Talk:Scranton general strike/Archive 3

General fixes that need done
Did some copy/editing this morning and just listing thoughts here for comment and proposals.


 * The Mayor : Right now, the entire issue of the attack on the mayor seems to be treated in a single sentence, "Parts of the gathering of workers turned into a mob that threatened the mayor’s life." I know we have more information on this, and based on what I've read so far, this could easily be its own sub-section or section. So I'm calling for whomever wants to take the lead to draft a proposal on the topic, at least as a jumping off point.
 * Shooting section : This needs expanded (notwithstanding the issue of how many were killed, which seems to be leaning fairly heavily toward four). It relies too heavily on one source, and other sources need to be introduced to broaden the perspective.
 * Origins section : I'm not entirely sure that this section has a clear focus. It may need expanded and divided into smaller sections. It's entitled "origins" but seems to cover a great deal of the strike itself. Whereas a true origins section may be quite helpful, to examine preexisting tensions that lead to the strike in order to give context (without being a WP:COATRACK).
 * It may not be a bad idea, as we collect quotes directly from the event (for example, something WW Scranton said, not something a historian said about him) to start collecting those here for a possible Wikiquote entry once all is said and done. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Quote repository
Please add quotes you come across here for a possible Wikiquote entry. Note: these should be direct quotes and not quotes from historians later writing about the event. Timothy Joseph Wood 14:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created a Wikiquote page. Feel free to add any quotes you come across there. Timothy Joseph Wood 13:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


 * Finally I should add that elswhere Anmccaff has accused me of being a "sockie" and tried to have me removed from Wikipedia. that's a rather specific accusation, and one showing a level of sophistication and familiarity with wiki that you are otherwise not showing. If you are St o'hara, socking, then yes, you should be banned.  One user, one account, except for obvious and open exceptions. Anmccaff (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that we should talk somewhere around 100% less about one another, and instead focus on the article. I'll admit I dropped the ball a bit here by starting this RfC and not keeping up with the discussion very well.
 * I can see how Bellesiles' past would be supremely relevant if he was used to make a highly controversial claim, but it doesn't look like that's really the case, and at any rate a corroborating source really settles the issue as long as they're in agreement. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can Anmccaff(talk) cease claiming dubious source until a consensus emerges on talk to support this claim? If such a consensus emerges it ok to take it down. But note language "according to" and also that Bellesiles quotes WW. Scranton. Verita.miner (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

There appears to be no mention of an acquittal of Chase in the citation given.
Aaron Augustus Chase, of the Scranton Times, was later found guilty of libel for articles he published about the mayor, relating to the event. He was sentenced to a $200 fine and 30 days imprisonment. He was acquitted in a separate but related court case.[clarification needed][19] The acquittal appears to refer to (former) Judge Stanton, who was also sued for libel. See: this other NYT article. Anmccaff (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have clarified. Where did the suit regarding the mayor come from? Apparently I've mixed up the sources, but I'm pretty sure a suit for libel against the mayor was a thing. Timothy Joseph Wood  12:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep, pretty much the same time and place, both connected to the next election, and the formation of Lackawanna county. Chase's case there was continued out of existence, IMS, but it might not. Anmccaff (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

OR
(Removing OR tag. I've been through even inch of this article and it is thoroughly cited. It may well be getting close in places to overcited.)

I'd agree most of the text is adequately footnoted now, compared with the original, and much of it is solid cites. Even the stuff I think wrong mostly goes back to something that is held by someone who got it in print. (The obvious exceptions are Bellesiles and Azarrelli. Stuff without meaningful internal citation doesn't belong.  Oh, yeah...and the slab of cast iron, which only belongs, if at all, to show the cultural impact on Scranton.)

That said, the title of the article is still a Wiki neologism, and that's a pretty bad form of OR. Me, I am very inclined to put it back up, and take it to the appropriate board. Notice that -none- of the central cites use the term as a name. None. Anmccaff (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free to take them name to WP:RM if you think the sources support it. That's not an issue to be resolved with an OR article tag. Timothy Joseph Wood  00:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

How about a little more civility
(→‎Legacy: How about a little more civility. And maybe a little more discussion before you...again...unilaterally disqualify a source based on arbitrary undiscussed criteria.)

I don't know too many things more uncivil than bullshitting large numbers of readers, as whoever introduced this fluff and called it "the standard history of labor unrest in Scranton" was doing just that.

Arcadia as mentioned above,

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

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

...is a publisher of coffee-table books, miniaturized. It prints almost anything in local history that ain't actionable. Some are good, some are bad, but the publisher's imprimatur adds absolutely nothing to it.

Now, not only was this mentioned above, but...

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

...you replied to it, albeit without addressing it. Anmccaff (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Apparently you need to review WP:CIVIL because you don't quite seem to understand the concept, on multiple levels. 2) Your opinion on Arcadia appears to be...your opinion. Timothy Joseph Wood  21:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. If you do, then take it to A-N-Whatever.  In the meantime, though, consider that your words might look like an attempt to stifle legitimate criticism.


 * Re Arcadia: No, I'm hardly alone in this. Arcadia isn't a scholarly publisher.  They don't do peer review, some books are minimally referenced. here's a (justifiably) favorable review of a couple of their author's works on H-net. Note the problems highlighted.


 * Searching Google Scholar for Azzarelli and Scranton gets exactly one relevant hit, for another work. From Arcadia. For a comparison, "Edward Rowe Snow," also a local popular historian, comes up with 149 just under his name in full, despite that citations often listed him under "E R Snow" and other variants. Paul Tenkotte -an academic historian who has written a good deal of local history himself, and a fan of Arcadia overall, writes (Or will write. This might be from a draft circulated for review) Academic historians may argue that Arcadia Publishing's books vary greatly in accuracy, research and depth. This is doubtless true. Indeed, some of the books are somewhat superficial and deserving of the denigrating term "coffee table" volumes. On the other hand, many of Arcadia's authors are well-respected professionals with a lifelong interest in their communities. That, I'd submit is the position on Arcadia in academia, largely.  Sometimes good, sometimes bad. Anmccaff (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Finally, skimming the online (i.e., free) version, I see that the Azzarelli's book seems to be completely devoid of specific citations. Even in a source that is 100 percent accurate, and completely POV free (at least in each researcher's opinion), that is a big problem with any secondary source. Anmccaff (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As in the other similar arguments made here, you are advancing a tangential argument to discredit a particular source. If you wish to discredit this particular source, then you should produce other sources that do so. Otherwise this discussion is generally distractionary and unhelpful. Timothy Joseph Wood  23:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

That would be what the Houyhnhnms call the thing that is not. Let's look at the specifics raised.
 * Someone was advancing the idea that a particular work was "the standard history of labor unrest in Scranton". Were that the case, there should be plenty of secondary scholarship mentioning it; there appears, outside of Wiki itself, none. That's puffery, not an honest descriptive.
 * Next, Wiki is supposed to prefer good secondary scholarship, and this piece doesn't have several of the customary hallmarks. I've mentioned them above:
 * It's not published by a scholarly publisher. Almost the opposite.
 * It has no scholarly reviews.
 * It has no internal citation.

Address these, if you would. Anmccaff (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I did, when I neutered the passage before this conversation even started. Timothy Joseph Wood  01:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutered? Hmmm. So, your position seems to be, then, that you agree with the above reservations, but still think it's worth keeping without the aggrandizing description? Anmccaff (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes? Timothy Joseph Wood  10:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So get rid of it. It's not a good scholarly cite. Anmccaff (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a book. It is not a work published in a scholarly journal. There is no requirement that books be peer reviewed in order to be considered a reliable source. There is no requirement that books have internal citations to be a reliable source, and there are numerous sources already used in this article that do not include internal citations and are not peer reviewed.
 * You have not presented any evidence to suggest that this source in particular is unreliable, or that the claim is it currently used to support is a wild or controversial one. The claim you took issue with was removed. The evidence you have presented is general and only tangentially related to this book. Even so, it boils down to "it may or may not be reliable", which means nothing, and even less when it is used to support a generally uncontroversial claim. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hitchcock cite
Is this:

the same as the Hitchcock already cited? Timothy Joseph Wood 17:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * On an unrelated note, I have created a page for William Walker Scranton, so feel free to drop info there should you come across it. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok so...In the article currently we have McKune basically creating the special police by fiat on the 26th. However, in the Hitchcock cite above (p. 499), McKune simply calls a meeting on the 26th to discuss the issue. They hold a vote and nearly unanimously agree not to make a policing force because it was likely to escalate tensions.

To make things even more complicated Azzarelli (in the first quote here) includes direct correspondence and context on the same page indicating that McKune did actually call for special police, but two unnamed men from the meeting went off on their own and decided to make a second complimentary force, which became the Citizens' Corps.

One way or another, this doesn't all square up. Something happened on the 26th... Timothy Joseph Wood 12:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I see it as "squaring up" perfectly, with plenty of evidence, especially in Hitchcock and Murphy. Also Logan, of course, but that's from the sections that are a little too first-person to take without a boulder of salt.
 * McKune pointed out the obvious, that some local riot police might be needed, took names, and did...nothing. Some of the names taken realized that pulling together a group at the last minute, untrained, was a recipe for disaster...as it proved to be, you'll note. Several sources state or imply that a better trained force might have rescued the mayor and ended actual riot with less shooting, but McKune was unwilling to take the practical steps needed himself; I'd argue for simple political reasons.  Putting together a workable force would antagonize someone in the long run.  I believe Hitchcock, who is an expert source, explicitly covered this, seeing McKune's policy as "masterly inactivity", and not in the better sense. Anmccaff (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * So...did he
 * A) Put together the force,
 * B) Put together a force, some members of which start the Citizens' Corps as a separate but related entity, or
 * C) Hold a meeting and put together no force, and the Corps was then put together by...someone.
 * Timothy Joseph Wood 18:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Put together the force, of which some members drilled together. Pretty clear in Hitchcock, IMS. Modern readers often forget that the militia system went all the down -past- city level in most states; a mayor had short-term draft authority; still does in any state I'm familiar with.  Ain't used much, of course.  Anmccaff (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Editing
It was not useful to have all my edits reverted by Anmccaff under the general classification "NPOV." I disagree, for instance, that noting the NY Times reported the actions in Scranton as a "general strike" on July 25 violated NPOV; it's a statement of fact that provides context. I realize the issue of "general strike" has been contested by Anmccaff vociferously above, but agree with other editors that the circumstances fulfill the definition of the term and the events were described as a general strike at the time. Also, providing full names of the governor and other major actors, as I did, is basic information.Parkwells (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I undid the revert. Given the extensiveness of the edit, it's not even clear what is being criticized as POV. Timothy Joseph Wood  22:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bit silly to complain about a revert -after- it's been edit-warred back to your own version, no? Anmccaff (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As to the size, that was pretty much germane. A large number of good changes, yep, but also a large numbers of change of POV.  We have, for instance, a cite from the NYT that explicitly states the miners were paid well enough by the standards of the times, and unequivocal evidence that the value of their work was steadily dropping.  Coal and steel were both becoming cheap, and town gas had created a surplus of coke in many markets.  Already, of course, there was a certain amount of both automation, and the first hints of de-skilling seen in full with scientific management. The reduction in wages directly reflected reductions in the price of the product,  Next, there are any number of sources that see the miner's strike as essentially opportunistic.  With rail out, there was going to be limited work, anyway. Anmccaff (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * One revert does not constitute an edit war.
 * As you yourself admit that some of the edit you reverted was constructive, a revert was not appropriate, but rather a piecemeal addressing of the points you took issue with, with appropriate citation, and discussion on talk if needed.
 * As I've said many...many times already, apparently to no effect. If you have sources that need incorporating to improve the article, find them, add them, and cite them. So far it seems you have done a great deal of reversion, inline drive-bys, and debate, but very little constructive editing to add relevant well sourced material to the article. Timothy Joseph Wood  17:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you saying, explicitly, that you and others would have left it and gone through the BRD cycle if I'd nuked it again? Forgive me some skepticism.
 * Next, I'd submit it is a bad idea to mix simple housekeeping edits in large numbers with edits that change POV. Separate the controversial from the innocuous.
 * Finally, I'd suggest that pointing out problems with sources, bringing in new sources, and actually reading the sources before blindly citing them is good practice. Prettifying something that is rotten at the root, less so.  Anmccaff (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Organizing independent Lackawanna County/libel suits
I've added a separate section under Aftermath on the organization of independent Lackawanna County, as this followed the strikes, and apparently generated considerable "excitement", according to the NY Times, with inflammatory articles about W.W. Scranton. This was why he brought a libel suit (separate section) against Chase and Stanton, then a sitting state judge, by the way. Have cited what I can find so far and am researching more material.Parkwells (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Background
I would like to put together a succinct background section (two or three paragraphs at most) if anyone has recommendations for sources or would like to propose a starting draft. Something about Scranton as a major coal hub, previous unrest, and how the fire was lit that eventually led to unrest in 1877. Suggestions welcome.

As always, sections like this have to walk a fine line between being informative and providing meaningful context, and becoming a WP:COATRACK. Timothy Joseph Wood 13:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As you noticed, many of the better secondary sources, and even some of the primary sources, see '71 and '77 as a continuum; that's almost certainly where the "six killed" comes from, if it isn't including victims of assault by strikers.


 * Another piece missing is the fact that the pay, at its best, was literally attractive. Leftist (roughly) sources emphasize company recruiting of foreign labor, but most came on their own based on relatives' experiences. When the mines were booming, as they did cyclically, it brought in people who had no local work in the following bust.


 * Next, the article mentions nothing about the ethnic divides. The laborers were, roughly, Yankee, Welsh, Irish, Slavic, and Italian over time.  Several of these groups brought attitudes and resentments with them, and often attempted to deal with management as if they were still in the old country.


 * The article has nothing about the divide between Producerist ideas and later unionism. Big part of the story; not covered at all.


 * More important than these in understanding the events of 1877 is Scranton's physical isolation. For an area with such a large population, it was badly connected with the rest of Pennsylvania and the outside word, with a near-complete dependence on rail connection. That magnified the effect of what were, objectively, a small part of the population.  5,000 is the usual high number of potential rioters involved; that's out of a nearby workforce of 40,000.  Pensylvania Coal Company employees worked throughout as much as transportation and storage allowed...i.e., the employees of the largest local miner took little part in the so-called "general" strike.  It also magnified the importance of the rail strike, which several sources see the steel strike as coat-tailing on. As for "becoming a WP:Coatrack", it's a little late for that, that's what the article started as, and that aspect is nowhere near cleaned up.


 * Seems off to call it a WP:Coatrack}} based on Wikipedia's definition of that term, and, by any standard, 5,000 people would be large riot, esp. in a town (not a workforce) of 40,000....Producerism is an interesting concept, but it's very complicated and not clear as the motivation for all sections of the workforce in Scranton, esp. bottom rungs of mine laborers... As for the question on background, I have to travel some and can't do much for a bit. But the dissertation from GallagheVerita.miner (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I don't at all see the article as a coatrack in it's current form. It starts more or less in July when the strikes began in Scranton, and continues through the end in October, with a brief aftermath section, and even briefer criticism.
 * I can't really comment on the rest of the above as I haven't seen sources regarding them, and I'm generally unsure where this information is coming from. I've tried as best I can to go through the sources one by one and add in relevant information where it belongs. Dump some sources and we can sort through them. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You've done a lot of good work on this and I apologize again for committing some errors that I hope can be viewed in part as rookie mistakes. Verita.miner (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. Things are moving along fairly swimmingly on the article itself. Not sure I can say the same for the talk. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For something accessible and recent, see "Welsh Americans: A History of Assimilation in the Coalfields," but several of the sources already here mention this. There was a real divide between the Yankees, Welsh and (new) Irish, that showed up not only in union organization and management hierarchies, but in ordinary politics. Anmccaff (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The ethnic divisions--also Protestant v Catholic-- were real and accentuated because they also tended to roughly correspond with occupational and class hierarchy. I'm just not sure it it's something to try to get into in this entry. Not many of the sources I saw focused on it much in the context of the events in Scranton. I think OR could turn up more but it will have to wait its historian. Verita.miner (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as the discussion above about "background," I think it would be useful to add some, as Scranton did not erupt in isolation, although the city may have been physically isolated. I think too many articles on Wikipedia are isolated - tending to focus on the specific actions of violent events, for instance, and ignoring background and relation to related dynamics and events. Scranton's ethnic divisions reflected current immigration and tensions in other places as well. Social histories about the other PA cities may have material that would be useful here, at least for editors' perspective. After the Yankees, the Irish became well established in many industrial cities well before other Catholic immigrants arrived in large number, and they tended to protect their territories. As many of you likely know, for instance, in many cities (and nationally) the Irish dominated Catholic Church hierarchies because they were here first. When other immigrants arrived in sufficient number, they established national churches. As demographics changed, some of those churches later had to be abandoned and congregations concentrated in fewer churches. The Irish also dominated fire and police departments, as in NY. If there was a WPA history written about Scranton in the 1930s, it may have some material about this period, including ethnic history.Parkwells (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This link provides a basic overview of events in PA, if not much about Scranton (although it clearly is using the same source classifying the Citizens' Corps as vigilantes.) It has some interesting details. 

Here are more potential sources; perhaps some can be found online: Parkwells (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Robert W. Bruce, 1877: Year of Violence (Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Press), 1970.
 * Herbert Gutman, ed., Who Built America? Working People and the Nation's Economy, Politics, Culture, and Society (New York: Pantheon Books), 1989.
 * David O. Stowell, Streets, Railroads, and the Great Strike of 1877 (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), 1999.
 * http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3189 "The Great Railroad Strike"], Digital History
 * http://digitalservices.scranton.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p15111coll1/id/311 "An Investigation into the Scranton Railroad Riots of 1877"], 1969 Master's Thesis, University of Scranton
 * I'll try to take a look at these soon if no one else does. Right now I'm still slowly going through Hitchcock. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I've read Stowell; good. Makes a point well about the general resentment held against railroads in city, where they were seen as a point source of accidents and pollution, among other things, and often seen as a power in and to themselves.  Haven't seen it in about 12 years, though.  I'm trying to get in touch with him over another related source.
 * Johnson is also good, and adds sourcing from Chases's side. A little unsettling to see how much better the soucing is than in the doctoral thesis, although the problems there relate to tangential issues.  I'd disagree with Schroeder's central conclusion; it's parochial, but there's no problem with the scholarship.
 * Bruce is -the- definitive overview of the '77 violence as a whole. Bellsiles' piece is, over wide stretches, close to a "shadow" of it.  Again, I don't think I've read that since shortly after it it came out, '78 or so. Anmccaff (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As we've done elsewhere, it is helpful if you post here page numbers, cites, and quotes for material you've reviewed, if this material is not immediately added to the article. This can save others the time of having to find a location, and read through perhaps dozens of pages of non-useful material to find the portion relevant to the article. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Images
I've added some images, including one from Logan, as the whole work is in the public domain now. I cannot for the life of me find an image for W. W. Scranton. There's one on his find a grave that, judging by it's apparent age, is probably public domain also, but a reverse image search only finds the one instance of it. Leaving this album here for anyone interested. I haven't gone through it yet and see where images might belong. Timothy Joseph Wood 16:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've also created the article for Robert H McKune. So feel free to add there if anyone comes across anything useful. At this point I'm not even sure when he died. Timothy Joseph Wood 16:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Orders
What Hitchcock says is that the witness did not know if there were orders given to fire and that they heard none. Other sources provided do tell that orders were given. Your disruptive inline tagging has been addressed multiple times previously. Stop. Timothy Joseph Wood 17:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hitchcock does not say that the "witness did not know." Hitchcock says that -he-, personally, never heard nor gave an order to fire. (He himself was second in command. The person nominally in charge had run ahead and was initially separated.)  Murphy confirms this version; see page 309 (in part 23).  Murphy also makes it quite clear that group was probably not the neat well-controlled line imagined by the illustrator we see in the article. Anmccaff (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Why you should object to pointing out to the innocent vic^W^W^W reader a problem with the article I leave to the reader. Anmccaff (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "If any order was given to fire, or who give it, I do not know.", which does not contradict the report of sources who say an order was given. Murphy, says "Who gave the order to fire is not known" and defers to Hitchcock. So it appears there is no problem with the sources, and your tagging was disruptive and unnecessary. That is why it was reverted. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * ..and defers to Hitchcock, who says he neither heard nor gave an order to fire. That's fairly straightforward.  Hitchcock was second in command -First Sergt. Bartholomew was in command and the writer was directed to act as second in command(p501) -  were there any formal order, he would have surely known it. He says, instead:
 * Hitchcock said he heard no such order but adds "I realized that self preservation demanded it." (Murphy 309.)
 * He writes the same thing in his own work: If any order was given to fire, or who give it, I do not know. I heard no such order, but I realized that self-preservation demanded it. Lieut. Brown, who had been with the mayor in the latter's effort to quiet the mob, now came to us, as did several more of our men. The firing ceased, three of the rioters lay dead upon the street, each one a leader. They were Charles Dunleavy, of Carr Patch; Patrick Langan, of Davis Patch, and Patrick Lane, of Bellevue.(Hitchcock, p502) Anmccaff (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. That is in fact exactly the same passage I just quoted. "were there any formal order, he would have surely known it." No. That is your opinion. Neither source says there was no order. Both sources say they don't know. Timothy Joseph Wood 19:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Then the fact is disputed, and should be indicated as such, yep, not just swept under the rug. Put down the broom and drop that corner of the carpet. Anmccaff (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact is not disputed. These two sources say they don't know. The other sources say they do. If there is any dispute, it is only from you, and unfortunately you do not meet WP:RS. Now, surely there is somewhere in the five million English Wikipedia articles where you can be productive. Timothy Joseph Wood  20:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at the "sourcing" of this fact, it is directly sourced to Hitchcock. Logan. That's pretty damned dubious. Anmccaff (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no idea where you are getting Hitchcock from, but it should have properly been cited to Logan. You could, of course, given your infinite familiarity with the sources, have simply found the cite and added it. But at this point that is probably too much to expect. Now please find somewhere where you can be productive. Timothy Joseph Wood  21:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea where you are getting Hitchcock from I suspect from a couple lines up, or the wrong page open. My error. You could, of course, given your infinite familiarity with the sources, well, infinite's a little too generous, but yeah, damn straight, Randy}^H^H^H^H^H, Skippy: yeah, I RTFC. Maybe even some other stuff, too. It keeps you from doing things like introducing people to your good friend, the Right Reverend Mathew Hall. God knows what the thing'd look like without diligent kicking into shape. In the meantime, though, you can explain why a bloviator like Logan strikes you as more credible than Hitchcock. Anmccaff (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are intentionally obnoxious and I intend to interact with you as little as possible. Further disruption will be reverted without comment. Timothy Joseph Wood  00:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Any other takers here? I see Hitchcock's account as more likely and realistic than Logan's, who claims that a man recently knocked unconscious, with a broken upper jaw, a broken palate, and, according to several accounts, a broken lower jaw, was able to shout an order to fire across a riotous mob.  Anmccaff (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Timothy Joseph Wood  02:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)