Talk:Rock Springs massacre/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

References

Anyone know how to insert links in the text of the article to the references list, maybe even more than one link to the same reference, I think its necessary in a few spots. A mcmurray 04:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You are probably up to speed by now but for reference, see Wikipedia:Footnotes. --Blainster 19:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this until I made my edits, but your only problem adding refs yesterday was to forget to put the closing /ref on the last one, thus clipping the rest of the article. --Blainster 19:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ahhh . . . Thanks. A mcmurray 19:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

TOC

Section titles have been shortened to improve the appearance of the TOC. I'm still not certain it looks OK, due to squeezing text between it and the image at the top of the first section. --Blainster 19:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

West to Evanston

The miners probably fled to Evanston rather than Green River, Wyoming (just 20 miles west) because Green River was a railroad town similar-minded to Rock Springs, and Evanston was near the border of Utah Territory. --Blainster 20:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• It makes sense to me, that's what my sources say, from the Chinese who told the Chinese consul what happened, their words. And even so, they encounterd bigotry in Evanston as well. A mcmurray 20:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Awkward sentence

Hello. I fixed a few spelling and grammar errors. While doing that I came across this sentence:

He also assured Americans that those responsible for acts of violence against Chinese immigrants would be subject to "all of the power of this government should be exhorted to maintain the amplest good faith towards China in the treatment of these men and the inflexible sternness of the law . . . must be insisted upon."

It doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm not quite sure how best to fix it. Just thought I'd point it out for someone more familiar with the topic to ponder. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Images

Why, praytell, were all of the images, most of which were public domain removed? That's just dumb. People need to do better edit summaries too, like none doesn't suffice. A mcmurray 18:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think they were just tagged wrong. Damn it. Oh well, I'll find some again as I am beginning to do some work here. IvoShandor 07:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Dross sections

The subsections from "Post-massacre violence" are the makings of separate articles entirely, and are not about the Rock Springs Massacre directly; they should be placed in other articles and each section here should have a "Main" template; all that's necessary to say is that other violence broke out; this is not a history of THOSE events, but is supposed to be only about Rock Creek. Also, if stuff like this is trotted out as though it's connected, but some source hasn't said it's connected, stringing all this in one place to expound a thesis about post-massacre violence is actually original research, and a no-no. But it's clear from the tone of some of the content here that there's a thesis being expounded ("the NYT was 'just as guilty'" and other POV language). Please remember this is an encylcopedia article and NOT a political tract.Skookum1 18:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This comment could have been before the peer review was posted but the article is still being worked on. Some of the sources HAVE connected the events to Rock Springs. So it's not original research. Guilty was probably a bad word choice, but they did do it. Will look for such things as I work. Political tract? IvoShandor 19:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"just as guilty" is clearly a political statement; also IMO is the seeming effort in the article to tie in general historical materials and also other not-necessarily-connected events; it comes off like a tract, and is full of not-neutral language; like so many Chinese-American/Canadian history articles. Just the facts, please, no editorializing. And no introducing extraneous materials as if they had to do with things; if the sources make that connection, it should specify that it's the sources that made the connection, and which sources.Skookum1 19:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what the inline citations are for. I have no political agenda related to 19th century America. IvoShandor 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would hardly call a wave of anti-Chinese violence beginning with Rock Springs and encompassing events for the next six months a general connection, the Oregon stuff might be stretching it, but I thnk you're wrong. IvoShandor 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note, there is absolutely no question this was a racially motivated attack, even the President agreed with that assessment, in 1885. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IvoShandor (talk • contribs) 19:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

And what in my post led you to think I was disputing that? Your re-asserting it seems to indicate that you think it was THAT that I was criticizing; but that's just more POVism, i.e. assuming that a criticism is about something that it's not. The point remains that the language of this article is very accusatory. And THAT is POV. It's possible to report facts and events without brow-beating people or using invective.....Skookum1 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So why don't you just fix it instead of making general objections. I have changed some of the wording but as the writer it can be hard to flesh out stuff, at least for me, that I have done myself.IvoShandor 19:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well. Go ahead, if its just POV, it won't matter to the material. I'm not that worried about, if there are any problems presented by your edits they can be fixed and discussed later. Go for it, it would really help. Sorry if I seemed hostile, I think I missed your point at first. IvoShandor 20:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with the events to edit conscionably; as you can tell I'm also prolix - infamously so - and my edits tend to be emendations; I find it easier to point out issues here, unles I know the material well.Skookum1 19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed some POV wording, a lot of which is leftover from when this article was started, about eleven days after I registered for Wikipedia. : ) The Post Massacre section is already set up for WP:SUMMARY, I believe the sources confirm that this violence was related to the massacre in Rock Springs, but if you don't please point out where and I will try to verify. Remember there is a difference between "unverified" and "unverifiable" information. Also, if you are using caps for emphasis, could you please use italics, it looks like you're yelling. IvoShandor 19:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in another parallel case, the Anti-Oriental Riots in Vancouver were seen as some historians as an offshoot of or reaction to the Boxer Rebellionsm the ongoing Nationalist uprising after that, and fears of Asian imperialism in the wake of the Russo-Japanese War, and also by various labour practices of Chinese workers and Chinese labour contractors; yet to mention any of these, despite their presence in sources, is dismissed as "racist propaganda" and no recent histories go anywhere near the background of the events, choosing instead to condemn the antagonists instead of understanding "why" - it's so much easier to paint people simply as goons, or to try and boil everything down to "racism" and "racists" (and "racist" is often used as a dehumanizing term, often by people who are very racist themselves....). So I appreciate your un-POV'ing this; the point, central point, of this is what THIS article is about, or supposed to be about. "Splinter events" certainly have their place; but if they're so notable as to be mentioned, they should ahve their own articles, and a summary of those that sources state are connected, should be made (but no others).Skookum1 19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you care if I moved this discussion to the 2nd peer review? So it would be archived? This article will take some work but I can make it shine. I wrote it way back when I was a wee little youngling wikipedian, didn't know as much about policy as I do now. That and no one ever mentioned this before, some help that other peer review was! ; ) IvoShandor 13:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Percentage increase

An increase from 143 persons in 1870 to 914 in 1880 is an increase of 539%. (771/143 x 100 = 539). The previous statement that this was an increase of 3% probably refers to the fact that it was an increase of almost three percentage points in the percent of Wyoming residents who were Chinese (from 1.6% of population in 1870 to 4.4% of population in 1880); however, I don't believe that this conveys the dramatic relative increase in the Chinese population that the author intended. Unimaginative Username 01:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that I am far from a math whiz. : ) IvoShandor 07:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be of service! Unimaginative Username 21:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Racial climate edit

Edited the statement that the racial climate was "tenuous". "Tenuous" means weak, flimsy, insubstantial [1]. A relationship could be tenuous, but not a climate. I believe "ambivalent" conveys the two opposites that Chinese laborers were both necessary and resented, with "often hostile" to lead in to the references to violence towards them. Unimaginative Username 18:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds to me like "tense" would have been just fine, or what was intended; "attenuated" indicates "increasing tension" but it's what old-timers call a five-dollar word; I'm not sure "ambivalent" is anything like the meaning intended, unless rather than increasing tension the situation was just "dicey", i.e. unstable.Skookum1 19:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Attenuated" is the opposite: to weaken or reduce. [2] (Five dollars, please :-) "Tense" sounds good. I'll make that change. Thanks. Unimaginative Username 21:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Tense good. IvoShandor 02:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Weird language/context

Though Chinese labor played an important role in the development of the American West, more immigrants were coming from Europe than had ever come from Asia during the 19th century.

That seems pretty much a non sequitur and kind of redundant. A big "Duh!". Why is the context "than had ever come from Asian during the 19th Century" even relevant? California and the West were not Chinese colonies, but (like it or not) American territory, naturally enough more likely to be settled by Americans (which in those days meant also new-immigrant from Europe who had become Americans, and didn't include any of the more broad modern definition of American). Not sure what to do about this phrase, but it does seem to be one of those strange perspectives on ethnic history that has to do with perpective-of-origin; there are statement on Canadian Chinese pages about how the Chinese were "forced to build the hardest part of the railroad", when the reality wa that, aside from low labour cost (which they weren't forced to, but rather contracted at in deliberate undercutting of other groups' wage scales - including Indians and blacks), they were the only available labour on the Pacific slope because of the much longer travel time from the UK or Atlantic Seaboard to get there vs. the short sailing time from China. But it's so much easier to go, in the case above, "there were too many white immigrants"; what is the context of this statement anwyway - that the Chinese role in the development of the West meant that there should have been more of them, or what?Skookum1 21:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the intent is to show that Americans' fears of the Chinese immigration were disproportionate to the numbers of Chinese: That European immigrants to the U.S. far outnumbered Chinese immigrants, yet Americans seemed more resentful of the Chinese, possibly due to the cultural differences cited by some of the 19th-century speakers and writers who are quoted in the article. Unimaginative Username 00:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the original was a non sequitur. Edited for better continuity. Thanks for pointing this out. Unimaginative Username 00:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry about that one, I didn't even notice. : (IvoShandor 02:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oregon state vs. territory

The article referred to the "Oregon Territory", but the events described occurred in 1885 and 1886. Oregon became a state in 1859. Therefore, the references to the territory were edited to refer to the state. Unimaginative Username 00:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully; are you sure former parts of Oregon Territory weren't meant?Skookum1 00:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Just checked, and found that Washington was still a territory, not a state, at the time of these events. It was admitted as a state in 1889. I thought I was through with the article, but the references to Washington State need to be changed to territory. Thanks for another good catch! :-) Unimaginative Username 01:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome job! Nice catches too! Thanks a ton! IvoShandor 02:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Unimaginative Username 03:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Woot, I copied this thing up there by the peer review stuff, so if this page gets archived all will know that a copy edit has gone down. : ) IvoShandor 02:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And pardon my ignorance, but who or what is "Woot"? Unimaginative Username 03:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. As in WOOT WOOT! Raise da roof. ; ) IvoShandor 03:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't familiar with the expression. Sounds positive, though :-) Unimaginative Username 03:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just being odd, no one really says that anyway. : ) IvoShandor 03:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Riot between miners" or "attack upon...."?

"The riot between white miners and Chinese miners.."

This sentence makes it sound like a mutual fight, started by both sides, but the rest of the article indicates that it was a unilateral attack by the white miners on the Chinese. There is nothing in the article to indicate that the Chinese helped start the riot, joined in it, or contributed to it, other than just by living and working there. I would suggest changing this line to "The attack by white miners on Chinese miners was racially-motivated". (I have no personal POV on the issue; the facts seem to speak for themselves.) Objections? Comments? Unimaginative Username 00:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say you need to read more than one account in order to make that call; not a criticism, just a historiographical-method thing. For now it's a riot between them and you have one article saying it was an attack, but it doesn't say it wan't contributed to. I've seen other events where the differing accounts can be quite revealing and very different; it's often a two-way street that p.c.-blinkers have since mandated that the Chinese were completely passive; no, in many cases, they fought back and in one instance I can think of in BC themselves were the attackers (Camp 23 near Lytton during CPR construction, about 1884-85), and in the Vancouver Riots some gangs of Chinese isolated and beat up sole whites as retaliation for the initial wave of mob violence. There's always two sides to any story; usually six or seven. I suggest some others be found and the article avoid the POV taken by any one of them (because all histories have a POV, though most don't admit to it).Skookum1 00:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think its best to just go ahead and let the facts speak wherever possible. IvoShandor 02:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Skookum1: If there are any good sources indicating that this particular incident at Rock Springs was a mutual fight, then yes, those sources should be included also. That would be great if you could add them.
IvoShandor: I agree. However, this lead sentence appears not to be consistent with the facts presented; hence the suggestion.
At the very least, it needs to be changed to "riot among, not "riot between" :-) "Among expresses a relationship when more than two persons or things are involved: Distrust spread among even his strongest supporters. Between is used when only two persons or things are involved..." [3] Unimaginative Username 03:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am for it if everyone else is okay with it, I am not too particular on the wording I just want to accurately portray the event. IvoShandor 03:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Celestials" and hidden POV attitudes/assumptions

Gotta say there seems to be hidden POV all over this article just in simple wordings indicative of certain attitudes or, as in the following case, from a completely misundertanding of the material:

In addition to the Knights of Labor, anti-Chinese sentiment also came from other publications. Religious publications, such as Baptist Missionary Magazine, depicted the Chinese as "heathens." The National Police Gazette, a men's journal as popular as Playboy in its day, consistently used the term "Celestials" to describe the Chinese in their coverage of the Rock Springs Massacre. The New York Times, in its reports on the Rock Springs incident in the days that followed the massacre, used similar language.

It seems that the author/editor of that paragraph believes that the use of "Celestials" was derogatory, which it was not. It was, in fact, often the preferred form and was shorthand for the Emperor being "Son of Heaven" and them being his subjects. Droll a bit if you were looking for a reason to criticize it, but not derisive. Assuming that it is constitutes a display of the hidden POV I'm talking about; turning over every stone in thinking that they all count, while in fact some that are turned over mean something different. "Celestials" was widespread and not viewed as discriminatory; African-American-turned-BCer journalist Isaac Dixon (who write in what can only be called ebonics, but was one of the most popular and piercing columnists of his day) used the term; here's an example (note abbreviation to 'Lestials). The use of synonym-ethnonyms was fairly common, e.g. Lusitanian for a Portuguese, etc; the Chinese Empire's portrayal of itself as the embodiment of heaven naturally lent itself to the tag, I'd say. What's discriminatory about that?Skookum1 01:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And since they were not Christian, it follows that they were heathen, at least by Christian terminology. Unless the Muslim penchant for "infidel" is also considered discriminatory, neither is "heathen", no matter who applied to; remember, it was applied to European spirit-religion/ancient beliefs long before it was used as a derisive for anybody else, Chinese or otherwise.Skookum1 01:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just cut it. Or I will, either way. IvoShandor 02:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite an infamously sharp tongue, wiki-prudence has taught me to discuss such deletions/changes here before plunging in. I'll do it sometimes but this was cited and evidently someone had taken care with it, so I wasn't about to go blanket-deletion without discussion/explanation.Skookum1 07:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Or just clean it up. Not sure it should be cut, just reworded perhaps. IvoShandor 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, quite frankly, if it's out there, there should be much more vicious, overtly inciteful, jingoistic rants, especially from the Knights of Labour. Merely the use of epithets such as heathen and Celestial, even Chinamen, are hardly abusive rhetoric (though "John Chinaman" definitely is); I don't know the speechifying on that side of the line but I know it was even more fiery than up here, and up here the negative portrayal was explicit; mere names were little by comparison. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skookum1 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC).Hagermanbot beat me to it.Skookum1 07:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is I think the section is needed, just with better examples or quotes from the ones already cited. Name-calling is minor relative to verbal lynch-mobbing that I know was often the case with the Knights of Labor (they were behind the 1907 riots in VAncouver, and maybe the 1885 ones in Vancouver as well which AFAIK weren't linked to the Wyoming events btw).Skookum1 07:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I will look for sources around the time period. I don't want to delve into rantings that were published to far after or before, if you know of any good ones point them out, thanks for the tips, just edit anything you think needs tweaked unless you are concerned it's too major for your knowledge of the topic or whatever. : ) IvoShandor 07:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps copyedits to tone down or eliminate the offending weasel words should be accomplished. Ronbo76 12:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been helpful in the past Sir Ronbo, feel free to dive right in. I am hoping to get this to GAC this week, and the help of the editors on this page has played large part in that, perhaps we can all collaborate to get it to FA? IvoShandor 03:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed what Skookum1 was referring to above about the Celestials. IvoShandor 03:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

However I think in modern historical context the implication of heathen is a negative one, that it was being used non negatively is just your POV. But I will look for sources to back this up as well. IvoShandor 03:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Where are we now? IvoShandor 15:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The silence here for over ten days is taken as meaning that everything is fine. IvoShandor 16:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting and possibilities for improvement

I've just given the article a very careful look-over for copy-ed errors and blatant POV or unencyclopaedic tone. Two remaining concerns of mine are:

• The section "Prior anti-Chinese activity" repeats a fair amount of stuff which has already been said - could this section be amalgamated elsewhere?
• In the intro, it says "more than 50 Chinese homes were burned" - later this is stated at 79. Should the intro be changed to say "more than 75" maybe? Just a better round number...

Cricketgirl 15:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The intro has been tweaked. The other section I am not sure what you mean. There is mention of SF elsewhere but not those specifics, Buffalo is only mentioned in this one section. Any specifics? Thanks again for the awesome copy edit. IvoShandor 07:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Chinatown location (Camp Pilot Butte - site of US Army garrison)

Coordinates from two sources place the Camp Pilot Butte, where the US Army troops were garrisoned at the Union Pacific railroad facilities NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY NRHP Nomination Form. From that website and this one (RS SCM 1894 Camp Pilot Butte Medical History. The description of Chinatown reads that was about one mile north of the camp and would be across the railroad tracks which are visible in Google maps of the area. Several small bridges are in the area and a main crosses over into the northside of Rocksprings which would be the Chinatown area. On the Wikimapia map, you can see another user scoped out the UPRR depot along with the old town Rocksprings, the old city hall and perhaps even the church which is alluded to as being built after Chinatown was burnt down. |41.587033|-109.220000 . These coordinates can be displayed at buildscale. Later next week, I will look for a historic map at a US site I have on maps that are in the public domain. Ronbo76 18:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with your coordinates, it seem Camp Point Butte no longer remains. IvoShandor 16:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

On April 10, 2007, I re-read NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY NRHP Nomination Form to ensure that the coordinates used are accurate for the placement of the crosshairs for the Wikimapia Google display. They were off because of the raw geodetic coordinates used. Since today's maps no longer indicate where this depot or Camp Pilot Butte where, I found it by looking at this description in the nomination form listed above:

"Camp Pilot Butte was established on the north bank of Bitter Creek in the northwest part of Rock Springs, at an elevation of 6,260 feet above sea level. Laid out generally on a north-south line, it encompassed five and one-half acres of cinder-covered, Union Pacific Railroad property. The camp parade ground was the center of what is today a city block bound on the west by Soulsby Street, on the east by Pilot Butte Avenue, on the north by Bridger Avenue, and on the south by Elias Avenue."

.

It will take me about 30 minutes to re-adjust the coordinates based upon that description which shows accurately on Google maps as about one to two miles north of the coordinates I listed above.

It seems to be in about the general area where I was thinking while I worked on the article....Thanks Ronbo. : )IvoShandor 16:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Geolinks coordinates have been added to this article based upon the NHRP form discussed above. To accurately view the old parade ground, readers/users can select the Google Maps feature and then switch to Hybrid feature while zooming in to see grounds as bordered by the streets listed in the above blockquote. Ronbo76 16:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)