Talk:Ludlow Massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeLudlow Massacre was a History 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 8, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 20, 2004, April 20, 2005, April 20, 2006, April 20, 2007, April 20, 2015, April 20, 2021, and April 20, 2022.

Let's raise this article to featured article status[edit]

We're more than halfway there, I think. We have excellent photos, a large and expanding body of references for our claims, and quite a lot of crisp prose. I propose that we work to bring this to FA status in time for the 97th anniversary of the Ludlow Massacre, which is three and a half months away. I can't do it on my own, but if we had even a small group of contributors actively working on this article, it would not be at all unrealistic. Let's do it! --Ori.livneh (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Number of victims[edit]

At one point in the article, it indicates that two women, eleven children-by-asphyxiation, three union leaders, two strikers, one child-by-gunfire, one passerby, and one guardsman were killed. that adds up to 21; take out the guardsman (since he wasn't a victim) and it's 20; I can't come up with the 19 indicated repeatedly. Later on in the article, it's stated that "three company guards and one militiaman were killed in the day's fighting.," but these guys aren't listed in the opening paragraph. What gives? This needs clarification at the very least.

issue with images[edit]

I uploaded a new photo, but as i type this (April 3, 2011) Wikipedia's thumbnail server is experiencing some issues, so the photo may not display until the server is fixed. To see the photo in the meantime, click on it, and then again. Problem appears to be fixed. Richard Myers (talk) 06:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contradiction[edit]

I don't know if this issue comes from the source or the article writer but this sentence doesn't really make sense. "The miners, fearing for the safety of their families, set out to flank the militia positions." Either the miners attacked the militia or they protected their families. They can't have done both as the article tries to assert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.58.224 (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is only a guess, but I read it to mean that the miners planned to take a position on the militia's flank, where they could do the most damage to any force attacking the camp. They weren't trying to attack the militia, just make it too dangerous for the militia to attack them. JDZeff (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pillory[edit]

He wasn't pilloried. He may have been ridiculed. I believe the Pillory was banned as a punishment by this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BongoPedro (talkcontribs) 16:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't be silly. "Pilloried" has long been used figuratively to mean held up to public ridicule and condemnation. Paul B (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thirty nine?[edit]

The Lede states: "Thirty-nine people, including women and eleven children, were killed; John D. Rockefeller Jr., the chief mine owner, was pilloried for what happened. The massacre, the culmination of a bloody widespread strike against Colorado coal mines, resulted in the violent deaths of between 19 and 26 people". Wow, two completely different death tolls from one sentence to the next. I've tried see if there is some way to to reconcile these, as there is clearly some ambiguity, but the 39 figure and "eleven children" seems unsupported by anything in the text. Paul B (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ludlow Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ludlow Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clean Up Necessary[edit]

Despite the prior comments on this page, there are significant issues with this article. It has an apparent effort to summarize the entirety of the Colorado Coalfield War in the Background section, a clumsy description of the battle and massacre itself, and notable other issue. The article does not have an NPOV and appears to be heavily influenced by the thoughts of notably controversial historian Howard Zinn. Zinn's research seems comprehensive but is rather tinged by his overbearing narrative-building.

Bearing these things in mind, over the coming weeks I hope to breakdown this article and revamp it to be better-suited to fit in with the other articles regarding the 1913-1914 Strike. Other articles that will be addressed are those for Louis Tikas and John R. Lawson, both United Mine Workers of America-aligned men who spent time at the Ludlow Colony. The description of the massacre will be organized in a similar vein as that visible in the relevant section on the page for Major Patrick J. Hamrock, the militia commander that met with Tikas at the beginning of the day on 20 April.

I appreciate the work of those who edited this page before and fully intent to retain as much of their work as possible. Thanks ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You express concerns saying, "The article does not have an NPOV and appears to be heavily influenced by the thoughts of notably controversial historian Howard Zinn." Please explain what you find so controversial about Zinn. What historians do you plan to use? Gandydancer (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a mistake to get attached to any particular historian. Only way to go is to sift through the literature looking for consensus and degrees of consensus, and try to reflect those same historians and degrees of emphasis. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In response to the the question of which historians I intend to employ, I would refer you to George McGovern and Guttridge’s 1972 The Great Coalfield War, Scott Martelle’s 2007 Blood Passion, Andrews’s 2008 Killing For Coal, the 1982 Buried Unsung on Tikas, and the myriad other historians I’ve used on the other pages I’ve edited in regards to this conflict. Zinn had an agenda. So did McGovern (he ran for president the year he published his monograph!). But, as noted, the over-reliance on any source can be damaging. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No strawman replies please. I did not say that Zinn is the only acceptable source we should be using. I asked what you find to be controversial about Zinn and you haven't answered. Please reply including some scholarly sources to back your position. Gandydancer (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I only answered your second question. With regards to Zinn, whose esteem is not in question but rather his neutrality is questionable, here are some academic sources: Sam Wineburg, Stanford, 2012––"Although its perspective is unabashedly from the far left..."; Wilentz, Princeton, 2010––"he ceased writing serious history..."; and Atlantic article on his famed textbook being deemed the second least credible history book, "Both offer stark, simplistic accounts...". All were on the first page of a Google search on Zinn. The least controversial opinion of Zinn's work is that it is controversial. His work is largely factually accurate and certainly influential––and useful for this article––but deserves to viewed in a light fitting of its place in the historical narrative. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, very helpful. Gandydancer (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge with Ludlow Tent Colony Site[edit]

The Ludlow Tent Colony Site is a stub intended to be about the site of the massacre. It seems to me that this article does a reasonable job of covering what an expansion of that stub would want to have. So I recommend a merge. Magic♪piano 02:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tend to agree with Magicpiano that the Ludlow Tent Colony Site ought be merged with another article. However, I am of the perspective that it this merger should be with the Ludlow Monument page, and even perhaps both of these articles should be merged with Ludlow, Colorado, the article relevant to the townsite through its pre-massacre and post-massacre history. Having down the majority of the work on the Colorado Coalfield War article, I never once even saw that there was an article for the site. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a point of my perspective, the landmark designated area (the putative subject of Ludlow Tent Colony Site) is the 40 acres of UMW land where the monument is located. The significance of the landmark designation is with the events of the massacre, which is why I proposed the merge with this article, and for the archaeological significance of the site (it is one of the few well-preserved labor camp sites). There are other landmarked sites which are known for what is basically a single event, where the landmark designation information is merged into the article on the event. The landmark designation does not have to do with the architecture of the monument (as differentiated perhaps from the Ames Monument, which was designated for both history and architecture), although the monument is considered a contributing part of the landmark designation. Magic♪piano 13:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: I think I see your point. It would be nice to have the Ludlow Tent Colony Site page converted into a section of the Ludlow Massacre page. However, do you think perhaps we should do likewise for the Ludlow Monument? Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article is certainly not of a length that would preclude merging the monument article as well. It seems to me that the short section on Centennial Recognition could be expanded into a more generalized section on commemoration, which would include details on both the monument and the landmark designation. Magic♪piano 13:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Swell! If you'd like help accomplishing that task, let me know on my talk page! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge is now finished. Magic♪piano 19:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recalibrating this page[edit]

I'm going to be fixing this page up a bit to bring it in line with certain Wikipedia standards and to better contextualize it within the Colorado Coalfield War (see WP:GACR for more details of the direction I'm taking). This may take a while and I hope to be collaborative with whoever wants to join in. I'll be using a sandbox page, User:Pbritti/sandbox/Ludlow Massacre. Please let me know if you have questions or concerns. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, this page is still a mess. Expect another major revision in the next week. Please voice all anger and displeasure below. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"This article incorporates facts obtained from"[edit]

There's a clause inserted in the second paragraph of Background saying "This article incorporates facts obtained from: Lawrence Kestenbaum, The Political Graveyard" without punctuation or spacing from the previous sentence. It seems like, if this needs to be stated, it would be more appropriate as a citation on the information actually pulled from the source. As it is, it definitely needs to be cleaned up in some way. User:KiraLiz1 | she/her 13:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]