Talk:Astor Place Riot/Archive 1

Removal of framing bias -- seemingly disputed
The silent reversal of Herrold's edit taking this complex phraseology seems improper. I performed uncontroversial edits, to improve the page into a more neutral editorial 'voice'. This consisted of a break of the the complex compound sentence, into two sentences (increasing readability). I also reworded into a 'non-inflammatory' (or at less biased) form. The edits seem straightforward and to improve the net quality of the article. I summarized the edit in the initial post. Given that that 'did not stick', I expand an explanation of the rationale of the edit in this Talk page addition per Resolving content disputes

As reverted (links are all in the second excerpt):
 * It was the deadliest to that date of a number of civic disturbances in New York City which generally pitted immigrants and nativists against each other, or together against the upper classes who controlled the city's police and the state militia.

As Herrold modified:
 * It was the deadliest to that date of a number of civic disturbances in New York City which generally pitted immigrants and those opposed to immigration against each other, or together against the upper classes who controlled the city's police and the state militia. Those opposing immigration are occasionally triangulated with the disparaging framing tactic dismissing such as engaged in: nativism.

'Nativist' is clearly intended as pejorative in this page's prior usage, in a form as noted in the Nativism page cited

I note the absence of citation to a formal study of 'deadly' NYC' civic disturbances --- probably an unprovable assertion, but leave that defect for later

... and so, removing the potentially offensive and conclusionary characterization as 'Nativist' into a more neutral form of: pro vs anti

Note that pro and anti are recognized as also 'framing' in nature, as in:
 * all 'right thinking' people are 'pro Progress' and only luddites are 'antis'

... but I leave word-smithing this for another day. I request here that the reversion be voluntarily reverted by: User:Beyond My Ken

herrold@owlriver.com (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your "removal of framing bias" introduced your own unsourced post-modern deconstructionist POV into the article, which uses the words and descriptions in the historical sources provided. BMK (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, internet addresses are not allowed as user names -- see WP:USERNAMES. Please change yours using WP:CHU. BMK (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not refer to yourself in the third person. It's either creepy or extremely pedantic. BMK (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Why multiple indents (second and third level) for no reason beyond paragraph breaks? -- This breaks threading. I have seen this before in wikis generally, and that was in part why I converted from the first person to the posting userid, of which you complain. Double CR's is a proper way to make a new para -- adding more ":" prefixing is not appropriate when you are self-responding with no intervening posts, as it breaks authorship threading change indications

As to the substance of your remarks -- and as noted in the top of the talk, I added new out-links to the relevant Wikipedia articles. They were NOT unsourced, but rather defined with some care. There is NO footnote indication that the proposed restatement is some prior work's literal words -- just the opposite (there is none)

As to your reading of the names policy, perhaps you skimmed looking for some 'ammunition' and excuse to criticize', and missed or glossed over those sections as to:
 * Grandfathering,
 * Real Names, and
 * the injunction counseling against '"biting" newcomers. While I have heavily maintained |another wiki for a decade, I rarely venture here, in part because I find it not a sand-box worth the 'inside baseball' learning investment to play well in.

To the replies:
 * My email address has been what it is since before there was a Wikipedia structure for tracking issues, as I read the |Wikipedia bug tracker
 * Rightly or wrongly, I used my Real Name long ago, and while I appreciate the concern of that article, and your concern, it is what it is, and I am dis-interested in change at this late date

If you find something 'creepy' or 'pedantic', I am sorry, The first I cannot help you with -- there is no explaining taste; as to the second, to suggest that invoking 'insider knowledge' Wikipedia rules, by you yourself partially known applied pedantically, is to of course avoid facing addressing the substantive issue raised, and is of course itself the exercise of a pedant

The use of 'name calling': "post-modern deconstructionist POV" is simply out of line and unworthy in polite rhetoric and discourse. I ask that you withdraw it. Also, I again call upon you to revert your removal of my content

herrold@owlriver.com (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken says: Addition of personal POV to articles will be reverted. Beyond My Ken also says: Addition of unsourced material to articles will be reverted.  Beyond My Ken suggests: Herrold@owlriver's 28 edits in 7.5 years is not an impressive total, and does not indicate any real familiarity with Wikipedia and its processes, and Beyond My Ken is therefore unlikely to substitute Herold@owlriver's judgment for his own.  Beyond My Ken thinks: Herrold@owlriver is a bit enamored of himself, and ought to do something productive to improve the encyclopedia.  Beyond My Ken says: this discussion seems to be over. BMK (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

SHOUTING LIKE THIS IN CAPS IS NOT GOOD GRAMMER
Fixed, Factsoverfeelings (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * {1) It's "grammar" not "grammer", so brush up on your spelling. (2) All caps was how it was written at the time, and you don't get to change what is, essentially, a direct quote. I don't much like all caps either, but I also don't try to alter historical fact. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless the capitalisation in itself is noted by historians as being significant in some way, preserving it is normally not considered critical. This is similar to book titles that are printed on the cover in all-caps, but given in prose As Title Case. Only a diplomatic edition of a particular work would bother reproducing specific details of formatting like that, and for most uses it is better to take advantage of a few hundred years worth of improvement in printing, publishing, typography, and page layout. I'm not familiar with the work in question here, so I'd be hesitant to argue for or against any particular approach for this article, but in the general case I would say we should turn all-caps like this into title case for readability. --Xover (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I routinely turn all caps in citations into normal case, so I understand what you're saying. In this instance, since it was the expression of a crowd, and was, in effect, visual shouting, I believe leaving it as all caps is the best path. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your reasoning. I've added a scan of the handbill in the section. Perhaps a good compromise might be to let the image convey the "shouting" and use a more subdued variant in the article's prose? --Xover (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Xover seems to make a good point. The handbill's quote is spread on five lines with three different fonts and it reads "RULE!" with an exclamation point directly following the verb. Both formattings in the article (Factsoverfeeling's and Beyond My Ken's) are alterations of the original. Provided we keep the handbill's picture in the paragraph, a regularly capitalized sentence (meaning non-all-caps) works better. 87.1.122.76 (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Unless, of course, the quote is inserted in a "" set and each line has its appropriate font tags. Which is, in my opinion, uselessly complicated, given the triviality of the question. 87.1.122.76 (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * With the addition of the handbill image, I see no need for the all caps to remain in the text, so I've altered it. Nice work, all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Exaggerated claims
In the intro, the article says "The riot marked the first time a state militia had been called out and had shot into a crowd of citizens, and it led to the creation of the first police force armed with deadly weapons" (referencing The Shakespeare Riots by Nigel Cliff).

Cliff's book mentions prior civilian deaths at the hands of militias, including Providence in 1831 and Philadelphia in 1844 (see also: Philadelphia nativist riots). The actual text says, "Never in the nation's history had soldiers fired volley after volley at point-blank range into a civilian crowd" (Cliff, p. 241, emphasis mine). I do not think this justifies the claim made in the intro.

Also, after reading about a militia firing guns into a crowd, the reader may assume that arming a police force with deadly weapons implies firearms. That was not the case: "...the authorization of the first lethal police weapon, a heavy twenty-two-inch club to be used in self-defense" (Cliff, p. 245). Previously the book mentions that "the police ... were equipped only with short clubs" (Cliff, p. 214). It seems that the introduction of lethal weapons means a larger club. I believe the text as written is misleading.

Suggested edit: "The riot resulted in the largest number of civilian casualties due to military action in the United States since the American Revolutionary War, and led to increased police militarization (riot control training and larger, heavier batons)." Those statements are directly supported by the source text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherdt (talk • contribs) 23:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)