Talk:Ludlow Massacre/Archive 1

UMWA Started the Violence

 * Their purpose was monitoring traffic to the coal camps and discouraging replacement workers from breaking the strike.

After the strike broke out, the UMWA "discouraged" replacement workers through violent intimidation, including murder. This led Colorado Fuel & Iron to hire Baldwin-Felts to protect those "scabs" (as class-war unionist trash call them) from violence. The article should be updated to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.152.209 (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2005 (UTC)


 * I rather think that they wanted to discourage strikebreaking by informing the 'replacements' of the issues and history inspiring the strike. Management, as it always does, tried to prevent communication between the 'replacements' and the strikers. Too Old 03:29, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)


 * Bloody hilarious mate: "class war unionist trash". I wonder do you use this phrase to describe modern union members? --Edzillion 15:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Most unionists in the US today are not Marxist Class War unionists, though they still do exist.


 * Modern unionists who assault or otherwise try to prevent people from crossing picket lines are properly referred to today as 'unionist trash', or 'subhuman union garbage'. Those engaging in this sort of violence still deserve to be gunned down or otherwise killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.62.121 (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2005 (UTC)


 * Language such as the above, from the annonymous poster, is uncalled for. What if I referred to the Rockefeller family as "bloated leeches, sucking the lifeblood of the workers, deserving of a firing squad"?  If the ghost objects to that language, he/she should tone down his/her own.


 * Firing squad?  No.  Guillotine!


 * The workers and their families had their very lives on the line. The Rockefellers might have had to forego an additional private train, but still managed to send their children to the most exclusive schools and universities. By the way, most of the 'subhuman union garbage' killed on that day were children, attempting to take cover from machine gun fire and burned to death by arson perpetrated by agents of the owners. Or should I call these agents, and their employers, 'subhuman antiunion garbage'? Too Old 03:28, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

I would ask the original anonymous POS who used "unionist trash" term to express his perverted views in real life, so he can get proper "treatment" sooner than later.


 * I am sorry to have to repeat the statement:
 * "Modern unionists who assault or otherwise try to prevent people from crossing picket lines are properly referred to today as 'unionist trash', or 'subhuman union garbage'. Those engaging in this sort of violence still deserve to be gunned down or otherwise killed."


 * I must assume that this is some "good old boy" from some southern state of the USA, a conspiracy theorist married to his sister, or a spoilt capitalist who has never had to really work to feed his family. It is obvious he has never had a reflective moment in his life, as he is so bigoted.


 * Even at the height of mass picketing during the UK miners strike, people were respected as people, which ever side they were on.JezB 22:50, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)


 * Thank you for signing your contribution. It seems that you repeated the quoted text merely to criticize it?
 * I note that the UK miners strike you refer to is dated 1984-85, while the Ludlow massacre occurred in 1914. Present industrial relations in the USA are far less violent, and the government, both state and federal, usually refrains from blatantly taking sides.  Not knowing the labor history of the UK, I cannot draw a parallel contemporary to the Ludlow Massacre.  Perhaps someone might help me with that.
 * Reading the aticle about the UK miners strike, however, I cannot see that people were always "respected as people, whichever side they were on".
 * As late as the 19th century, Irish labor and political activists were frequently sent to the gulags of Australia, where they usually perished. I suspect that English working people suffered no less at the same time.
 * BTW, I resent the aspersion on my country that was made in the passage referring to  'some "good old boy"' . It is not neccessary to attribute the remarks of that ninny to a resident of the USA.  I have met many bigots from other countries. Too Old 01:24, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)


 * I must point out that I am not the original poster, the one that posted the inflammatory statements re: modern unionist, but I do apologise for the hypocritical statements I used when making my opinion of what I though of the original contributor.
 * I was just so disgusted and annoyed by the statments made that I did not think through what I was saying.
 * As TooOld pointed out, bigots exist everywhere, but I seeme to have been lucky in my travels (most of Europe, USA and New Zealand) and met the more open minded people in the relevent countries. JezB 21:50, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

I don't considers scabs to be human beings. Then again, I feel the same way about American politicians, Chinese politicians (with one exception, or two if you consider Lee Teng-hui to be Chinese), Russian politicians, religious fundamentalists (anybody opposed to embryonic stem-cell research is obviously in league with Adolf H. Why let the living suffer and die for the sake of those who will neve live?), anti-poker adovcates, and cannabis prohitionists.


 * Seems to me that both sides were engaged in "class warfare". thx1138 16:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that the Rockefellers were exploiting the working-class to death!  You people can stand on as many soap-boxes as you want, but if you ignore the fact that it was the RICH who were responsible for abusing the POOR...then you are no better than those who murdered the women/children of Ludlow.

Anonymous remarks
Anonymity is certainly permitted in Wikipedia, and people certainly may insert their personal opinions in a Talk page, but when a person uses such incendiary language as seen above, he should be brave enough to, at least, sign a user name. I could, of course, merely delete the sections that offend me, but I prefer to leave them so that all may judge the person by his [her?] language. Too Old 01:18, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

Offensive remarks
Surely it cannot be decent to allow remarks suggesting it is acceptable to kill people one disapproves of to remain on here? Whoever the cowardly anonymous person is, defending the murder of eleven children who supposedly deserved it is inhuman. Do we have to retain the disgusting remarks of anonymous fascists? This is not "free speech", it is vile perversion. Let us be quite clear. Known employees of a detective agency murdered 11 children, two women, and several men. The murderers were protected by the American state. This kind of stain can not be whitewashed over. Chris Blackmore.
 * Here, here. It is hard to believe that anyone is still defending the mine owners nowadays. --Dragon695 00:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
The Ludow memorial was vandalized some time in 2003 or 2004. I don't know if it has been repaired. Does anyone have updated information on the condition of the memorial? Perhaps, anonymous? By the way, why in God's name would someone do that? --YellowLeftHand 23:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * See Ludlow Monument... apparently a restored monument was unveiled on June 5.--Bkwillwm 03:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is NPOV
It begins with adjectives like "low" wages and "poor" working conditions (against what standard?), and goes on from there. I'm not saying that such those adjectives are wrong, simply that they are debatable (and have been debated for nearly a century). It would be NPOV to say that the strikers were protesting their wages and working conditions (even with the adjectives, though ideally without). NPOV also requires a decent respect for the opinions of the owners who sincerely believed that unions were instigators of violence.

Also, unlike the prior comments in this discussion pertaining to certain unfortunate edits, I'm not saying that there weren't innocent and ill-willed parties in this event. I'm simply suggesting that the history clearly coughs up both types of people on both sides of this conflict. Contrary to that scholarship, this article's premise is clearly that there was a "good" and "evil" side. Mhodak 01:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The CARPTRASH revision, I think, is a good start.Mhodak 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Skywriter - I don't know if you noticed, but this article has a tag on it disputing its neutrality. While Howard Zinn certainly provides interesting first-person narratives about his subjects, citing him as an authoritative source in the Intro moves this article further from NPOV. Zinn, in 1992, expressed his perspective on history as: "Objectivity is neither possible nor desirable." (emphasis mine)Mhodak 16:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Mhodak-- You quote Zinn as though he were the first and only scholar to state "Objectivity is neither possible nor desirable. He has plenty of company. Gadamer has said it. http://www.prs-ltsn.leeds.ac.uk/odl/reviews/stewart/chambers1.html There was the Roman vantage point. http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1966/v23-3-bookreview3.htm Mary Prendergast says "Objectivity is neither possible nor desirable in art. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/notes/v060/60.2prendergast.html Professor W. A. Neilson says "Objectivity is neither possible 'nor desirable'' in prose. http://www.bartleby.com/60/161.html Another argues its accuracy in film: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~mfreeman/images/DOCFILMS.pdf. And still another in epistemology http://etda.libraries.psu.edu/theses/approved/WorldWideFiles/ETD-752/thesis_last.pdf ... The central point is that every piece of writing has a POV, Mhodak. The fair and honest practice is to acknowledge it and strive to ensure a fair give and take in the marketplace of ideas based on facts and citations. skywriter 20:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Mhodak -- Yours is a pro-coal mine operator viewpoint but you do not say that, and have not cited sources beyond your own personal opinion when making changes, as Wiki standards require. Zinn is an historian who did NOT, as you wrongly claim, provide "an interesting first-person narrative" about the Ludlow Massacre. Your statement is provably wrong because Zinn was not born in time to witness it. He describes the original research he did on the Ludlow Massacre in his book "Declarations of Independence: Cross-Examining American Ideology."

Mhodak-- What sources are you citing for your contributions to this page? It would be fair to state that about now so this becomes a free marketplace of ideas as is intended.

So that your quoting of Zinn does not continue out of context, what follows is the context from the pages of his "Declarations of Independence: Cross-Examining American Ideology" (1991) ISBN 0060921080. (If you disagree with his point of view, feel free to talk about it on this discussion page, citing facts and sources that can be fairly incorporated into what can be a very interesting Wiki article fair to both viewpoints.) Zinn: "A historian's strong belief in certain values and goals can lead to dishonesty or to distortions of history. But that is avoidable if the historian understands the difference between solidity in ultimate values and openness in regard to historical fact. "There is another kind of dishonesty that often goes unnoticed. That is when historians fail to acknowledge their own values and pretend to "objectivity," deceiving themselves and their readers. Everyone is biased, whether they know it or not, in possessing fundamental goals, purposes, and ends. If we understand that, we can be properly skeptical of all historians (and journalists and anyone who reports on the world) and check to see if their biases cause them to emphasize certain things in history and omit or give slight consideration to others. "Perhaps the closest we can get to objectivity is a free and honest marketplace of subjectivities, in which we can examine both orthodox accounts of the past and unorthodox ones, commonly known facts and hitherto ignored facts. But we need to try to discover (which is not easy) what items are missing from that marketplace and insist that they be available for scrutiny. We can then decide for ourselves, based on our own values, which accounts are most important and most useful. "Anyone reading history should understand from the start that there is no such thing as impartial history. All written history is partial in two senses. It is partial in that it is only a tiny part of what really happened. That is a limitation that can never be overcome. And it is partial in that it inevitably takes sides, by what it includes or omits, what it emphasizes or deemphasizes. It may do this openly or deceptively, consciously or subconsciously. "The chief problem in historical honesty is not outright lying. It is omission or de-emphasis of important data. The definition of important, of course, depends on one's values." pp. 50-51

Mhodak, you are certainly able and entitled to continue to inject coal operator viewpoint into this article. As Zinn says, and practices, and in the spirit of the Wiki standard, "try to be fair to opposing ideas by accurately representing them."

skywriter 18:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Skywriter, I don't understand your numerous references to my viewpoint based on my article edits. I have not made any edits to the article, besides calling it's lack of NPOV.  I do not have a "pro-coal operator" viewpoint, and your insistence that I do, I think, is simply a way to deflect the basic objection of this article not being NPOV.  More fundamentally, you seem to reject the basic premise of NPOV.  We both know that Mr. Zinn writes with an explicit point of view (and, yes, I know when he was born and what he wrote, etc.).  I didn't say that his viewpoint shouldn't be included in the body of the article, but simply that it didn't belong in the intro.  Your suggestion that history is nothing more than competing opinion will not resolve a discussion about NPOV.  I will simply state my perspective that there is a difference between history and art or prose or film; and there is a difference between citing debate in an article (which this one does not), and holding a debate within an article, which is inappropriate and against Wiki policy.  This article is not neutral.Mhodak 21:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, it is inappropriate to change the heading of a section in the talk area as a way to state your disagreement. Even if this article contained both viewpoints (and I can't see how anyone could say it does), it's quite beside the point of this NPOV objection.Mhodak 21:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Mhodak-- you certainly do have a Point of View, and that is to complain about what others have written without offering constructive additions or edits to the article itself. You complain that the article favors coal miners, and suggest it is unfair, in some unstated way, if not to the coal mine operator, then to whom?

Anyone can challenge the neutrality of any article, suggesting the article needs work. The constructive challenge is to make contributions to the text, citing sources, that contribute to the factual presentation. I look forward to seeing your factual contribution to this article. skywriter 22:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Complaining is not enough
It is inappropriate to throw up headlines on the discussion page and to be argumentative without trying to fix what is wrong on the article page. Anyone can condemn and complain, but it does not end there. I happen to concur that there is not enough sourcing and citation in this article, and worse, that it wanders off topic, and does not tell the story of what transpired. I have a plan to add citations and text to the article that will focus it bcause it is an important piece of history. skywriter 22:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It is manipulative to permanently label an article NPOV after varying viewpoints have been presented. I welcome neutrality of presentation as well as factual presentation of the different viewpoints. skywriter 22:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you keep referring to as "varying viewpoints." It looks like the bulk of the article was simply lifted from Zinn's account, which is unapologetically biased.  I see below that you intend to add scholarly sources to this article, which would be welcome--if it results in a more neutral exposition.  Your “complaining is not enough” critique is fair, I suppose.  I don't normally wade into historical articles without doing thorough research, and I am not an expert on this event (even, so, it was easy to spot the bias), which is why I haven't made changes to the article.  Nevertheless, to satisfy this  critique, I will be more specific about what I would suggest for the Intro...


 * I believe that one can fairly present this subject as an account of what happened, i.e., the actual assault on the tent colony by the Colorado State National Guard leading to the deaths of the women and children (I found various numbers of total deaths in this assault, from 17 to 26). I think it would be appropriate to note that the specific circumstances of the women and children's suffocating/burning deaths as the result of these people hiding out of view of the National Guard, albeit as a result of the previous sniping by the guardsmen during prior attacks.  I think it would be fair to mention the massacre in the context of the day-long fight between strikers and the Colorado State National Guard that preceded it (a fight whose proximate cause, as far as I can tell, was never really determined).  It would be entirely appropriate to note the overall fight within the context of union organizers prodding the strikers and corporate interests prodding the state.


 * What I believe doesn't pass the "neutrality" test is to link the specific deaths directly to union opposition of corporate interests, with the intervening layers of context being ignored. Characterizing the deaths of the innocents as an “assault on organized labor” would be akin, I think, to calling the more recent Waco disaster an “assault on fringe religion” (not that I find Waco excusable, either).  Stuff like that undermines the credibility of the story.


 * Hopefully, that will provide a fair idea of how one might start to get rid of the NPOV tag.Mhodak 03:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * NPOV is not achieved by "balancing" fact with fiction. I cannot believe that we still have to put up with this pro-mine owner crap nowadays. --Dragon695 00:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Mhodah wrote: "It looks like the bulk of the article was simply lifted from Zinn's account." Care to provide an example to back up this accusation? Exactly the opposite is true. The article suffers from the lack of careful citation and scholarship and low-key persuasion for which Zinn is noted. I am not going to argue theory with you or POV. Whether you like it or not, the selection of facts is based on point of view. Every thinking person has a point of view, and every piece of writing turns on a point of view. Mhodah wrote: " It would be entirely appropriate to note the overall fight within the context of union organizers prodding the strikers and corporate interests prodding the state." This is your point of view, Mhodah. Students of this topic might argue your point of view is "unapologetically biased." Instead, I will continue to be careful to source what I write. This article will be in much better shape in no time, if you do the same. At the moment, it suffers from lack of footnotes, lack of citation of original sources, such as the original government documents Zinn cites in the first paragraph of Chapter 5 of "The Politics of History." skywriter 04:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So, am I to interpret this response as "let's forget about NPOV. It's just a lie?"  Or NPOV in the guise of competing opinions, like "he said...she said," properly footnoted?  This is frustrating, but since you're willing to do the work of finding primary sources, I'll wait to see what gives.  BTW - I found the current article's info on a site called "people's history" at: http://www.libcom.org/history/articles/ludlow-massacre-1914/index.php.
 * I'm not sure which came first. This one isn't sourced, either.Mhodak 07:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Determined Conclusion Hiding as NPOV
In light of this statement-- "It would be entirely appropriate to note the overall fight within the context of union organizers prodding the strikers and corporate interests prodding the state."-- can we call this the pre-determined conclusion based on a non-neutral point of view? (Can we also dub it the "spread the blame around theory of responsibility for murder?") Based on both preconceived and non-neutral notions of fairness, shall we assign responsibility to no one in particular for setting the fire that took the lives of 11 coal miner's children, including two infants, hiding seven feet underground in a tunnel? Your claimed non-neutral point of view supports the status quo decision by the State of Colorado not to prosecute anyone for arson and murder. It is the immoral equivalent of the "Mistakes were made; others will be blamed" non-neutral point of view that dominates what passes for thinking in Washington. I find this 'anything but neutral POV' both unpersuasive and morally reprehensible. You have drawn a non-neutral conclusion based on what? My non-neutral point of view suggests there is a moral element present that can not be ignored because the status quo favors criminal behavior that is not unlike a mob hit. My further answer to these questions is that the conclusion you propose to draw would be as unsatisfying as the conclusions drawn at http://www.libcom.org/history/articles/ludlow-massacre-1914/index.php (which are weak and unpersuasive exactly because that version lacks detail and sourcing.) Earlier, you suggested arranging the names of fire victims in a way that is anything but youngest to eldest. The muting of impact that you suggest is a non-neutral way of assembling facts with the predetermined goal of attempting to lessen the impact of the emotional reaction readers feel in discovering that so many children were killed. skywriter 11:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added scholarly resources to this article and plan to add more detail on future visits. I plan also to edit those parts of the article for which there are no citations, and look forward to seeing what others can add to this topic. skywriter 23:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Fix Format?
Does anyone know how to fix the formatting so the References do not run into the right side of the restored photographs of sculptures? skywriter 10:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to suggest that changing the order of names by age was a conscious attempt to emphasize their deaths for the purpose of eliciting further outrage for this event (please see note above on general lack of neutrality in this article), but will simply note that historical lists, as a matter of convention, are provided by order of date or alphabetized by last name. In this context, alphabetizing by last name was clearly the appropriate order, with the relevant historical effect of highlighting families that perished together. I would request that you please revert to an alphabetical listing.Mhodak 16:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Redux on prior note. I noticed that the prior listing was not alphabetical, but in the order in which the names are inscribed on the Ludlow monument. I still think an alphabetical listing would be preferred, though the monument listing seems perfectly acceptable in that it preserved the family ties.Mhodak 17:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Article has been Rewritten and Now Vandalized 2/7/2006
The article on the Ludlow Massacre has been rewritten and sourced to history books that recount what transpired based on primary documents. I plan to reinstate the earlier version of the listing of the massacre victims based on Mhodak's contention that the order of listing should follow some previously published order. There may still be some redundancy and that needs to be cleaned up. I plan also to add a quote from a Rockefeller letter so that the Rockefeller point of view is clearly presented. If you know of alternative histories of these events that are not cited, please add them, or at least say what they are and I will try to obtain them from a library and include what they say in this article. Please do not trash the article simply because you do not like the source material. Provide other source material with alternative viewpoint. skywriter 15:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

TDC has erased all of the new article and reverted to content that was previously disputed by Mhobak. TDC did not take his corrections or suggestions for revisions to this discussion page, not does he cite his objections to the newly rewritten article. Therefore, TDC's actions are in dispute, and his actions considered vandalism for the second time today.skywriter 17:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you cannot just take 10 paragraphs from "A People's History" and plunk it into the opening section of an article. Ten Dead Chickens 17:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that your opinion? Would you care to cite Wiki policy on this? The article you placed there lacks citations. What is its basis? Notice that it has previously been commented upon for lack of sourcing. skywriter 17:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not include copies of primary sources (specifically text; maps and other images can be very useful) in Wikipedia. If it is a large source, consider placing it in Wikisource. Wikibooks Annotated works and Project Gutenberg are other alternatives for pursuing primary source documentation.


 * Avoid including entire texts of treaties, press releases, speeches, lengthy quotations, etc. In an article of a treaty, for example, summarize the treaty and then provide an external link (or, if the treaty is on Wikisource, an interwiki link) to the actual treaty. Smaller sources and samples are acceptable in articles. Some short texts such as short poems and national anthems are usually included in their article, e.g. Ozymandias.


 * Good enough? The same thing holds true on the Howard Zinn article you are currently editing. Ten Dead Chickens 18:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Is user Ten Dead Chickens also 70.36.232.212 a sockpuppet? skywriter 17:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, although it would not be the first time someone had accused mu of bieng a sock. Ten Dead Chickens 18:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

'''Please explain the deletion of photo of coal miners in Ludlow and also the substitution of an unclear caption for a clear one? skywriter 17:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC) This continues as an unanswered question of a deletion that was not discussed on this Talk page.'''skywriter 11:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please cite sources for the article as reverted. skywriter 17:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not write this article, and I suppose as time permits, I could lookup sources. Please point to specific statements you would like sourced and place a by them in the article. Ten Dead Chickens 18:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Stated POV of Ten Dead Chickens Is Bias Against Howard Zinn
Ten Dead Chickens appears to be making changes solely because of his avowed personal point of view (on his User Page) is to condemn the work of the historian Howard Zinn, author of 20 books. This is not the application of a neutral point of view, as required by Wikipedia guidelines, and this activity by Ten Dead Chickens requires an accounting of his activities in the wholesale deletion of copy added by other contributors, specifically stalking me yesterday and deleting without explanation or discussion on Talk pages my contributions to this and other pages. skywriter 11:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ten Dead Chickens Please do not make wholesale changes to this article without responding to discussion in talk. Please address the content line by line. You have steam rolled this reversion without regard for Wiki principles and without regard to line by line copy editing. The article you replaced this with lacks citations and was previously labeled as non-neutral point of view. This is an attempt to reach consensus and to neutralize the viewpoint. Please begin by explaining why you deleted the following:

-	Historian Howard Zinn "depicts the bloody Colorado Coal Strike of 1913-1914 including the notorious Ludlow Massacre, in which National Guard troops killed two women and 11 children pitting an immigrant workforce against John D. Rockefeller II. The strike was lost, but its memory inspired countless later victories." So states Publishers Weekly in its review of the hardcover edition of Three Strikes: Miners, Musicians, Salesgirls, and the Fighting Spirit of Labor's Last Century. The three authors (Zinn, Dana Frank and Robin D. G. Kelley) "each write compellingly about a significant early 20th-century strike, including historical background and reflections on consequences. skywriter 19:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I deleted this because it was the opening paragraph. It is a cut and paste, and although it may be appropriate somewhere in the article, is certainly does not belong as the first thing one reads. Ten Dead Chickens 19:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ten Dead Chickens: '''To reach consensus here, do you agree that your editing today over-reached, that in this instance, you properly should have moved the section that begins "Historian Howard Zinn" (cited above) to wherever you thought it should go (or raised the issue on this discussion page) and not deleted it entirely? Ten Dead Chickens your user page indicates your specific bias against this historian, in particular. Wikipedia policy specifically precludes bias and promotes a neutral viewpoint. Your edits today on this and other pages, where you have followed me around today reversing every single thing I wrote, display an unmistakeable bias that does not conform to Wikipedia policy. In order not to continue your reversals of all of the edits I made on four different pages today, I would like to extend this offer of a truce. Will you agree to allow different viewpoints on pages where you take an interest that may not necessarily reflect your personal viewpoint as stated on your user page? You have reversed my writing more than three times on several pages, which I believe violates the rules. This is true particularly because you did not take any disagreements to the discussion page. ''' skywriter 01:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

TDC: In continuing attempt to reach consensus, please explain why you deleted the photograph of the coal miners and caption: -	 Thanks. skywriter 20:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

==Ten Dead Chickens Why did you delete this paragraph rather than move it, if you felt it should be moved, as stated in editing note? This is second request for explanation of deletions on this page.  Historian Howard Zinn "depicts the bloody Colorado Coal Strike of 1913-1914 including the notorious Ludlow Massacre, in which National Guard troops killed two women and 11 children pitting an immigrant workforce against John D. Rockefeller II. The strike was lost, but its memory inspired countless later victories." So states Publishers Weekly in its review of the hardcover edition of Three Strikes: Miners, Musicians, Salesgirls, and the Fighting Spirit of Labor's Last Century. The three authors (Zinn, Dana Frank and Robin D. G. Kelley) "each write compellingly about a significant early 20th-century strike, including historical background and reflections on consequences."  Ten Dead Chickens you spent yesterday stalking my changes to various pages. Today, I respectfully ask that you explain this deletion. Usual Wiki policy requires that editors raise their objections on the talk page. You have not done this. Please do so now. skywriter 11:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we've been here before
This is clearly biased. When I checked out the subject on a couple of research sites, they all seem to include this event as part of "The Coal Field Wars of 1913-1914," i.e., not as a distinct event in history (except, perhaps, in the history of the UMWA, as written by the UMWA). Maybe this material (and maybe some of what was recently deleted) should be re-worked into an article on the whole strike. --DocGov 21:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is usually treated as a unique historical event. I haven't seen too many examples otherwise PBS's American Experience, the Encarta encyclopedia, Utah State Historical Society, and others refer to it specifically. As for the google test, "coal field wars" turns up 242 sites. Searching "ludlow massacre" turns up 30,500.--Bkwillwm 03:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with keeping it distinct, but it still needs to be made NPOV. BTW-I got very different results for the Google test, and much prefer the academic/library sites as an indicator (I was using LoC and NYPL), but in any case don't think it's important enough to contest.--DocGov 03:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Using vs. not using quotes in the google test will explain the different results. Remember it is important to use the quotation marks otherwise Google searches for pages that include the words anywhere on the page in any order together or not rather than just looking for that particular string of words. Doing a search without the quotations will return a meaningless count as far as this issue goes (not meaningless for other purposes). --YellowLeftHand 10:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC) I hope that's not confusing.


 * Not at all. Thanks for the explanation--DocGov 06:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I made changes in the body of the article that I think overcome the POV objection. I got rid of a lot of repetition and contradictory information, which I tended to resolve in favor of more recent scholarly sources, primarily the University of Denver's Dean Saitta's research. I also tried to keep the length of the article in check. If anything, it could probably be shorter, but I didn't want to remove too much detail.--DocGov 06:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Article has gotten worse, suggest reverting
The article used be decent. It had some POV issues, but it was decent otherwise. It's been cut down and made pretty messy. I suggest reverting back to the is edit by Carptrash: click here to see suggested reversion. Obviously things would still need to be cited and POV addressed, but I feel going back is a major step forward.--Bkwillwm 04:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you mean the Jan27 version of Carptrash as opposed to the Feb7 version (which is even worse than current), that might be a good start. I'm a little wary that there may be some positive changes in all the mess since then, but overall I agree it would be a cleaner place from which to start addressing the POV issues.--DocGov 21:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Bkwillwm Yours is a constructive suggestion. I had previously added references that have been wiped out. It will take time but they can be re-added. I wish people would be intellectually honest in editing and stop erasing bibliographical source material in an effort to suppress the viewpoint. It is preferable to add/blend material from other or opposing viewpoints. Erasing other people's content merely reveals a rigid, Stalinesque, low-to-no tolerance for diverse viewpoints. skywriter 05:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC) (I was confused as to who suggested the reversion. skywriter 05:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Bkwillwm did a beautiful job in turning the sculpture photos into a gallery. It had been such a mess. Bravo. skywriter 05:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

re:. Ludlow is now a ghost town northwest of Trinidad, Colorado. Where was Ludlow before it was northwest of Trinidad? That's why "northwest of Trinidad' was changed to modify Ludlow. It could also state: Now a ghost town, Ludlow is northwest of Trinidad. skywriter 00:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK--DocGov 04:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

icolson I am presently taking a college course titled "History of the American West" from the founding university of the study, UW-Madison. I utilized this resource, simply as a quick way of finding the date of this massacre, and happened to read some of its content. I am under the impression that much of the presented information is both heavily biased and factually incorrect [I have just read a firsthand account from one Frank A. Crampton that disagrees on many levels with the information provided]. Although I have neither the time nor resources to correct this lengthy document, I strongly feel that this information is deceiving. 07 March 2007
 * Keep in mind that many "First hand accounts" of anything can be the most biased around. I don't know where your fellow was standing when he saw what he did, but it surely would have influenced what he saw. On the other hand I have not checked this artice, which has always been contentious, so I say go ahead and edit as you see fit.  Telling other folks to do something is popular on wikipedia, but, it seems to actually get very little done, 'cause, you know, we have lives too.  Carptrash 05:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Be very skeptical of the Crampton book. He wrote that years after the events he records, and seems to have conflated things he witnessed with things he heard about. There is no record of him being at any of the events he claims to have witnessed at Ludlow, and his stories throughout the book seem to inflate his role/presence at crucial moments, a la Forest Gump. Smartelle 20:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

According to this webpage, Crampton was a mining engineer. I note that he was also born to a wealthy family. No class bias there, eh?

Scare Quotes
Using scare quotes is not encylopeadic nor is it professional, rather it is a thinly veiled attempt to marginalize that which falls within them. I request that we remove all occurrances of such. If you *must* point out that something is controversial, then please use hyperlinked footnotes. --Dragon695 00:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Colorado National Guard, or Colorado Militia?
71.221.109.154 has changed the terminology from Colorado National Guard, to Colorado Militia.

Either name is defensible, in light of both names having been used somwhat interchangeably. In the book Out of the Depths, perhaps the first and most first-hand significant account of the strike, Barron B. Beshoar used both terms.

The most correct term, however, is almost certainly Colorado National Guard. This is because that was the formal name of the force in 1913, and it is the name that Governor Ammons of Colorado used when he activated the force in the Ludlow strike. Reference: Barron B. Beshoar, Out of the Depths, 1942/1980, page 89. Richard Myers 02:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Amending my earlier comment. I note that the article still retains the Colorado National Guard terminology regarding the initial callup. I also note that throughout the article, "Colorado National Guard" is used to refer to the early occupation, and after some units had been withdrawn, while others were left in the field, the article now refers only to "militia," as if to differentiate this as a different military entity.


 * I question characterizing the actual attacking units at Ludlow as militia, and not as Colorado National Guard. I believe it is blatantly erroneous and misleading: Linderfelt commanded some of the units; he was clearly regular National Guard; and, he was involved in the fighting. Thus, the re-wording here appears at first glance to be an attempt to shield the Colorado National Guard as an institution from any connection with the massacre, which would be fraudulent and historically inaccurate.


 * Even though some of the soldiers were mine guards in Colorado National Guard uniforms, using Colorado National Guard machine guns, and led by Colorado National Guard officers, that does not in any way allow those who made the arrangements, and provided the uniforms and the weaponry, to escape culpability. The Colorado National Guard chain of command was intact from Linderfelt right up to the governor.


 * If the modern Colorado National Guard allowed thugs to use their uniforms and machine guns, and the thugs, led by regular National Guard officers, commited atrocities, we would not hesitate to hold the modern Colorado National Guard responsible for such a state of affairs.


 * I intend to correct the mis-characterization. I will, however, invite comment here first, before i make the changes. Richard Myers 06:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Death toll
On the mainpage of Wikipedia, the death toll was listed at 17, but on the article the toll was listed at 20. I changed it to 17 for the time being, pending anyone else knowing what the death toll truly is. Jmlk17 19:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The introduction states that 12 children were killed, while the text says 11. I read in 'Prairie Fire' by the Weatherman Underground that 13 children were killed. What is the correct number, does anybody know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.118.84.73 (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The death toll from the fire in the tent colony was 13 -- 11 children and two mothers who died of suffocation (two other mothers in the pit escaped). But there were other deaths that day related to the fighting ay Ludlow, which has helped confuse things. One boy, Frank Snyder, was shot dead inside the tent colony. Louis Tikas and two other men were shot dead by National Guardsmen who had taken them captive. Three other strikers were killed in the gunfight, as was a Pvt. Martin from the National Guard (and his body apparently mutilated). Another man was struck dead by a stray bullet as he watched the battle from a nearby roadway. So that's 22. It rises to 24 if you add in the unrelated deaths of Librado Moro, who was killed by strikers near Walsenburg as he moved his belongings into a strike-bound mine camp near Pryor, and Nick Tomich, a striker killed during a confrontation at Southwestern mine. Citation: My book, Blood Passion: The Ludlow Massacre and Class War in the American West (Rutgers, 2007), which includes a list of the dead from the overal coal field war -- at least 75 that I verified. -- Scott Martelle

Over-linking
Current editing of this article is questionable. Why is the year 1914 now linked four times, in four different parts of the article? Please don't take your editing to such extremes! An article with too many links is unpleasant to read. Richard Myers 04:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous Number
during an attack by the Colorado National Guard on a tent colony of 1111111,200 striking coal miners a

1.1 billion miners? Really? Someone needs to fix the number there, that's clearly incorrect. -Quirken (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of Onofrio
Concerning this recent edit:



I don't doubt that Onofrio is the more common spelling of this Spanish name.

However, on the monument plaque, it is spelled Onafrio:



Which, then, is the preferred spelling for the Wikipedia article? I'm not advocating one spelling or the other, i'm just observing that this question deserves some consideration. Richard Myers (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Limbaugh-pedia: Thank you, Wikipedia, for providing a forum for what amounts to Ayn Rand-ist, corporate, neo-liberal claptrap.
"In leasing the tent village sites, THE UNION HAD STRATEGICALLY SELECTED LOCATIONS near the mouths of the canyons, which led to the coal camps for the purpose of monitoring traffic and harassing replacement workers.

1)THE UNION HAD STRATEGICALLY SELECTED LOCATIONS: Oh, those dastardly, wily "Joe Hill" types, and the poor, poor Rockefellers--what with the cubbard bereft of Beluga caviar, truffles, etc.

Baldwin-Felts had a reputation for AGGRESSIVE strike breaking. Agents shone searchlights on the tent villages at night and fired bullets into the tents at random, occasionally killing and maiming people. They used an improvised armored car, mounted with a M1895 Colt-Browning machine gun that the union called the "Death Special," to patrol the camp's perimeters.

2) AGGRESSIVE: is that aggressive, as in murderous, sadistic, blood-thirsty goons hired by the corporation--that kind of "aggressive"?

"On October 28, as STRIKE-RELATED VIOLENCE mounted..."

STRIKE-RELATED VIOLENCE: How about the facts, dear? How about the fact that the workers, their wives and their children, were in desperate straits owing to the avarice of the American entrepreneur--and still are, in fact? How about the fact of the miners' desire to put bread in their childen's mouths, but owing to the inconvenient nature of their poverty, skull-breakers were brought in to "settle" the matter?

Look, Jimmy--and the other "greed is good" devotees--quote-unquote: this money-obsessed/Ayn Rand/Alan Greenspan/Washington Consensus/anarcho-capitalist/true-blue American Way/The-Protestant-Ethic-and-the-Spirit-of-Capitalism nauseating tapdance reifies the State/coporate agenda to the detriment of the American worker living at the poverty level (you've got the ENTIRE web at your disposal Jimmy: GET THE FACTS!): your "fact" resource HERE is CORRUPT. You permit TROLLING here--and, e.g., the Free State project (see other Ayn Randists: DavidWBrooks and JSorens trolling to oversee their "investment")--to undo what smacks of left-of-center ideology. Here, we have one "Richard Myers" as this article's gatekeeper. That bespeaks a CORRUPT information resource. And you have the temerity to ask for funding--for THAT? This entire commentary--as well as the article correction--will disappear in minutes--again, it contradicts the corporate ethic--quote-unquote. Deception...Bias...Deception...Bias.

Etymology of "encyclopedia": 1525–35; < NL encyclopaedia < Gk enkyklopaidía, enkýklios paideía circular (i.e., well-rounded) education.

"Well-rounded" in this case: like the top of Alan Greenspan's head?

Is this to say that Right-of-center media, e.g., Wiki, the Washington Post, News Corp., are COMPLETELY misleading in what the gatekeepers--like "Richard Myers"--disallow or permit to be published? Of course not! Of course not! There is only so much garbage that people will swallow before they gag--you folks have no recourse but to allow SOME alternative points through the gates--at the very least, to keep from being found out immediately by everyone. That "method" is what is termed, "making good the lie." Nevertheless, Jimmy--and Richard, and DavidWBrooks, etc.--word WILL get around the web--eventually!

You need money Jimmy--in order to keep Gatekeeper-pedia up and running? Try TV evangelizing: white suit, "Atlas Shrugged"-thumping TV evangelizing. The check is in the mail, dear...

Stonewhite 22:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Stonewhite, i last edited the Ludlow Massacre article 2.5 years ago, in April of 2007. (Anyone can easily check that record...)


 * I don't see how i've earned the title of "gatekeeper" where this article is concerned.


 * I suspect as well, judging from what you've typed here, that you haven't a clue about my editing philosophy. Such scattershot invective adds little of value. Richard Myers (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Initiating Overhaul
I've taken it upon myself to clean up this article. Even though it probably breaks the rules, I'm going to move the notice about the article lacking inline citation to the talk page. I've taken it upon myself to rectify this, and I'm finding the notice to be an eyesore and a distraction. If this is gross misconduct on my part, or if I vanish without making good on my intentions, please do reinstate it.

There is near-consensus in the scholarly literature that the events of the Colorado Coal Wars are complex, multifaceted, and amenable to several interpretations. Instead of fighting like children, we should try to succinctly report on the controversies and allow readers to make up their own minds. Wikipedia is not a political platform.

Try also to remember that eleven children asphyxiated to death at Ludlow. Regardless of whom you hold responsible, I think we can all agree that their death was tragic, and merits respectful exposition.

Let's aim high and make this a featured article. --Ori.livneh (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ludlow massacre → —
 * Capitalization. Most sources I've looked at use "Ludlow Massacre" as a proper noun to refer to the event. Ori.livneh (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Opinion seems to be divided on this, so it's not uncontroversial. --DAJF (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, what is contested is whether the event qualifies as a proper massacre. The National Guard was clearly brutal, and almost certainly murderous, but the death of the women and children in the pit does not seem to have been deliberate. Be that as it may, the union was effective at disseminating its interpretation of the event, which lead to the event being properly known as the "Ludlow Massacre". Even books that contest the designation 'massacre' call it that. I'm going to survey the secondary literature available to me and will make a tally of which form (capitalized or not) is more common. I'll report back here in a couple of days. --03:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If i burn 200 houses in your neighborhood without bothering to allow the occupants free escape, and a dozen individuals in one of the basements are asphyxiated, would anyone really be so obtuse as to debate whether i was guilty of a mass murder? It matters not whether i knew specifically that these individuals were in that particular basement. The act itself is so reckless and abhorrent, i'm astonished that anyone considers the question open to debate. The miners' families lived in those tents. They were their homes, their houses. That was their neighborhood, the place where they slept, ate, lived, and for the duration of the strike, sought to raise their families. The attack was a military invasion. Perhaps the greatest miracle was that so many were killed by asphyxiation, and not by machine gun fire which was indiscriminately scattered into the colony throughout the day.


 * I welcome your contributions here. But please let us have less of this intellectual masturbation about whether it was a massacre. If the national guard and mine guards were able to, they would have murdered far more of the populace they targeted with day-long deadly fire. There was no "almost certainly" whatsoever about their murderous intent on April 20, 1914. Richard Myers (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - It's become the name of the event, rather than simply a description. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - It is the recognized name of the event. Richard Myers (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

More on the move

 * Support The late Howard Zinn uses Ludlow Massacre in his book A People's History of American Empire (along with my picture of the monument, which his people found on wikipedia) so if it's good enough for Howard it is good enough for me.  Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I'm among those who don't believe this event qualifies as a massacre in the technical sense -- more like criminally negligent homicide. A massacre implies intent, and the National Guard's intent seems to have been to destroy the colony (much like they had done at Forbes a few months earlier), not murder unarmed women and children. That said, the event has become known as the Ludlow Massacre and I agree that it ought to be called that here, with both words capitalized. Scott Martelle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartelle (talk • contribs) 23:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Scott! It's great to have an established authority on Ludlow weigh in. I am using your book as one of my resources for an update of the article I've been on on-and-off. I hope you keep an eye on the article and weigh in with comments and suggestions periodically. Of course, if you felt like editing it yourself, that would be grand as well! Regards, --Ori.livneh (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Changing first words
Someone vandalized the page to start with "The MATT OECHSNER Massacre" instead of "The Ludlow Massacre". I'm changing it back. 137.150.101.186 (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I was mistaken, apparently... 137.150.101.186 (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)