mining and for an eight-hour work day was the eight hour workday part of the federal or state regulations?
The legal and political systems of the area were controlled by the mine owners, so using established government was not an option for the miners. Why wasn't it? Were the mine owners more powerful than the government? Otherwise, there are many examples of the government overriding powerful private interests.
the strike was in full swing what does 'full swing' mean? Had it peaked? How many people were striking? Was anyone not? How long had striking been going on? Why wouldn't the company meet their demands? How did the company respond to the strikers besides evicting them?
All of a sudden the company is mentioned to have been sold to Rockefeller! wouldn't it make more sense to put that before the reaction of strikers to their treatment?
clarify what 'buying political figures' means and what relevance it has to anything.
When was Bowers hired?
Be somewhat more specific as to how, exactly, Bower's approach led to this happening, and what exactly was to the detriment of the workers
Eight tent colonies were supposed to have been constructed constructed by who?
informed soon after the strike began that between 40 how soon after?
including Karl Linderfelt why does that matter? add a mention of his importance.
The whole article generally reads a little disjointedly and seems to lose focus. For example The Baldwin-Felts and CF&I had an armored car nicknamed the "Death Special" which was equipped with a machine gun, as well as eight machine guns purchased from the Coal Operators' Association of West Virginia by CF&I. In all, 12 machine guns reached the strike zone by the end of the conflict. Death Special was constructed at a CF&I shop in Pueblo and passed on to the militia later in the conflict. Detectives were accused of firing randomly into and above the miners' colonies in the months preceding the Ludlow Massacre, including from the armored car.
It raises several questions:
where did the other three machine guns come from?
why does it matter that they were purchased from the Coal Operators Association?
why does it matter where Death Special was constructed?
why mention there that "detectives were accused of firing randomly..." and how does it fit into the rest of the paragraph?
Fatalities during the strike were generally under-reported, as Las Animas County coroner's office reports more bodies related to the strike than appear in contemporary news reports. The office recorded 232 violent deaths from the beginning of 1910 to March 1913 with only 30 deaths resulting in a trial, which a later congressional committee suggested a pattern of disinterest in recording fatalities associated with the mining companies. chronologically this doesn't really fit in here?
for me these problems with the prose continue throughout the article, Pbritti; and I'd recommend you do a thorough copy edit or request one at WP:GOCE/REQ/ You also need to address my concerns with the reliability of the sources and formatting before I can continue with the review. Eddie891TalkWork15:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pbritti I'd greatly appreciate if you could respond on this page and let me know the state of responding to my comments... I'll finish up the prose comments right now Eddie891TalkWork13:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891 Hey! I've been going through your prose comments as methodically as I can and for the most part have rectified any issues raised as they appeared on this page. I believe that I have done most of what you have asked, though some others certainly appear to have picked up the slack elsewhere. Thank you for your work thus far! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pbritti, OK, sounds great! I'll try to read through the article again tomorrow and conduct another source spot check, and then hopefully pass. Sorry this has dragged on for so long, I really haven't been the reviewer I should be and the reviewer you deserve and for that, I apologize. Eddie891TalkWork22:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891 No need to apologize–the extended time of this process has actually resulted in me learning much more about Wikipedia and inspiring me to greater interest. While a pass would be grand, I now know the process and what to look for when creating new pages. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The news of the massacre would reach the other tent colonies, including the large group of strikers in Walsenburg. in my experience, 'would' is generally not used in Wikipedia-space, it is somewhat deprecated in favor of a specific date (i.e. "the news of the massacre reached the other tent colonies on X MONTH YEAR..." or "the news of the massacre soon reached...")
Was it the "10-Day War" or the "Ten Days War"? standardize between the two
strikers at the loss of the mine's superintendent please rephrase this to clarify meaning a little more
rightly fearing the strikers how do we know he was right? and there's no indication what he did after rightly fearing in the same sentence
, only to relent after a 21-hour siege I think chronologically this is out of place...
they observed the truce along what had become who's 'they'?
all National Guardsmen to head for the strike zoneall national guardsmen?! in the world?
Seventy-six soldiers of Troop C out of how many? 76 out of 500 is comparatively small vs 76 out of 100
For the most seems like an incomplete sentence
is there a map we could put in the article to help readers keep the mines straight?
refused President Wilson's offer of mediation, conditioned upon collective bargaining, was the offer or the refusal contingent on collective bargaining? clarify/
would be a risky move exactly why would it be so risky?
It has been suggested that this policy of under-reporting deaths by who?
fighters died died or were killed?
most quotes throughout the article need to be attributed (for example: official "Call to Arms" who said this and why is it in quotes?)
Pro-union publications lamented such as? Which publications? when?
I've copyedited, but please feel free to disagree with me wherever you feel appropriate
That day, the strike peaked with up to 20,000 miners and their families being evicted from company housing that were planned to be moved into union supplied tents could you rephrase this sentence, please.
On 17 December, the National Guard, under orders from Gov. Ammons from 1 December, allowed for the first strikebreakers to enter the strike zone following a brief moratorium on any workers other than those already present in Southern Colorado working. I thought there were strikebreakers as early as November?
90 the date in the article is wrong, should be 27 April 1914. The book doesn't source that they are memorialized in the Ludlow monument, and the book says it was an explosion, mentioning nothing about fire
19 good
88 please cite specific pages in the 24 page document, I fail to see it sourcing Pro-union publications would lament the failure to secure immediate significant structural change in the relationship between miners and the CF&I in addition to sharply criticizing the Guard and militia's response and actions at Ludlow.
24 similarly, citing a 68 page document, you need specific page numbers, once they are in, I will re-check this source
45 AGF on book pages
68 AGF on book pages
75 good
This isn't a the most promising spot check, once the issues are addressed, I will have to conduct another before I can be reasonably confident sourcing is reliable.
32: doesn't source "Accounts of who fired the first shot differ, but fighting raged all day. Families of the strikers sought shelter in cellars beneath their tents."
Pbritti first of all, I want to thank you for all the hard work you've put into this article. It looks much better then it did when you started working on it, and at the end of the day, that's really what matters. I'm going to place this review on hold so you have time to go through and clean up the sourcing and address my final comments. Thank you for all your work and all your patience. Eddie891TalkWork13:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891–Addressed some of the citing issues you have raised in the article. I removed the Sangres source and replaced it with an academic source. I supplemented the .de source for Hayes's song with an academic source, though the material this academic source cites is no longer available online. I also attempted to add further citations to the Ludlow section upon your suggestion, as it is apparent in the Ludlow Massacre page that there is a need to heavily cite every aspect of the engagement lest controversy erupt. I hope that this is ample to get the article to the GA level and appreciate your patience during, particularly during this rather trying time. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a citation needed tag that needs to be resolved
61 sources; analyzing every fifth
1 (used MUSE free book). Ideally, there'd be specific page numbers, but given that it's only a 20 page range (equivelant to a journal article), I'm willing to let this slide.
1a : cited on several pages, none of which are in the given range
1b : found on page 148
1c : Y
1d : Y (circular entitled "call to arms")
In summary, Y, all the information is sourced, but not all under the page range given
(5 inaccessible) 4
4a Y
4b Y
4c Y
4d Y
4e Y
In summary, this source is very well used
10 Y source says "bloodiest labor dispute in American history." and estimates 150-200 severe injuries
15 Y
20
20a Y needs page number; a google page search suggests p. 127, yet doesn't mention the demand unheeded
20b N needs page number, cannot find the source
25 N needs |journal= param filled out, appears to be a book, needs pg numbers
30 ? what report is this? I cannot find it
35
35a Y source says that the strikers were at danger of suffocation, not that they were suffocated
35b Y I can only find the deaths of two mine workers supported... perhaps I'm missing something
40 Y
45 N I'm concerned that this is not a reliable source. Try instead this book
(50 inaccessible) 49 Y
55 N gives a 404 error
60 Y
Again, this spot check is not entirely promising. What I need you to do is not only resolve these issues, but also do the same check with the other 80% of sources, so that it can pass another spot check (which I'm going to need to do if I'm going to pass). If that's something you can't or are unwilling to do, let me know and I will close the review as unsuccessful and reassess the class of this article as B. It is very well done, and I'm sure all the information is correct, but I fear the sources have just become very convoluted. Understand that at the end of the day, a title like GA or FA is just a title, and what matters to the readers is that the article provides information they want, and it's abundantly clear this article does that. Of course, if you want to work through the cites and it will take a while, I can close this as unsuccessful and you can re-nominate it once you've checked the citations. In summary: A decent quality article (like this one) doesn't need the GA title to serve its purpose. Let me know if you want to continue this nom. Eddie891TalkWork23:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your work, Eddie891. Through your help and those recognizing the need, this article has seriously improved over the last coupe months. I appreciate the process and would appreciate if you could close this article nomination process, as some of the more serious citation concerns (such as 55) are going to take time to fix (in the case of 55, the database hosting the cited interview has deleted it as they are updating their site and has yet to re-upload it). Thank you, again, and I hope that you good work continues elsewhere! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With the upcoming GA backlog drive, I decided now is as good a time as ever to submit the improved and updated article to achieve Good Article status. Thank you to whoever ends up reviewing! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the rapid turn-around! I'll be periodically checking in so if there are any issues I'll work to immediately rectify them. Of that causes any issues just tag me! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique, in the event that Goldsztajn is unable to complete the review, what are my options for recourse? I have waited three months for this review to be complete and I’m willing to wait a while yet but would prefer not to. Thanks to both of you for your efforts. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pbritti - as part of the review process I'm going over the previous GA review. I'd like to be sure that as much as possible has been clearly addressed from that review. Also, it will possibly take a bit of time to complete this review, so I see it proceeding in a few stages. I believe my initial comments can be addressed relatively easily. In terms of ease of following your responses, can you indent your comments under each bullet point. Thanks! --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Three of the non-fiction texts mentioned in the further reading (Killing for Coal, Blood Passion and Buried Unsung) are cited within the article; they are not therefore further reading texts. The other text is a journal article from an author already cited - it's not clear why this one text would be significant for further reading. I would suggest just keeping the fiction section and dropping the non-fiction section.
The reference to DeStefanis' PhD should use the {{cite thesis}} template and not: {{cite journal|title=Guarding capital: Soldier strikebreakers on the long road to the Ludlow massacre |last1=DeStefanis |first1=Anthony Roland |s2cid=198026553 |publisher=[[The College of William & Mary]] |journal=Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects |year=2004 |doi=10.21220/s2-d7pf-f181 }}. "Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects" is not a journal title. Done ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seligman, Edwin R. A. (5 November 1914). "Colorado's Civil War and Its Lessons". Frank Leslie's Weekly. Retrieved 20 February 2020 – via Accessible Archives — link doesn't work Y This source is closed access and generally requires either a subscription or university access. Sourced info does not exist elsewhere. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sunseri, Alvin (1972). "The Ludlow Massacre: A study in the mis-employment of the National Guard". University of Northern Iowa — What is this reference? Monograph, book, article?? There are not enough details to verify this reference.
Y This is a print report created by Sunseri and held by the Denver Library's special collections and other public libraries, but is not available in a scanned online format or on JSTOR. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bovsun, Mara. "Justice Story: Women, kids killed in bloody 1913 Ludlow Massacre during coal strike" — No date of publication, no source. Done ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Papanikolas, Zeese (1982). Buried Unsung: Louis Tikas and the Ludlow Massacre. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. — No ISBN Done ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adams Jr., Graham (1966). "VII: Massacre in Colorado". Age of Industrial Violence 1910-1915: The Activities and Findings of the United States Commission on Industrial Relations. New York City: Columbia University Press. — No ISBN. Done ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"CAPTAIN HILDRETH FROST PAPERS". Western History and Genealogy. Denver: Denver Public Library. p. FF11. Retrieved 19 February 2020. — Link doesn't work.
Y This is a link to the page on the Denver Library site for the documents in their special collections. Unfortunately, they have not yet been scanned but when they are they will appear here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Colorado Coalfield War 1913-14" (PDF). Charleston, SC: College of Charleston. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 January 2021. Retrieved 2 April 2020. — What is this? It seems to be course notes... is the information provided here not available from a more reliable source?
Hart, Steve; Osterhout, Shannon (15 June 2014). "2014 Mining History Association Tour: Historic Coal and Coking Camps - Starkville, Cokedale, Boncarbo, Berwind Canyon, Hastings, and Ludlow". mininghistoryassociation.org. Mining History Association. Archived from the original on 31 July 2020. Retrieved 7 April 2020. — Repetition of source, remove mininghistoryassociation.org Done ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Creel, George (1947). "The Colorado Coal Strike". Rebel at Large: Recollections of Fifty Crowded Years. New York City: Van Rees Press. Retrieved 14 April 2021. — No ISBN, chapter title is not necessary page reference already included, title of website is not title of text, {{cite book}} should be used, not {{cite web}}. Done ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Laurie; Cole (1997). The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders, 1877–1945. Washington: Center of Military History, United States Army. — Add link to text [1], as far as I can see there does not appear to be an ISBN for this text, but perhaps you can see one?
Hallahan, Kirk (October 2002). "Ivy Lee and the Rockefellers' Response to the 1913-1914 Colorado Coal Strike". Journal of Public Relations Research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. p. 268. Archived from the original on 19 March 2021. Retrieved 18 March2021. — researchgate.net is an unreliable source; this seems to be the final version of the work and a reliable source: [2] Done ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Smith, Gerald (17 December 2015). "Bowers worked with Rockefeller, left legacy in Broome". Retrieved 18 March 2020 – via pressconnects. — Source is Pressconnects, not via Pressconnects Done ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mintz, S.; McNeill, S. (2018). ""Ludlow Massacre" By Woody Guthrie". Digital History. Archived from the original on 19 January 2021. Retrieved 12 January 2020. — Hosted on University of Houston website, that should be the source. Mintz and McNeill are essentially editors, the authorship here is Woody Guthrie, reference should indicate that. Done ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In general this is a very well illustrated article. Most of my comments are related to minor improvements. None of the images have alt text, it's not a criteria for GA status that they do, but I always encourage editors to add alt text to improve accessibility.
Image in infobox (Colorado_nat_guard_arrive_ludlow_strike.jpg): I'm really in two minds about this photo; it's important and significant, it demonstrates the extent of the armed force deployed by the state during the dispute, but it also appears absent of context. Many of the major conflict articles use a mosiac of images in the infobox, I think that would be good here. I'll suggest a few images which could be included further below. However the image is used, it should be cropped at Commons to remove the caption (Let me know, I can do this, if you cannot).
Addendum: caption is inaccurate. Image depicts National Guardsmen entering Ludlow riding atop railcarriages (cough, railcars), not guarding positions. --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC) Done--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recovery_of_Casualties_After_Primero_Explosion.jpg: caption needs correction, image illustrates the recovery of a casualty (singular, not plural). Done ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ludlow_Death_Car.jpg: image is on English Wikipedia, link to source of image is broken. Image should be moved to Commons (the image is available here [3]). Caption should read: Known as Death Special, Baldwin-Felts detectives with a vehicle-mounted M1895 machine gun. Done ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
View_west_from_Water_Tank_Hill_into_Berwind_Canyon,_c._1910-1920.png: not at all clear what is the purpose of this photo, many other photos in the article illustrate the geography of the location, this seems superfluous and I cannot see connection to the text. Done ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ludlow_Tent_Colony_Before_the_Fire,_1914.jpg: Caption needs to clarify this is the tent colony of the miners and their families following eviction from company housing Done ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ladies_Voting_Assembly_of_Southern_Colorado_March_in_Support_of_Mother_Jones,_1913.png: a minor quibble with this caption... was Mother Jones, repeatedly arrested or jailed? To me, jailing is the result of being convicted and being sentenced; is that the case here? If not, perhaps, "repeatedly arrested and detained"? It seems to me her treatment is actually false imprisonment, but without a RS indicating that... Mother Jones should be linked in the caption.
Zanetell_tent_at_Forbes_tent_colony.png: add date of image (February, 1914). Why is "exposure" piped to hypothermia? If the source indicates exposure, but we don't have clear indication of hypothermia, then don't link. I don't have access to Thomas' Killing for Coal, but the image source does not indicate cause of death. As well, the image source indicates the deaths were prior to the destruction of the Forbes Colony ("Emma Zanatell [sic] (in tent) gave birth to twins. The babys [sic] died and while the people from the tent colony were in Trinidad burying them, the militia destroyed the tent colony at Forbes"); does Thomas contradict this?
National_Guardsmen_in_Ludlow,_20_April,_1914.png: add date to caption. Caption is wildly misleading! These are Guardsmen *posing* in the ruins of the Ludlow colony following its destruction and the massacre. Done ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
President_of_UMWA_District_15_John_McLennan_in_custody_with_Major_Patrick_Hamrock.jpg: add date to caption
Addendum: I've found the original [4] of this photo at the Denver Public Library archive, which is not cropped, it's a better version. I'll add this to Commons and replace in the article. However, the captioning there gives no indication that McLennon is in custody (nor does the source [5] for the current version of the image). What is the sourcing for the claim that this image depicts McLennan's arrest/detention? (the lack of visible hands, possibly indicates being hand-cuffed, but that's just my speculation). --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
John_D._Rockefeller_and_Mackenzie_King_at_Valdez,_Colorado_in_1915.jpg: Mackenzie King should be linked in the caption Done ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the hypothermia matter, Thomas (and I believe Martelle) described the colony's destruction as preceding the deaths. Further, and I'll have to relocate the book, I believe that Thomas mentions hypothermia explicitly after quoting "exposure," so I wanted to keep the original description while providing the modern definition. As for the posing matter, you're right on with that.
"Jailing," on the other hand, is not a matter of conviction. Indeed, "jails" are often distinguished from "prisons" as the former contains non-convict residents while the latter can contain both. In despotic settings, many political opponents can be "jailed" (as in, kept in actual jail cells; this was the case for Mother Jones). "Detainment," at least in modern American parlance, seems to be distinct from an arrest and detention in a jail cell. False imprisonment would be improper for NPOV reasons; I would reasonably contend that, weighing the merits of Mother Jones's rhetoric and involvement in organizing several riots, she was arrested for actual crimes (whether the National Guard had the legal capacity to effect those arrests is a separate argument). ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take care of the cropping, that's quite easy. I can prepare a mixed picture. Just to be clear from my side, this (ie the mosiac picture) is not in my opinion an issue for/against the GA assessment, but if we can do it now, I think worthwhile. On the issue of "jail" - this is a product of US English, but a jail (gaol!) in most British English environs is a place of ongoing detention and also a place where person on remand can be held. I'm aware in the US there are different types of jails, but the point here is the caption is ambiguous to my reading because "jailed" follows "arrested"; if there were no convictions, her ongoing detention was unlawful. I think the problem boils down to a difference in US and British English usage: Merriam-Webster v Cambridge. Still, I think it would be better to try to remove the ambiguity with an alternative (eg instead of "arrested and jailed" perhaps "repeatedly detained for extended periods by the National Guard"). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pbritti I'm going to stop editing this for now and wait for responses to the points raised in these two sections. Ping me when you finish or if you need any clarifications. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Goldsztajn, hi! Sorry I haven't done much with the page over the last few days; personal life got hectic. I wanted to just ask if you think that the infobox is a major component? I want to delete the word "Southern" from the title of the infobox but find it to be a useful infobox otherwise. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pbritti No need to apologise given the time I've taken! :) I've made the change myself now; let me know what you think (I fixed the caption for the photo and moved "Southern" from the title to the location). My main concern is I don't think the subtitles in the military conflict template are appropriate (especially commanders - really inappropriate for trade unions, but also belligerents misconstrues the nature of the conflict, ie its origins are industrial in nature, not military). Also, I'm uncomfortable with the use of {{KIA}} with Louis Tikas; most sources describe his death as murder. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pbritti, just a very gentle nudge, are you moving forward with this? No need to hurry, as I took my time to get the ball rolling, but if you are pausing would be helpful to know. Regards Goldsztajn (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi sorry Goldsztajn. I will require a break until midweek (~14 July). I've only been able to do some gnoming edits off my phone for the last week and will be in a similar set-up for a few days more. Expect serious work and responses by Wednesday. Otherwise, please ping. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn: Hey! I've done some significant editing to this page since you last went over it and I wanted to have some closure on this GA review by the end this month (or early next month!). Let me know what help I can render. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pbritti, I can see most of the issues related to images above have been addressed, but what about the references? Can you indicate which ones have been addressed, please? --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn: Not to pester, but today and tomorrow are excellent days for me to respond to any points you may have. I'll be able to look other days, too, but wanted to offer more immediate responses over the next 48 hours as a courtesy (considering I've been lazy otherwise). ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My view here is the length is somewhat short given the length of the article and there is an imbalance of information which is important..
The term "poor working conditions" is an understatement, if not the most deadly working conditions at that time in the US, then amongst the worst!
The sentence "While the entirety of the strike-related violence is also commonly called the "Colorado Coal War" and the "Colorado Civil War," some historians use these terms only to refer to the final ten days of intense fighting at the end of April" can be converted to a note connected to the title.
"An estimated 69 to 199 people died during the strike,[7] though far fewer are officially recorded being killed by the fighting by both the local government and contemporary news reports." Would suggest something like: "Estimates of the number of people killed during the strike vary (between 69 and 199), with contemporary historical research pointing to numbers significantly higher than recognized at the time of the conflict."
Some themes missing or underplayed in the lead which should be included: largely migrant labour force (Greek, Welsh, Balkan), industrial context to the conflict (long standing resistance from the owners to union recognition or negotiations, failure of earlier strikes, previous violence in mine disputes which led to workers taking arms), national outcry over the massacre, Presidential intervention and use of the Insurrection Act (underplayed in present text), legacy (lost the battle, won the war?).
I'll discuss this further in another comment shortly, but what is unusual about this conflict is the "evenness" (if you will) of the violence - there was active armed resistance over an extended period from workers, and if the massacre itself is seen as a separate event, overall it appears that deaths of workers and the owners' proxies were roughly similar. This stands in significant contrast to most other violent conflicts in US labor history, where it is workers who disproportionately suffer. This is one of Thomas Andrews' main points in Killing for Coal and something highlighted by in James Green's review of this and other texts on the Coalfield War.
This is somewhat mixed containing elements which have great degrees of variance in significance.
The mention of Guthrie and Sinclair is significant and noteworthy but I don't see Hayes' song as part of legacy, it was written during the strike (I would move it to sections above). It is significant though that Hayes later went into Colorado politics and worth mentioning.
The fact that this subject has the attention of academic researchers is not a legacy. (Describing Howard Zinn as "controversial" is use of WP:Weasel). I would drop this whole paragraph. The reference to Mary Thomas O'Neal is the first time she appears in the article, but she should be included in the sections dealing with the massacre and aftermath. Her article has material which could be used.
I would make the Ludlow monument a subsection itself (ie ====Ludlow monument====). The text needs some copyediting and shortening. The picture of the monument is excellent, I would drop the text about the vandalism from the paragraph, shorten and add to the caption.
The last paragraph is WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT, perhaps if a newspaper of record, eg the New York Times, had carried such an editorial it might be noteworthy. Should be dropped.
However, what's missing here and what most studies mention is the historical impact of the strike. Walker provides a good summary: "Although the miners lost the Colorado strike, it was and still is seen as a victory in a broad sense for the union, the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) (Foner 1980; Fox 1990). The Coal War was a shocking event, one that galvanized U.S. public opinion, turned John D. Rockefeller, Jr., into a national villain, and eventually came to symbolize the wave of industrial violence that led to the "progressive" era reforms in labor relations (Adams 1966; Gitelman 1988; Crawford 1995). Coal miners in Colorado did ultimately see some material gains."[1]
I apologize for not getting back to you immediately. Expect a work-through on your comments at some point today. Events in my private life led to the dearth of activity on this site during the last month but will hopefully be followed by a period of renewed vigor. Having read through your recommendations and comments, I’ll post a response to some of them here once I’ve implemented the most necessary and the most easily added portions to the article. Thanks again ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pbritti, I created this Map illustrating the main locations of striking miners' colonies and towns during the Colorado Coalfield War, 1913-14 for use in the article, let me know what you think. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you like it! I need to do a little more work on it, should have the final version ready by the end of the weekend and then next week hope to get through the final round of comments on the text. Thanks again for all your patience. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Goldsztajn: I'm effectively calling it here. I am asking for a final assessment on this GA nomination in the next two weeks and will be available to respond to comments within the next five days. After that, I will leave this article unadjusted until new sources or updates become relevant. Thanks for your hard work! ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Pbritti:, sorry this is taking me longer than I expected, but unfortunately, I'm coming up with some concerns about sourcing. So far, looking at one source I've found four of six references are significant misrepresentations, making statements not supported by the source.
CF&I was accused by both miners and federal investigators of occasionally not assigning checkweighmen "in order that the miners might be cheated of part of their earnings." (Sourced to pp.15-16)
In the cases of several companies, the suppression of unionism was used also to deny checkweighmen to the men in order that the miners might be cheated of part of their earnings. (pp.15-16)
The source is emphasising that this form of wage theft was possible because of trade union suppression.
Federal investigators would later cite these armed guards and spies, as well at their utilization of "the whole machine of the law" in the "persecution of organizers and union members," as among the primary reasons for strikers taking arms against CF&I. (Sourced to p.15)
Economic domination was achieved by the Colorado Fuel & Iron Co. and its followers through the ruthless suppression of unionism, accomplished by the use of the power of summary discharge, the black list, armed guards, and spies, and by the active aid of venal state, county and town officials, who placed the entire machinery of the law at the disposal of the companies in their persecution of organizers and union members. (p.15)
Misquotes ("whole machine" / "entire machinery"), no linking, let alone mention, of taking arms against CF&I
During this initial stage of the strike, Governor Ammons met several times with Welborn, Osgood, and David W. Brown–representing CF&I, Victor-American, and the Rocky Mountain Fuel Company respectively. Ammons intended to facilitate a summit between these corporate leaders to several of the union heads so that the strike might end quickly. However, following belligerent statements on both sides, such a conference never transpired. (Sourced to p.28)
Frank Hayes, vice president of the national organization, came to Colorado and formed a policy committee composed of himself, Mr. Lawson, Mr. McLennan and Mr. Doyle. Their first act was to call upon Governor Ammons and request him to use his efforts to bring about a conference with the leading operators. Governor Ammons endeavored to arrange such a meeting and conferred a number of times with Mr. Welborn, Mr. Osgood, and Mr. Brown, representing respectively the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, the Victor-American Fuel Company, and the Rocky Mountain Fuel Company. They refused to meet with the union representatives, on the ground that such a meeting would mean recognition of the union. (p.28)
The article misconstrues the source, laying blame on Ammons, when the source is clearly indicating there was a total refusal from the mine owners to even meet the union with no mention of disagreement between Ammons and the mine owners. (p.28)
On 24 September, a marshal employed by CF&I named Robert Lee was attempting the arrest of four strikers accused of vandalism when he was ambushed and killed at Segundo. Another lawman later testified that Lee had been particularly hated by the strikers for his insults against their wives. (no page reference)
Witness McQuarrie, former under sheriff of Huerfano County, testified that Robert Lee, one of the camp marshals employed by the Colorado Fuel & Iron Co., was a violent bully who had entered the homes of the miners without cause and insulted their women, and toward whom the miners and their families felt an intense fear and hatred. Many of Lee's offensive acts, said Mr. McQuarrie, were committed while he was under the influence of liquor. (pp.83-84)
There's only one mention of Robert Lee in the text which appears on pp.83-84, there's no mention of his shooting, the article downplays the nature of the contact between Lee and the miners and their families, the article mentions only words (insults) as if the issue was personal animosity, the source mentions violence, home invasions, instilling fear, drunkenness.
@Goldsztajn:, thank you so very much for your intense review of the sourcing! Where would you prefer I submit alterations to the text body or additional sources that fill in the holes? I can recall for certain a couple instances where I appear to have just neglected to supplement an additional source that corresponds with the issues you pointed out. Thanks again and just give me a semblance of what timeline you want those revisions in by. Thanks ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Pbritti: this is a bit complicated. I've added my analysis of the use of "Killing for Coal" below; there's similar problems regarding interpretation and use of the source. I'm sorry about this but I'm finding problems with almost every reference. While there are issues of error (such as the the Mother Jones quote) which can be corrected easily, I'm seeing a larger number of issues related to how material has been selected and used. I'd like to go through "Blood Passion" and the "The Great Coalfield War" before drawing any further conclusions. If you can hold off editing the main body, I have some time coming up that I can work on it over the next few days. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time, @Goldsztajn:. Glad you're catching stuff. The Mother Jones quote puzzles me, as I distinctly recall another source referring it as exclusively her quote (though wonder why I only added the Andrewes citation; more worrisome, since then other websites seem to have copied my possibly erroneous quoting). I'll do a complete once-over of you comments and questions when you've completed your review and probably do that on a draft page so I don't disturb the stability of the public article. Let me know if you need access to some of the material not online; I have photos of the texts of some of the material not yet digitalized that I cite. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is my check on the Thomas Andrew's text. As the text is not public domain, I'm more limited with direct quoting from the source.
Andrews Killing for coal America's deadliest labor war (edition: 2008 HUP)
Article
Source
Comment
The tonnage system drove many poor and ambitious colliers to gamble with their lives by neglecting precautions and taking on risk, with consequences that were often fatal. (pp.138-139)
"The tonnage system of payment left miners little choice but to gamble with their lives." (p.138) "...men had to decide whether to safeguard their lives or tempt fate." (p.139) "Miners who pushed their luck in hopes of earning a little more money sometimes paid with their lives; more cautious comrades sacrificed wages for safety. This devil's bargain seems more infernal still..." (p. 139)
Changes the emphasis of the source: Andrews is focused on the lack of choice and risk ("devil's bargain", "little choice", "pushed their luck", "infernal"), the text downplays this ("drove", "ambitious", "gamble")...For example to say someone is pushing their luck is negative, suggestive of doing something wrong, to gamble suggests a win/loss scenario.
"Rise up and strike! If you are too cowardly, there are enough women in this country to come in here and beat the hell out of you. [...] When we strike, we strike to win." — Mother Jones (sourced to pp.238-239)
The first part is attributed to Mother Jones, but "When we strike, we strike to win" is attributed to Frank Hayes (p.239)
Misquote, misappropriation
Peffello likely lost his home after returning to it upon abandoning the Piedmont tent colony. (sourced to p.250)
No mention of Peffello
Source does not support claim
Mine guard Robert McMillen was shot and killed at Delagua, a mine owned by Colorado's second-largest coal company, Victor-American Fuel Company, and which had been one of the first mines to go on strike, on 2 December. (sourced to p.247)
No mention of McMillen, source mentions Delagua
Unclear use of source connecting information that source does not indicate are connected.
After the 10 March destruction of the colony, Joseph Zanetell (light cap, in front of chimney) would lose two newborn twins to exposure (hypothermia). (sourced to p.270)
Source does not mention Joseph, but rather Emma, does not mention cause of death ("...into the sleet and snow, where her newborn twin babies sickened and died.")
Original caption of the photo indicates: "Ludlow strike, Forbes tent colony, Zanatell [sic] tent at Forbes tent colony. Emma Zanatell [sic] (in tent) gave birth to twins. The babys died and while the people from the tent colony were in Trinidad burying them, the militia destroyed the tent colony at Forbes. Emma's tent was left because she was too sick to move. Joe Zanatell's [sic] wearing a dark cap, standing in front of the chimney. 2 boys in front row named Prescot [sic]. Mrs. Mosei [sic] and Emma's sister (holding her own newborn) also in front row." Neither source gives an indication of the cause of death, exposure/hypothermia is speculative/original research.
In retaliation, the Guard destroyed the colony on 10 March, burning it to the ground while most inhabitants were away and arresting all 16 men living in the tents, an action that indirectly resulted in the deaths of two newborn children. (sourced to p.270)
Source does not indicate this was specifically an act of retaliation, no mention of burning ("destroying every tent"), source implies it was 16 who were present there at the time, not necessarily living there, source directly links actions of militia to deaths of Emma Zanetell's children.
Article misconstrues the source, elaborating information not contained there.
All together, at least 18 of the union side had been killed, while Martin is the only confirmed casualty from the Guard.(sourced to pp.2 + Martelle pp 222-223)
Deaths of Martin and 18 miners/unionists mentioned on p.2, pp 222-223 of Martelle contains other information
Seems imbalanced to mention the name of a National Guardsman, but none of the unionists.
Garrison's stated goal for the federal troops was to "preserve [...] an impartial attitude." Only after this intervention to disarm did the war end. (sourced to p. 282)
Correctly quotes Garrison, however, source does not indicate an end to the war (ie "peace") but rather focusses on a key consequence of Federal intervention, return to status quo ante: "they paved they way for hundreds, then thousands, of non-union men to enter the mines, and therefore to break the strike." "corporate control over mine work spaces and the new company towns"
Misconstrues information from source to present conclusion not in evidence.
By 1915, CF&I mines had reached 70 percent of their pre-strike outputs.(sourced to p. 282)
Source indicates July 1914.
This figure is used in the context of Andrews demonstrating how Federal intervention broke the strike; the misapplication of date in the article has a significant effect. Andrews is showing how the replacement of non-union labour allowed a quick recovery of production; in the article this information and its location is used to discuss longer-term effects of the strike by associating the information with the destruction of property and costs, something for which the source does not use the information.
@Goldsztajn@Pbritti I wanted to thank you both for your work on this article. As Jalsing88 I did some work back on 2015 on this family of articles and I am so happy to see where they are now. I have a copy of the source listed above and would be happy to contribute to fixing the issues notes, but I don't want to step on any toes. Delphinium1 (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delphinium1, given that both Goldsztajn and Pbritti have edited since your post and neither has objected, I'd say to go ahead. This review is now over nine months old, and anything that gets it closer to completion is welcome. Thank you for offering. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Delphinium1: thank you for the ping. I have actually been pondering this review for the last four weeks and how to go forward, but RL got in the way. The problems are more than simple errors, there are repeated instances of the sources being misconstrued. Unfortunately, I've come to the conclusion that I will need to close the review. The sourcing issues above make it clear to me that an extensive textual check of Martelle's Blood Passion and McGovern & Guttridge's Coalfield War is utterly necessary. There are sixty-one citations to both texts, the review has already become very cumbersome and will only become more so. Further, Martelle is not a professional historian, he has presented some views which are not part of academic consensus on the subject and I have some concerns about the overuse of his work here. With the nature of the check required and further issues around tone and weighting, I'd like to suggest that I quickly close the review and that if you are willing, along with Pbritti, we collectively rework the article for a new submission. Let me know your thoughts, regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn: At the risk of sounding abrasive, I am disappointed in the review process exercised here. After waiting more than seven months for substantial comments, in October this year you performed some productive review but asked me to refrain from improving the article further. Besides the most readily and easily changeable errors, I complied with that request. Now, you level several complaints that you say merit closure of the review. Whether these complaints are valid is actively debatable–and something I would rather discuss on my or the article's talk page for the sake of closing this review–and the closure of this review for any reason concludes a rather empty exercise. From nomination to now, it has been nearly a year. I repeatedly requested comments and that the review be completed, often to promises that it would occur within a week. These proved false. Life gets in the way. Please, for the sake of someone who worked very hard and wished for prompt, informational correction and commentary, pass off reviews if they prove too cumbersome. Thank you for the citation comments you provided in August and October, for they are actionable. Otherwise, I must say that I am very disappointed in this how this played out and the fact that I have now waited two years for a thorough review. If you require any more, let me know. Thank you ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn: I have to agree with @Pbritti here. It is evident how much work you have put into the GA review but I held of on fixing many of the errors noted about the sourcing from "Killing for Coal" due to the note to hold off in October. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delphinium1 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, due to the failure to sign the previous post, the pings did not go through. Pinging nominator Pbritti, reviewer Goldsztajn, and editor Delphinium1. At this point, the most recent edit to the article by any of these three is Pbritti's edit on November 8. Goldsztajn, the ball is in your court: you were pinged by Pbritti on December 10, over two weeks ago, your "hold off" request remains in place two months later, and the review itself will have been open nine months this Saturday. In courtesy, you should post here the next time you are online and editing. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: perhaps as an uninvolved (semi?) observer you might comment. I'm somewhat torn here - there are substantial problems with sourcing which require are more than simple correctives ("fixing errors"), entire sections of sources are misconstrued (as demonstrated in the tables above). I'm uncomfortable proceeding without, at the very least, a complete source check of the outstanding two sources used substantially in the article. What seems to me the best way to address the problem is to close the review and myself and the two other editors work towards getting the article ready for a re-submission. Pbritti and Delphinium1 have rejected this, but I feel the level of work now required is moving beyond what I can do in the short term (ie next two or three weeks) given I'm at the point where I'm reluctant to assume that the sourcing does not repeat the problems already revealed. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Goldsztajn, I took a look at the previous review, Talk:Colorado Coalfield War/GA1, and it appears that there were sourcing issues raised there as well, both the first and the second passes by the reviewer, such that the nomination ultimately failed. If the problems you are finding with the sourcing are of the sort and severity as those found in that first GA review, and you feel you cannot trust the article's accuracy in representing the cited sources based on the article's current condition, it may be that the best thing is to fail the nomination. I can, however, certainly understand Pbritti's disappointment and frustration given the excessively long wait to get action and attention on the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've just placed an order for the two texts that need checking (Martelle's Blood Passion and McGovern & Guttridge's Coalfield War), once they arrive I'll make an initial survey and determine whether or not to continue. As soon as I get a delivery date, I'll be able to post an expected working time frame (probably around four weeks from now to complete the initial review). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Martelle's "Blood Passion" First paperback printing edition 2008 (266pp. same page count as 2007 edition)
Article
Source
Comment
Ref: A
Infobox: 19+ strikers killed (pp.222–3)
lists 32
Source indicates these numbers are only those that could be verified by records and notes "also likely more people were killed." The difference with the source in total numbers is that the wives and children killed in the Ludlow massacre have been excluded; the source does not make this distinction.
Ref: B
Infobox: 37+ deaths (pp.223-4)
lists 37
Matches source, although again does not indicate source qualification.
Ref: C
Lead: In retaliation, armed miners attacked dozens of mines and other targets over the next ten days, killing strikebreakers, destroying property, and engaging in several skirmishes with the National Guard along a 225-mile (362 km) front from Trinidad to Louisville, north of Denver. (p.197)
Footnote only supports "several skirmishes with the National Guard along a 225-mile" No mention of "other targets".
In general there should not be footnotes in the lead, (see WP:MOSLEAD) unless absolutely necessary (eg for a contentious issue). However, even if this footnote was kept, it's a misleading use of the source that underplays the source's description of the effect of the massacre as a trigger for subsequent events. P.197 details the attacks were the result of the deaths in the Ludlow massacre ("a regional outpouring of rage and revenge for the deaths in Ludlow") and were focussed on destroying the mines ("all seemed to have the same goal: to destroy the operators' mine works, regardless of whether that meant killing guards, scabs, and soldiers in the process.") not a broad range of violent acts that the article describes.
Ref D:
This caused rampant dishonesty in middle management, to the detriment of the mine workers. (p.266)
p.266 is the last page of the index
Source does not support article text.
Ref E:
Miners were generally paid according to tonnage of coal produced, while so-called "dead work", such as shoring up unstable roofs, was often unpaid. (p.219)
p.219 discusses safety in mines, speaks of Colorado's poor record of safety, contrasts with better safety in unionised mines and states with recognised unions: "In Colorado, it was clear that mining deaths, while routine, were not simply a matter of risks of the trade." No use of the phrase "dead work".
Source does not support article text.
Ref F:
Demands that emphasized enforcement of new regulatory laws were not met. (p.266)
p.266 is the last page of the index
Source does not support article text.
Ref G:
As was common in mine strikes of the time, the company also brought in strikebreakers and Baldwin-Felts detectives. These detectives had experience from West Virginia strikes in which they had defended themselves from violent strikers. Balwin-Felts detectives George Belcher and Walker Belk had killed UMWA organizer Gerald Liappiat in Trinidad on 16 August 1913, five weeks before the strikes began. (p.219)
Information on Belcher, Belk and Liappiat is in source on p.219
Source does not support material in preceding sentence; "These detectives had experience from West Virginia strikes in which they had defended themselves from violent strikers." The second part of that sentence implies strikebreakers only responded to violence, never initiating violence - which is not supported by the source.
Ref H (note G):
Belcher would later be killed during the strike, most likely by Louis Zancanelli. (p.219)
Matches source
Ref I:
At roughly 1:30 PM on 9 October 1913, a striking miner who had been hired as a rancher, Mark Powell (p.222)
Matches source
Ref J:
A mine in Dawson, New Mexico collapsed on 22 October, killing 263 miners. The disaster was at the time the worst mining disaster in the Western United States. It served to further raise ire amongst the miners and added perceived legitimacy to the UMWA strike just north of the Colorado-New Mexico border. (pp108-109)
Both sources indicate an explosion not mine collapse. Other source indicates second worst mining disaster in US history. In neither source can I find anything to support the sentence: "It served to further raise ire amongst the miners and added perceived legitimacy to the UMWA strike just north of the Colorado-New Mexico border."
Ref K:
John Nimmo, a mine guard and National Guardsman from Denver, (p.114)
Matches source
Ref L:
A relief force of 40 militia and Baldwin-Felts arrived with a machine gun after the fighting had shifted to the multiple camps in nearby Berwind Canyon. This, coupled with a snowstorm, broke up the battle.
As far as I can tell, neither source supports text; not clear what exactly is being described here or its significance, but pp.118-119 of Martelle describes Baldwin-Felts and the militia engaged in a battle that "it is hard to imagine that Lindfield's men killed none of the strikers." The preceding sentence only describes the death of a militia member.
Ref M:
Also that morning, strikebreaker Pedro Armijo was being escorted through a crowd of strike-supporters when he was shot in the head. The bullet wounded striker Michele Guerriero, who lost an eye and was arrested by the militia, who held him for three months on suspicion of knowing who fired the bullet. (p.129)
Matches source
Ref N:
Mine guard Robert McMillen was shot and killed at Delagua, a mine owned by Colorado's second-largest coal company, Victor-American Fuel Company, and which had been one of the first mines to go on strike, on 2 December. (p.223)
Three sources, only checked Martelle, which gives information McMillen shot and killed at Delagua.
Earlier had noted that Andrews does not connect McMillen here. Possible original research problem.
Ref O:
All together, at least 18 of the union side had been killed, while Martin is the only confirmed casualty from the Guard..[22]: 2 [Martelle]: 222–223
Matches source
Same comment as with Andrews, seem undue to only mention name of Guardsman.
Ref P:
Strikers sought revenge on non-striking miners, attacking Southwestern Mine Co.'s Empire Mine on Wednesday, 22 April, only to relent after a 21-hour siege. Armed strikebreakers killed two strikers at the loss of the mine's superintendent. A minister named McDonald from nearby Aguilar heard the fighting and rightly feared the strikers intended to kill all those at the Empire Mine. Following the deaths of the two strikers and the discovery of a union organizer willing to discuss terms, McDonald and the Aguilar mayor negotiated a ceasefire that resulted in the strikers withdrawing. (p.186-187)
This section uses two source Martelle + McGovern/Guttridge pp.248-249
Not a very accurate rendering of the sources, McGovern/Guttridge and Martelle imply divided opinions amongst the strikers on how to deal with the situation, emphasise fueled by reaction to loss of family members in Ludlow and appearance of wounded strikers, McGovern/Guttridge give greater prominence to role of Jess McGuire, Aguilar strike leader.
Ref Q:
Three mine guards were killed at Delagua, where four attempts were made by strikers to take the town, and another was killed at Tabasco. (p.189)
Source: "Despite dire warnings and frenzied reportage, all those who had run to the mine shafts for safety survived. The camps themselves, though, were mostly burned to ashes, and in the process at least twelve men were killed and uncounted others wounded. In addition to the three mine guards killed at Delugua and the two strikers at Aguilar, mine guard Benjamin Phillips, twenty-seven, died in fighting at Tabasco, and John Church, a mine employee died at Delagua, though the circumstances of those deaths remain unclear. The dead also included Waddell, superintendent of the Empire mine, who died of wounds he suffered near the beginning of the attack before he and the others could retreat into the mine shaft."
Sentence appears in paragraph discussing "Strikers sought revenge on non-striking miners". Misuse of the source, to convey information opposite of the source itself. Article leaves out significant comparative information, which indicates higher deaths amongst strikes, excludes source information on violence against strikes during this particular set of events.
Ref R:
These events led the sheriff of Las Animas County to send a telegram to Ammons, declaring that he had been militarily defeated by the miners and requested federal intervention. (p.187)
Source indicates H D King part owner of Southwestern Mine Co. wired Taylor and Ammons at 5:37pm, Grisham, the sheriff wires 30 minutes later. No mention of the word "militarily", only "admitting defeat".
Article does not indicate that a mine owner is wiring the Governor and US Rep before the sheriff, and that the sheriff is doing the same thing, to the same people 30 minutes later.
Ref S:
By the evening of the 22nd, Lt. Gov.Fitzgarrald was attempting to secure a ceasefire through UMWA's influential Denver lawyer Horace Hawkins. The following day, John McLennan, the president of UMWA District 15 when the strike was declared, was arrested by militia at the Ludlow train stop on his way from Denver to Trinidad. Hawkins made a ceasefire conditional on McLennan's release, which was secured. Despite union anger at Hawkins for negotiating, they observed the truce along what had become a 175 miles (282 km) front. (p.190)
No mention of "influential" or degree of importance of Hawkins. Source also discusses the confiscation of McLennan's papers, his overnight detention and being subject to repeated threats, including summary execution by armed militia. Source also discusses that while the union observed the truce, militia reinforcements continued to flow in.
Inaccurate use of the source; leaves out significant contextual information. Embellishes the status of Hawkins.
Ref T:
At midnight on 22 April, a call went out for all National Guardsmen to head for the strike zone. Chase had claimed prior to Ludlow that he was able to muster 600 men to return to the field at a moment's notice, yet only 362 men reported for duty. Seventy-six soldiers of Troop C–nicknamed "Chase Troop" as two of the general's sons along with other family members were part of the unit–mutinied, as they had been forced to stay in an uncomfortable Guard armory since returning from their initial deployment to the strike zone. Troop C did not return to coalfields for the duration of the conflict. Two 3 inches (76 mm) field guns and 220 rounds of shrapnel shells were brought with the 23-car train of 242 soldiers going south from Denver on 23 April. (p.189)
Source does not mention 362 men, does not mention Troop C, speaks of Company C, does not mention two 3 inches (76 mm) field guns and 220 rounds of shrapnel shells. It's ambiguous whether or not source is indicating known as "Chase troop" for the fact that General Chase was commander or whether related to presence of children and relatives: "Two of his sons and three other relatives were members of Company C, which was known as the "Chase troop". (p.188) Source discusses lack of pay as far more significant in determining reasons for mutiny and refusal of troops (including) officers to redeploy.
Inaccurate use of source. Also significance of text here is that (a) political will to continue to financially support the militia intervention is ebbing and (b) troops are rebelling due to lack of pay.
Ref U:
During the ten-hour battle, Captain Hildreth Frost led a small contingent of troops that had been among those rotated off the southern front. Several mine guards were seriously injured during the fighting. (p.197)
No discussion of these points on p.197
Source does not support article text.
Ref V:
At 7 PM, with no reports of significant violence in Trinidad, Chase received word that perhaps hundreds of strikers were attacking the CF&I McNally mine near Walsenburg. Verdeckberg was ordered by Chase to take 60 men to Walsenburg to retake the town on the morning of the 29th. (p.206)
First sentence not discussed in source. Other source does not mention issues discussed.
Support only for second sentence of article text.
Ref W:
Several men of this detachment–Lieutenant Scott, Private Wilmouth, and Private Miller–were wounded by gunfire in the afternoon, while Walsenburg-native and medic Major Pliny Lester was killed tending to either Scott (pp.207–208 ) or Miller (McGovern/Guttridge p.266).
Matches source.
Ref X:
At 5 PM that day, an unarmed pro-union man on a motorcycle named Henry Llyod was killed by strikers in an incident of mistaken identity. (pp.206,222)
Matches source
Ref Y:
Fatalities during the strike are generally assumed to be under-reported, as Las Animas County coroner's office reports more bodies related to the strike than appear in contemporary news reports. (p.119)
Partially matches source.
This point is made in the context of under-reporting of causalities amongst the striking miners, not across all sides in the overall conflict.
Ref Z:
Modern and contemporary estimates of fatalities vary widely, but following the Ludlow Colony's destruction an estimated 30 strikebreakers, National Guard soldiers, and mine guards were killed while a handful of pro-union fighters are reported to have died. [Andrews]: 278–279 [Martelle]: 222–223
Andrews supports the numbers this in the context of a discussion of events immediately following the Ludlow massacre, but the pages of Martelle are a simple listing of deaths.
Neither source addresses the issue of "Modern and contemporary estimates of fatalities vary widely".
"Waging what they considered the good fight, fearing with ample reason that they might be arrested, deported or even massacred if they laid down their arms, the strikers tore through the coalfields." (Andrews, p.278). This article uses these sources to make comments on overall casualties, but the main source (Andrews) is making a very specific point regarding the reaction to the Ludlow massacre. As such, this is a not a fair use of the source, especially in making claims regarding differences in the reporting of causalities.
@Pbritti, Delphinium1, and BlueMoonset: I've checked all 26 references to Martelle's "Blood Passion" in the article. Unfortunately, I find only seven references which unambiguously match the source, more than 70% of the sourcing to Martelle's text has problems, misconstrues information or takes out of context information presented. To my reading there is a repeated, somewhat subtle tendency to play down violence or actions committed by the militia forces as translated from source to article text. This is a problem with the previous two sources already analysed. The McGovern/Guttridge text is referenced 36 times in the article, I'll try to get through 10-15 references in the next week and make a final assessment. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn: woah sorry for the late response. Thank you so very much for your hard work here and the review of the source. While I want to move forward with this review, I may only be able to incrementally implement some of these points and corrections to mistakes I made. If you would want me to wait to fix/remove/amplify some of these citations, let me know. I'll reread to see if there is a "play down" of certain acts of violence by the militia, though I am somewhat humorously surprised considering I was worried I had done the inverse out of my personal sympathies with the strikers. Again, thank you so much for your vigorous review that deserves commendation here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Goldsztajn, I was wondering whether you thought you'd be able to wrap up your review shortly. In two weeks, the review will have been open for a full year; I'm hoping that it can be completed before reaching that milestone. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset This review has taken 366 days thus far, despite multiple attempts to revive it. I request to have it closed immediately as failed barring any objection. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pbritti, it is certainly your prerogative to withdraw the nomination at any time, which amounts to having it failed. (See the final paragraph of WP:GAN/I#N3.) It's up to you whether you wish to allow Goldsztajn 24 or 48 hours (or longer) to register an objection, but at this point I do think closing is best.
Before you renominate, it is crucial that you address all of the issues with the article not accurately representing the sources it is based on, given that both GA reviews have foundered on extensively failing verifiability in this manner. At this point, I believe that nothing less than you verifying that the article text agrees with what is in each and every source cited for that text will be sufficient. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both Goldsztajn and Pbritti have edited since Pbritti's post above, so as over 48 hours have passed since my last post, and it's been over two weeks since I first pinged Goldsztajn without any response, I am now closing this review over a year after it was opened as unsuccessful per Pbritti's request. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
, all the information is sourced, but not all under the page range given
needs page number, cannot find the source
what report is this? I cannot find it
Done ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
![[3]](https://www.du.edu/ludlow/collections/ludlow/380g2.jpg){kind=link}
