Talk:Scranton general strike/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Stepenoff Quote

(→Interpretation: Quotes replaced. This is intended to be sneer quotes. "Triumph" is a WP:PEACOCK, and the point of this section is to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.)

Nope. WP:Peacock refers mostly to wikicators, not sources. If you want to distance the article from Stepenoff, then include a fuller -and accurate- quote. You wrote: Stepenoff writes of organized labor's "triumph" in the 1878 Scranton mayoral election,

But Stepenoff wrote: Two years later this reform organization triumphed over the Democrats and Republicans and put him in the mayor's office. Anmccaff (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Peacock covers loaded language generally. There is no policy against using single word edits. The source is generally not important enough to provide a lengthy quote, but is provided to contrast with Logan's blanket approval. Further, the full quote as you have provided, is about something other than the subject of the article, and is excluded as a WP:COAT. The relevant portions are the use of the loaded "triumph" and the description of the police. That is why only those portions are included.

Again, the point of the section is to attribute the diverse POVs concerning the subject. One side in this paragraph see's a triumph and a discrace, the other sees "patriotic young men".

Again, there is no policy against using single word quote, and in this case, it is not a single word quote, but a part of the larger quote used as a lead in. TimothyJosephWood 19:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The single word isn't even a quote, it's a paraphrase using the same word root. Anmccaff (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The omission of the suffix as extraneous to comply with MOS:TENSE is in compliance with MOS:PMC. TimothyJosephWood 19:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Your "quote" has changed the meaning; that is not a real quote. Stepenoff wrote of a political party -not "organized labor"; the greenbackers had other supporters, too – gaining victory in an election.

Note also Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. This is referred to as the principle of minimal change. Where there is good reason to change the wording, enclose changes within square brackets (for example, [her father] replacing him, Anmccaff (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The passage is about Powderly, fired for being a unionist, and the most famous member of the Knights of Labor, organizing a labor party, and entering politics. The person, group, and party, were of and about organized labor. This paragraph, and the preceding and following several paragraphs are about organized labor. Stop arguing pedantics for its own sake. TimothyJosephWood 20:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned above; the Greenbackers were not exclusively a labor party. They drew on a pretty wide number of groups, and had overlap with both Democrats and Republicans and with labor and small business. They were also not a creature of Powderly himself or the Knights.

There's no pedantry involved, only precision. You've changed Stepenoff's meaning and actual words...no, word, yet put it in quotes. Anmccaff (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

"In 1876 he [Powderly] entered Luzerne County politics by organizing a Greeback-Labor club." The passage is talking about the Greenbacker labor club...that Powerdly founded...in the previous sentence. It is named as a labor club. It is described explicitly as a reform organization. Enough. TimothyJosephWood 20:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

"Greenback Labor" was the name of the political party at that time. It was an existing organization, Powderly simply expanded its reach in Luzerne County. The inclusion of two groups was deliberate, just like in its later descendant, the Farmer-Labor Party. The point, in each case, was to highlight separate component groups. Anmccaff (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

This makes several unsourced claims, all tendentiously used. Anmccaff (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Anmccaff, specifics? I came here through new pages feed. I was more focused on overall issues than specific details. TimothyJosephWood 01:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's start with the very name for it. Are there any secondary sources -whatsoever- that call this "the Scranton General Strike", I only see this from a couple newspaper articles? "A general strike at Scranton" isn't the same thing. Anmccaff (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Next, most contemporary sources listed in the Great Railroad Strike of 1877#Pennsylvania unequivocally describe an attack on the Mayor of Scranton. Any actual source for a "shoot to kill order?" Anmccaff (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, I don't really know. I was just doing formatting. This may be a good opportunity for an RfC. TimothyJosephWood 10:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Given the changes since, I don't think NPOV applies anymore; if anything, a couple segments might have swung too far the other way, just slightly. On the other hand, it still uses a name not found elsewhere, and very rarely used even for a descriptive elsewhere. Given several editors high regard for the local historical marker, I suspect that "Scranton Miner's and Laborer's Strike" or "Scranton miner's and laborers strike" might be workable. Anmccaff (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Template remove. I was going to wait until the RM was closed. No consensus has been established that the name is OR, and no consensus has been established for a move to an alternative name. Tomorrow, the seventh day, the discussion may be closed by an involved editor. TimothyJosephWood

RfC

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but Anmccaff has expressed some concerns above regarding the neutrality of the article and the choice of title. (I came here from Special:NewPagesFeed and just did formatting and general cleanup. I really have no knowledge of the subject matter.) TimothyJosephWood 12:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Greetings. I am the original editor. If the consensus is that this should be moved under 1877, I have no principled objections. I am new as a Wikipedian and also new writing in these Talk sections--I'm not 100% sure if I am contributing correctly here.

I do have a background in labor history, however, and it seems to me a couple of things can be said in response to Anmccaff objections. First, a general strike is a recognized terms for when a sizable share of workers in any given area strike, regardless of industry. So what took place in Scranton, by Wikipedia's own definition (I will add the link) fits that billing. Additionally, it was called a general strike by at least one particularly important contemporary source (New York Times.) So it seems to me the term is correct on those two counts. Second, the events in Scranton are important because of the violence that ensued.

But references to "the Scranton General Strike", as such, are vanishingly rare, unlike, say., the '26 strike in the UK. That was known as such, with plenty of good secondary cites from both sides of the issue. "the Scranton strike has gone general" is not the same thing.

Any actual references in secondary scholarship to "Scranton General Strike?" Going twice....Anmccaff (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Next, there are remarkably few sources that describe the shooting as a "massacre" of "workers." the event took place en route to the area where there was a real enough labor confrontation, in which by almost every account, the Mayor was attacked and injured by strikers, and by most accounts, protected from further injury by other strikers. He was in no position to give any orders to anyone directly.

Most contemporary accounts describe the people fired on as rioters, and mention, unequivocally, that they fired first. There was a good deal of concern about the proportionality of the response, but next to none that it was provoked.

Throughout, you have written up what shows in the majority of accounts as if it is a story concocted by a limited number of people, and you have based this article [on] a secondary source that disagrees with you, [and] a partisan plagiarist known for sloppy scholarship. Anmccaff (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Verita.miner (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Are you calling me "a partisan plagiarist known for sloppy scholarship"? I do not understand the origin of this invective. Is there no code of conduct on Wikipedia? As for the factual record, I don't think there is any dispute that a large gathering of workers took place, and that this turned violent. There are charges that the mayor was attacked, which are included. There is not a dispute that the citizens group opened fire killing a number of workers.

No, I am calling Philip S. Foner a partisan plagiarist known for sloppy scholarship. I have a good deal of company in this.

There are no "charges that the mayor was attacked," there is complete, universal agreement the mayor was attacked, from sources sympathetic and unsympathetic. Here is Powderly's take: "The mayor had been assaulted, and, with blood streaming down his face gave the order to fire." Powderly describes the group as a mob, and identifies the three immediately killed as "two innocent men, and one who was engaged in leading the men on to destruction." See The path I trod; the autobiography of Terence V. Powderly, 213-219, IMS. Some other later accounts emphasize that McKune did not have direct control over the men Scranton was leading; the firing began as they were on route, and began with a shot from the rioters Others emphasize that some strikers assaulted the mayor, but others helped protect him from further harm...but no source whatsoever disputes that he was attacked, and seriously...except your wiki article. It implies this is an account from a fishy source. Anmccaff (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Verita.miner (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

As for bias, I'm a little unclear as to why this is being charged. I have used qualifying terms to indicate that the source in question is itself biased from the standpoint of the mayor.

Which is complete, utter nonsense. The majority of accounts separated the incident in which the mayor was injured, an event where high feeling turned a meeting violent, from the simple rioting of the shooting incident, and many accounts saw the widespread criminal charges as pure political grandstanding. Anmccaff (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Verita.miner (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)I appreciate your concern Anmccaff with the entry, but do not appreciate the intemperate language. I will take all your suggestions and criticisms seriously. The invective seems superfluous.Verita.miner (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll make a couple of improvements while the fate of the entry is discussed. Thank you for your observations and help. I apologize that I'm still getting the hang of writing entries. Verita.miner (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Verita.miner, I have no opinion or knowledge of the topic, but the title should be the 'general'/most likely term for the event. A broader range of sources might also help to establish the significance of this event. Best of luck. Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Verita.miner (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)I've changed some language that was cited as dubious and added references. I've also added a clause to discuss source of information on shooting, which was written from the standpoint of the mayor and the citizen's guard. This may be the only firsthand account, but readers will benefit from knowing it's origin. I think the Craig Phelan volume on Powderly can be referenced here, to add more verification, but I need to track down the book first. Also, there is a historical maker in Scranton that refers to the events as a "Laborers Strike," which is clearly redundant. Hope these improvements help. I'll try for more. BTW, there is an entry on the St. Louis General Strike of 1877 on Wikipedia, which also arose out of the 1877 Railroad Strike.Verita.miner (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

...and there are several actual books and contemporary usages for that. There appear to be next to none for that usage here. Anmccaff (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Verita.miner (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)I have added a citation and tried to alter language that was pegged as dubious. I will add some more citations as time affords itself. Of course I have not objection to (talk) adding sources. I'm happy to keep improving the entry. It seems that the event's importance warrant an entry-- a major strike that clearly went beyond the RR brotherhoods and that ended in bloodshed. It seems to me "general strike" is the appropriate term to describe those events, as this is a sociological term used to describe strikes in which a large proportion of workers in a given area go out on strike (see Wikipedia's own entry.) Also, the term "general strike" was given to it not just by any newspaper, but "the newspaper of record". To call it a "railroad strike" or "laborers' strike" would obviously be misleading to Wikipedia readers, as the largest group involved were the coal miners. Verita.miner (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The Times did not call this event "the Scranton General Strike." Nobody but you seems to. Wikipedia is not a place for original publication. Period. Anmccaff (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The Times did assert that, far from being a case of widespread grievances, the strike broadened because of worker intimidation, by workers who were well paid in a contracting industry. The price of rail had fallen by nearly a quarter. The Times also flatly asserted that mayor McKune had been assaulted, which you tried to picture as deception. Finally, the times reported, approvingly, that a newsman making some of the claims you have here had been convicted of criminal libel, and also stated that many saw Scranton's use of force as justified. Anmccaff (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You are using sources dishonestly and tendentiously. Anmccaff (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: Your tone is concerning. This is a content dispute and can be resolved. If you edit war and try to assert ownership you will find yourself at one of the drama boards. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

As is yours; you appear to be attempting to steer the course of the discussion by threats of A-N-whatever. Quit it, or open a complaint. Anmccaff (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Verita.miner (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)I am certainly in no way being dishonest, and I resent the accusation. What is the basis of this charge? I see that the General Strike title has been removed, though I don't see that there was any consensus on that question. (talk) elsewhere has accused me of being a user I am not. I don't know how to respond to these charges, as I am new to Wikipedia, but I think anyone whor reads these threads will see that I am earnestly trying to address concerns and improve the entry.

You could respond by noting that the NYT supports, fully, the fact that Scranton's Mayor had been attacked, and that the article you cherry picked explicitly mentioned coercion of other workers by strikers, and that the strikers were far from desperate. Anmccaff (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I have done so in the latest attempt by adding research from a more recent book, 1877 by Bellesiles. I think that this should address some of the concerns on bias.

Bellesiles is a known academic fraudster, who invented supporting data. Some of the data he claimed to have read was destroyed in the San Francisco earthquake, a half century before he was born. I thought the sourcing had reached a low point with Philip S. Foner, but you've managed to find something even worse. Anmccaff (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I note that the term "general strike" has been taken down though I saw no consensus on the question. The Times referred to is as a general strike in the very headline of the article. Verita.miner (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

No. It spoke of a "General Strike," but didn't claim that was the proper name of the even...as, indeed, it couldn't. Such things are decided in retrospect, and off Wikipedia itself.

(talk) please again refrain from personal attacks and baseless accusations. I appreciate your concern over the article and getting things right. There is not a need for invective. Verita.miner (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Nothing baseless about it. You used sources contrary to their actual content. Cut that out. Anmccaff (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

If this abuse continues, is there something I can do? Verita.miner (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Verita.miner (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Sorry. I'm having some trouble getting the hang of this. "talk" above refers to "Anmccaff." Again, I'm happy to take suggestions, and I think I've responded with improvements and modifications already to many of Anmccaff's suggestions. Trying to take the high road here. Verita.miner (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The high road includes honest use of sources, and avoiding loaded terms like "vigilante," "murder," and "massacre," especially when they are untrue, for the first two, and very debatable for the third. Anmccaff (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Verita.miner (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)The terms "vigilante" was used by Schroeder, Steven Patrick (2006). The Elementary School of the Pennsylvania National Guard, 1877–1917. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh. pp. 56–57. I don't think I ever used the term "murder." "Massacre" can be deleted as an emotive term. Can you please proceed without accusation? If you are sincere in trying to improve the entry, I don't think that these things are helpful. More sources to come!Verita.miner (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

No, on several levels. To begin with, there is no such work. Steven Patrick Schroeder wrote "The Elementary School of the Army the Pennsylvania National Guard, 1877–1917." It's a Phd. thesis, not otherwise published...and, it's flat out wrong on this, contradicted by better cites already available here. Anmccaff (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Verita.miner (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Normally major university PhD dissertations are considered credible sources. I did not see on the form how to indicate it was a dissertation. Almost all of these can be accessed through Proquest. Also, I have added another secondary source from the late Harold Aurend, who was a leading scholar on the history of the anthracite region.Verita.miner (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Verita.miner (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Hello. I have removed reference to "general strike." The use of the term, I repeat, was based on the title of the New York Times article describing the event as well as the sociological definition of what a general strike is. But I understand the point Anmccaff makes that the term should be used as well in secondary sources. It also seems to be the major basis of his/her charge that the entry is based on original research, which is not the case. Thank you for the constructive feedback. Verita.miner (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus to move this article unilaterally to another title, so I've restored the status quo. RfC's last 30 days. Numerous sources describe the events at Scranton in 1877 as a general strike (there may actually be a better title using the year as there was a threatened general strike in Scranton in 1945) and there is no reason to distrust solid sources such as the New York Times. --RexxS (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

100% agree that whatever name is used should include a year. Non specific searches I was doing were definitely confounding the two events. TimothyJosephWood 17:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a title such as "Scranton General Strike of 1877" would find consensus? I could source that to:

• "A General Strike At Scranton". The New York Times. July 25, 1877. p. 2.
• "A traditional union town with a modern version of conflict". Life magazine. April 29, 1957. p. 32.
• Crosby, David (2009). Scranton Railroads. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-7385-6518-7.

Primary and secondary sources; newspaper, magazine and book; all referring to a general strike at Scranton in 1877. What more could any reasonable person want? --RexxS (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

               ::To say nothing of the fact that the events described fit the definition of "general strike". I agree with the title you have suggested. I'm new at the Wikipedian business and am not sure how to change title names however. I could probably figure it out but if you'd like to make the change, all the better.Verita.miner (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

thank you for the useful suggestions. i do not know how to change the title! but agree that 1877 should be there. could someone add this in? the original title was "Scranton General Strike of 1877." There was also something called a general strike in scranton in 1865 or 1866, btw.Verita.miner (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

(First comment got nuked by the move.) Verita.miner, per WP:SIGN, convention is to sign only the end of your comments. Just FYI. Part of this is because (as I just did here), many people begin comments by WP:PINGing someone involved in the discussion. So it kindof makes it look like you are pinging yourself to your own comment every time you leave one.

I wonder if the whole goings on with the libel suit wouldn't be WP:DUE weight as part of the aftermath of the event. Would certainly seem to add context and closure. TimothyJosephWood 17:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood:: That's because Anmccaff is incapable of responding to a single post with a single post of his own and has made a dog's breakfast of this section by interjecting his comments within Verita.miner's original post.[1]. --RexxS (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Dog's breakfast, Rexxs? No, if someone can follow the indenting custom, it works out quite nicely. User:Veritaminer is signing her posts, in effect, at the beginning. I can't do much about that. Anmccaff (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You've been warned about it before, Anmccaff. WP:TPG is required reading and if you can't figure out that it makes it impossible for third parties to work out who wrote what, it's time you were banned from commenting on talk pages. --RexxS (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

She's been signing at the beginning of fragments of her original comments because you fragmented them. There's a lot you could do about that if you had even the slightest amount of courtesy toward other editors in you. No wonder we don't keep new editors with the likes of you about --RexxS (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

We could probably do without WP:BITING the new editor...or each other. Also this digression should end, because it doesn't really have anything to do with improving the article. TimothyJosephWood 17:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

"blackleg"

Take it to talk and seek consensus that this sourced and verbatim quoted term is in any way POV.

Of course it's POV, it represents the die-hard strikers view, not the returning workers, nor the workers who had formally decided to end their strike. It's exactly parallel to the use of "vigilante," the word is being used as an insult. Linking it to Strikebreaker, which centers on "Strikebreakers are usually individuals who are not employed by the company prior to the trade union dispute, but rather hired after or during the strike to keep the organization running" is misleading. Many of the returning workers had never even been part of a strike per se, but had left work because they were casual, and no work was available to them until the trains rolled again. Anmccaff (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

It is linked to Strikebreaker because that's where Blackleg redirects. If you don't like it take it up with them. Per usual you have completely switched argument from your original. Your original argument "the article doesn't capture that it was ironic/metaphoric" is stylistic at best, and regardless, the word is sourced and quoted verbatim. It is explained as a term for strike breakers earlier in the article, and the main article is linked to.

To your completely new argument that it is POV, I will simply say that not particularly personally preferring something does not make it POV. Further, any POV there is is attributed. Further, the sentence is speaking about the opinion of the strikers, to whom the use of the term is previously attributed. TimothyJosephWood 20:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

It is linked to Strikebreaker because that's where Blackleg redirects....and? It's being used as a statement of fact, not a POV, in the article. The parallel with the use of vigilante is almost exact. The folk who called Bill Scranton a "vigilante" did so because they disapproved of his behaviou, generally, not because they believed he had no legal standing.

Nothing new about the the agrument, it's obviously implied. Anmccaff (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

One instance has been removed. The wikilink has been readded. The former mainly because I don't care, and I'm tired of wasting pages of debate over a single word or the use of a single punctuation mark. The latter simply because it should be wikilinked, period. Again, if you don't like it, take it up at that article, or take it up at the talk for WP:UNDERLINK. TimothyJosephWood 20:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 21 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. There is more evidence for leaving the title as-is than moving it to a new location. The list of references by Timothyjosephwood easily proves this. Anarchyte <(work | talk) 11:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Scranton General Strike → Scranton Strike of 1877 – The current name is found almost exclusively on Wikipedia itself. The only references on the page using something like it are obviously describing a fact, not naming an event, and were, by all appearances, tendentiously googled up. "Scranton general strike," as a name, appears to show up -once- in Google books, along with this Wikipedia article itself [2]. The one book it does return is by Bellesiles, who has not exactly made his name a hallmark for good scholarship. The article centers on a time -after- any general strike was over -the railroaders had returned to work , as had many others, before the rioting the article is centered on. None of the sources central to the article use the term as a name for this event. Anmccaff (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Weak Support – The New York Times, David Luhrssen, and David Crosby citations all call it a general strike. A cursory look at Google Books finds other sources (Thomas Francis Murphy, p. 1867; Steve Babson, p. 2) which also use the term "general strike". However, the greatest number of sources do not call it a "general strike", but use other terms. The article can and should observe in a footnote that some sources say it was a "general strike", and then cite those sources. I realize that it borders on original research for the contributors to make these judgement calls, but that's what has to happen. - Tim1965 (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

"Calling" something is very different from "naming" something. Look, say, at the First World War/World War I/WWI/the Great War. Even before Max Hastings it was trivially easy to find a cite calling it "the catastrophe of 1914." It's an obvious descriptive...but it isn't a proper name. We do see, in the cites used in the article and elsewhere, the thing named as the "Lackawanna Avenue Riot", "the 1877 strikes," "the Great Strike," "the Miners and laborers strike," and "the Railroad Strike," and so forth, with "Scranton" often either supplied by context, or used separately. The sources are also pretty clear that the strikes of the 1870s were locally seen as a continuum, and that designating the year is needed.. Anmccaff (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned before, the strike was in fact never general; the Pennsylvania Coal Co. kept operating, with good relations between it and its own employees, until strikers from other mines sabotaged its headworks. That said, it was general enough for 5 days, but almost all of the significant events described in the article occurred after the railroaders had returned to work, along with a good many others. The big strike -which was largely uneventful- broke on the 29th, the rioting occurred on the 1st. Any putative "general strike" had ended.Anmccaff (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't particularly care whatever title you use is going to be descriptive. It was a strike. It was a general strike. It was a riot. The proper noun argument is pedantic at best. The disagreement in the sources speaks for itself. Just pick a name and go with it, on the condition that Anmccaff volunteers to fix whatever pages link to this article when it is moved, because this seems to be a personal sticking point for them and a WP:POINT they desperately want to make, and not of any particular interest to anyone else involved.

It is also likely the only reason the OR template is still on the article, probably also put there to prove a point, and probably also to be inevitably removed the next time my worst judgement allows me to drink and edit. Overall, Anmccaff has been more disruptive and obstructionist on this article than anything, and has committed much more time to reverting, incessant inline tagging, AfD and RM, compared to the relatively miniscule effort they have made in improving the article.

I recommend moving it to literally anywhere just to have this argument over with and leave no other avenues for disruption. TimothyJosephWood 21:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The title is fine, as is. There isn't a consensus among the source material for what this incident is called. Anmccaff has been disruptive at best, tilting at windmills and this requested move is another effort to push a POV. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unless "Scranton Strike" is a proper noun, it would have to be "Scranton strike of 1877". And, why specifiy 1877? Are there likely to be other Scranton Strike articles? This doesn't seem like a good name in any form. The current name seems to better fit WP:COMMONNAME per sources. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

How can something be a "common name" if there isn't a single, solitary book, article, paper, monograph, or, until now on Wiki, webpage that call it that? If it's just a reference to a strike going general, that lasted 5 days, and was over before the main subjects of the article -the rioting and shooting – occurred. Anmccaff (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Re "Scranton strike of '77": that would be equally good. A descriptive name has to cover both place and time, since there was another miner's strike in '71 this was often confused with. Anmccaff (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as the year goes, yes, there were other Scranton strikes, as well other Scranton general strikes. Some of which probably meet WP:NOTE, although there doesn't seem to be articles on them, at least not yet.TimothyJosephWood 15:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on the move generally, but I strongly oppose capitalisation for the proposed title. It should be "Scranton strike of 1877" per WP:NCCAPS. RGloucester — ☎ 15:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The same probably applies equally to the current title. If there is no consensus for this proposal, and it doesn't seem likely there will be, a move to Scranton general strike (1877) or Scranton general strike of 1877 is probably agreeable to all but OP. This was suggested prior to this thread by Verita.miner, but was derailed into discussion about whether a general strike should be called general. TimothyJosephWood 15:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose There are plenty of sources that use the phrase "general strike" to refer to the Scranton General Strike (which is a particular event and hence a proper noun, so is capitalised). There are no sources using the proposed title. Adding the year might be a useful disambiguator because of the threatened general strike at Scranton in 1945. --RexxS (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

No, there are not a "great number" of sources. They are, in fact, vanishingly rare, and none of them are used as sources in the body of the article.

• Oppose.I object to the term "Scranton Strike of 1877". It makes zero sense on any level and would seriously confuse readers. The entry is very well sourced and I thank those who have added to it constructively. My own opinion is that Anmccaff is using "shotgun methods" --throwing as much muck as he can against the article in the hope that something will stick. Why the operation against this particular entry, I don't understand. I wish to thank everyone who has worked in good faith and constructively on this entry.Verita.miner (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary wall of references break

Let's look at the actual cites:

References

David Luhrssen (2015). Secret Societies and Clubs in American History. ABC-CLIO. p. 86. "In the first labor action during his tenure as a Knight, A general strike that paralyzed Scranton and ended in gunfire and death (1877)..."

...does not use as proper name. Only sourced to support current name; not otherwise used or usable for the article.

Nella Van Dyke, Holly J. McCammon. Strategic Alliances: Coalition Building and Social Movements. U of Minnesota Press. p. 31. "...the former [i.e., Scranton] saw more general strike action than did Cleveland." ...does not use as proper name, also only sourced to support name, and neither used nor usable for the article as a whole.

"A General Strike At Scranton". The New York Times. July 25, 1877. p. 2. ...The only one of twelve NYT articles to use the term. Most NYT articles see it as a miner's strike.

Crosby, David (2009). Scranton Railroads. Arcadia Publishing. p. 30. ISBN 0738565180. "Here a general strike in 1877 has halted operations on the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad in Scranton" ...not a proper noun. The indefinite article there is clue in both cases.

Bruce, Robert V. (1959). 1877: Year of Violence. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. pp. 295–298. Writes "[the mining strike] was general.." about anthracite mining, not all industries.

Margo L. Azzarelli; Marnie Azzarelli (2016). Labor Unrest in Scranton. Arcadia Publishing. p. 7. Uses "the Great Railroad Strike of 1877."

Paul Kleppner, "The Greenback and Prohibition Parties," in Arthur M. Schlesinger (ed.), History of U.S. Political Parties: Volume II, 1860–1910, The Gilded Age of Politics. New York: Chelsea House/R.R. Bowker Co., 1973; pg. 1556. Doesn't address the Scranton particulars, IMS.

Lord Keynes (2012-01-26). "Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Post Keynesian Perspective: US Unemployment, 1869–1899". Socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com. Retrieved 2013-12-08. Does not address the Scranton strike.

Scharf, J. Thomas (1967) [1st. Pub. 1879]. "History of Maryland From the Earliest Period to the Present Day" 3. Hatboro, PA: Tradition Press: 733–42. The link does not actually cover the cited pages.

Scott Molloy, "Book Review: Streets, Railroads, and the Great Strike of 1877 By David O. Stowell", Technology and Culture 41.3 (2000) 636-638, via Project MUSE, accessed 20 May 2016 "Great Strike of 1877."

"The Great Strike of 1877: Remembering a Worker Rebellion". UE News. June 2002. Retrieved 2016-05-22. "Great Strike." "Great Railroad Strike of 1877." .

Lloyd, John P. (2009). "The Strike Wave of 1877". The Encyclopedia of Strikes in American History: Routledge. "mill and mine workers struck." No name for Scranton strikes as a whole.

Zinn, Howard (1995). A People's History of the United States 1492-present. New York: Harper Collins. p. 248. ISBN 0-06-052842-7. Retrieved 2009-10-05. Don't have handy. requested from library.

Blatz, Perry K. (1999). Keystone of Democracy: A History of Pennsylvania Workers. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. pp. 96–97. Ditto.

"Distress of the Miners". The New York Times. August 6, 1877. p. 4. Describes separate strikes, (and emphasizes striker's intimidation and violence.) No mention of "general strike."

Logan, Samuel Crothers (1887). A City's Danger and Defense. Or, Issues and Results of the Strikes of 1877, Containing the Origin and History of the Scranton City Guard. Philadelphia: J.B. Rogers Print. Note -"Strikes", plural.

McCabe, James Dabney; Edward Winslow Martin (1877). The History of the Great Riots: The Strikes and Riots on the Various Railroads of the United States and in the Mining Regions Together with a Full History of the Molly Maguires. "the Strike." Straightforward, that.

Hitchcock, Frederick; Downs, John (1914). History of Scranton and Its People, Volume 1. Lewis historical publishing Company. "the Great Strike" and "the Railroad Strike." Hitchcock distinguishes between the "big strike" and the later , violent phase.

Foner, Philip Sheldon (1977). The Great Labor Uprising of 1877. New York: Monad. ISBN 9780873488280. Waiting on ILL.

[[tq|Schroeder, Steven Patrick (2006). The Elementary School of the Army: The Pennsylvania National Guard, 1877–1917. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh. pp. 56–57.}} "1877 railroad strike" and "railroad strike of 1877."

"Hyde Park History". Retrieved 2015-09-11. "Great Riots of 1877."

Gallagher, Rev. Johan P. (1964). Scranton: Industry and Politics, 1835–1885. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University. pp. 243–244. Nearest WorldCat copy to me is 1,600 miles.

Bellesiles, Michael A. (2010). 1877: America's Year of Living Violently. New York: New Press. p. 169. Simply refers to "the strike."

Cutter, William, ed. (1913). New England Families, Genealogical and Memorial: A Record of the Achievements of Her People in the Making of Commonwealths and the Founding of a Nation, Volume 4. Lewis Historical Publishing Company. p. 1841. Retrieved 2015-09-11. Uses "great railroad riots of 1877."

Aurand, Harold (1991). "Early Mine Workers' Organizations In The Anthracite Region". Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies, Vol. 58, No. 4. Uses "strikes of 1877," and does not even connect the miners' strikes to the wider ones. Very narrow focus on hard-coal hardrock mining.

Federal Writer's Project, Pennsylvania: A Guide to the Keystone State, 1940. Having sent to local library.

Phelan, Craig (2000). Grand Master Workman: Terence Powderly and the Knights of Labor. Praeger. p. 20. ISBN 978-0313309489. Uses no particular descriptor. "strike."

Henry C. Bradsby, History of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, Volume 1, 1893, Pages 232-233 Does not address the strike.

Hitchcock, History of Scranton and Its People, 1914; "The Coal Panic," New York Times, 26 February 1871. Cite needs fixing. NYT Doesn't address strike.

"The Scranton Libel Suits, Relics of the Railroad Riots-Scranton's Fight Against his Defamers". The New York Times. 8 September 1879. Retrieved 18 May 2016. The "railroad riots."

[[tq|"The Scranton Libel Suits". The New York Times. September 12, 1879.}} Does not mention the strike.

Wyoming Historical and Geological Society, Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1919, page 174 Does not mention the strike.

George D. Wolf, William Warren Scranton: Pennsylvania Statesman, 1981, page 11 Nearest Worldcat copy appears to be in Munich. Who, exactly, read this one? Looks like Google-dredging, or citing from Wikipedia itself.

"Coal Miners' and Laborers' Strike". Historical Marker Project. Retrieved 16 May 2016. "Coal miner's and Laborer's Strike." i.e., the smaller post-rail holdouts.

Craft, David (1891). History of Scranton, Penn: With Full Outline of the Natural Advantages, Accounts of the Indian Tribes, Early Settlements, Connecticut's Claim to the Wyoming Valley, the Trenton Decree, Down to the Present Time. H. W. Crew. p. 584. ISBN 978-1295632718. Gives no general name in the discussion.

The Chemung Co. Greenbacker, and Labor Reform Advocate : (Elmira, N.Y.) 1878-18?? ?

"Obituary: William Henry Stanton," Scranton Truth, 28 March 1900 Could not find on RS. The scan on wiki itself doesn't mention the strike.

"Obituary Notes:" W.H. Stanton", New York Times, 29 March 1900] Does not mention the strike.

Milton M. Klein, The Empire State: A History of New York, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 2005, pp. 455-456 Does not mention the Scranton strike.

This hardly seems to confirm the current choice of title; the only cites that use it so far are the four tendentiously searched to justify it. Only half of those four even use the phrase "general strike." Anmccaff (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

So, for those who don't want to try to sort through this list (half of which has nothing to do with the question at hand), here is how the sources break down:

• General strike: Luhrssen, Van Dyke, NYT, Crosby, Bruce, Craft (p. 228)
• Great strike: Molloy, UE News, Logan, Hitchcock, Bellesiles
• Strike Wave: Lloyd
• Strike(s): NYT, McCabe, Hyde Park, Logan, Historical marker, Bellesiles, Aurand, Van Dyke, Crosby, (Bruce?), Craft, Hitchcock
• Great Riots: McCabe, Hyde Park
• Railroad strike: Hitchcock
• Wide-spread strikes and riots: Hyde Park
• Great railroad riots: Cutter
• Uprising: Van Dyke
• Big Strike: Hitchcock
• Strike Riots: Hitchcock
• Not relevant/not available online: Thomas, Zinn, Lloyd, Blatz, Gallagher, Federal Writer's Project, Bradsby, NYT, WHGS, Wolf, Greenbacker, obituary, Milton
• Removed: Keynes

The winners seem to be strike (11), general strike (6), great strike (5). However all but one source that refers to it as a strike also refers to it by some other more specific term. Of course, it makes sense that if someone refers to it as a general strike, they will probably also later refer to it as a strike, as a general strike is a type of strike. If we want to stick with our analogy, it's a bit like saying WWI should be call "war", because most sources refer to it as WWI and also simply as a war.

Aurand appears to the the only one on the list that refers to it exclusively as a simply a strike (in the whole paragraph he commits to it). Cutter alone seems to never refer to it as a strike at all. On the opposite end Hitchcock refers to it by no less than five terms.

It's also worth noting that, many/most references to great strike, may likely not be references to Scranton specifically, but rather to larger national strikes, properly the Great Strike, of which Scranton was a part.

So if this wall of text accomplishes anything, it is to show that the current name is the most supported specific name according to the current sources. It is more supported than any term besides strike, and more specific than both strike and great strike (with the former being a blanket generic term as a part of almost every other specific term, and the latter being the name of a national event of which this event was a part). TimothyJosephWood 14:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Lursen, Van Dyke (which is not actually Van Dyke, of course, she's an editor, not the writer), 1/12th of the NYT archived PDF articles, and Crosby have no contribution to the article except to justify the name selected. Very different from, say, Hitchcock or Azzarelli or Logan or....&cet, &cet, ad naus. Those four sources are here entirely because of tendentious searches.

Craft does not use the term nor even describe a general strike. he wrote: "The next day the strike became general on the [DL&W] and [D&HCC]'s railroads." That is, the railroad strike spread to the two railroads as a whole, rather than at isolated locations. This does not refer to a General Strike at all, nor to any other industry. Bruce is the same. He does not refer to a "general strike", but says that the strike in a single industry -hardrock hard coal -was general. That's an entirely separate meaning.

From the others, it's fairly clear that many saw the miner's strike as a separate thing. It's plain that others saw the whole shebang as part of the big Railroad Strike. But where they used a proper name to describe the Scranton Mess, they never once used the article's title. The Scranton General Strike is a wiki neologism, pretty much, and one structured as a proper name. That's WP:OR

The winners seem to be strike (11), general strike (6), great strike (5). no, the race has hardly started yet. Somebody added Thomas, Zinn, Lloyd, Blatz, Gallagher, Federal Writer's Project, Bradsby, NYT, WHGS, Wolf, Greenbacker, obituary, Milton, claiming they were relevant. That means they should have access to to the work, and can grace us with their insight...unless, of course, these were from snippet views and footnotes in other works. Anmccaff (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm done wasting time on the issue. There clearly seems to be no consensus for the move, and it is an exceedingly minor point to begin with. Move on with your life. I am. TimothyJosephWood 17:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Please offer cites for title as 'Scranton Strike of 1877.' I've perused the Talk page again and see many complaints about "Scranton General Strike", but have at least read references for that, and it satisfies the meaning of "general strike." Tim1965 above says "the greatest number of sources do not call it a 'general strike'," but does not offer cites supporting any alternative title used by 'the greatest number of sources.' Anmccaff has complained repeatedly about the title but has not offered cites from RS that show that 'Scranton Strike of 1877' has been widely used by historic sources. There does not yet seem to be sufficient reason to move this article to a new title.Parkwells (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

An open web search gives five hits, three of which are from the Catholic University of America, and two of which are Wikipedia. This thread is a waste of time, and this name isn't any more supported than the current. TimothyJosephWood 21:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. THis thread is about eliminating an article title that exists almost solely on wiki, and carries needless baggae. There are several variants that were actually reflected in the cited sources that could be used, and I'm comfortable enough with most of them. Anmccaff (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, utter nonsense. I completely disagree with four sources provided in the lead to address this very question. I completely disagree with the previous consensus on the talk, involving everyone but yourself, that the current name is sufficient.

I completely agree with all the sources you have alluded to, but not provided, proving some otherwise consensus that there is some agreed upon name. I completely agree that this RM is necessary to redress the abortion of justice caused by the aforementioned consensus. I also disagree with the oppose votes above as they are obviously working in concert to undermine the obvious.

Can we be done now? TimothyJosephWood 03:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You ought to completely disagree. That's a classic example of google-dredged cites. Tendentious searches get the results you ask for.

David Luhrssen (2015). Secret Societies and Clubs in American History. ABC-CLIO. p. 86. In the first labor action during his tenure as a Knight, A general strike that paralyzed Scranton and ended in gunfire and death (1877)...

A book on secret societies, by a film critic. Not exactly a bullet-proof source.

Nella Van Dyke, Holly J. McCammon. Strategic Alliances: Coalition Building and Social Movements. U of Minnesota Press. p. 31. ...the former [i.e., Scranton] saw more general strike action than did Cleveland.

"more general strike action." Perhaps we should call the article the "Scranton More General Strike."

"NYT"

I saw many, many, many more cites from the Times that did not use the phrase. Why is this one better, aside from the obvious?

Crosby, David (2009). Scranton Railroads. Arcadia Publishing. p. 30. ISBN 0-7385-6518-0. Here a general strike in 1877 has halted operations on the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad in Scranton

Arcadia...on choo-choos. That's a railfan book, with some excellent rail maps, some damned good pictures, and some historical overview of rail. It shows a picture of engines idled during the strike, in the five days when it -was- more-or-less general...i.e., the time before what the article is about, mostly. Anmccaff (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Now, in contrast to this, look at Hitchcock and Downs, page 500: the part right after "the big strike was over..." There's a solid source stating unequivocally that the main strike was over before the riot, so much so that the special police were close to stood down. Anmccaff (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Prolly not? Anmccaff (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

For the love of God, stop editing in the middle of people's comments. Yes, this includes if you take the time to copy and paste their signature to make it look like they have made two separate comments. This is the third time you have been told not to do this. TimothyJosephWood 11:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

On a separate note, there does appear per Hitchcock pg. 488 and Craft pg. 239 to have been at least two prior attempted or enacted general strikes in Scranton. Per this crappy source, there was also one in 1925-6. And perhaps yet another at least threatened in 1907. So a move to include year may be appropriate, although not absolutely necessary until articles are created for these separate events.

As the the entirely unrelated question of whether the strike was general at the time of the shooting, it's entirely unrelated. The strike led to a general strike. The general strike led to the meeting (probably due to the fact that the strike was falling apart beneath them). The meeting led to the mob. The mob led to the shooting. No general strike; no shooting.

As to the question at hand, the strike was unequivocally general. As has been pointed out, the name is currently sourced, and no other sources have been produced to argue for any general consensus for a more widely agreed upon name. Only one source has actually been produced other than the four in support, and that Hitchcock calling it "the big strike". The sources alluded to but not produced simply show a general disagreement in naming, which is basically an argument for retaining the status quo, not an argument for "the sources disagree so let's go with this particular name chosen more or less at random by me with no real rationale." TimothyJosephWood 13:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

here's a great illustration of the problem with scholarship-by-searchengine. The "general strike" alluded to in "another" above, the Kingston Daily of August 13, 1907, refers to a union-wide strike. Different meaning. That's equivocation, it am. Anmccaff (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

In a nutshell, this is basically what seems to be Anmccaff's MO: be generally disruptive and expect someone else to do the digging and heavy lifting for them to remove the disruption. They spent pages WP:BITEing the original creator until other's showed up. They were warned by myself and RexxS about disruptive talk page contributions in the middle of other's comments and yet continue to do so. They were warned about their disruptive inline tagging of everything imaginable (including dubious because "bullshit") and their response was that removal of the disruption is vandalism. They have been warned thrice by me for incivility and once by Chris Troutman and continue to be borderline uncivil, or at the very least severely flippant and patronizing. And their response to being warned in both instances was "if you don't like it take me to ANI", which at this point of compiling diffs, I'm starting to be in an alright position to do.

They unilaterally moved the article to their preferred name with zero discussion, which was reverted by RexxS, who challenged them two weeks ago to produce sources supporting their preferred name. They could not then as they have not now. They failed to get consensus here for the move, and now they have run to RM, which is probably best as we can finally put this to rest. TimothyJosephWood 13:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

why should we need a particular source for a simple descriptive? "Scranton strikes of 1877" is an answer to a few of the Five Ws. Anmccaff (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You've provided no source for that, and "general strike" is a simple descriptive editors have already agreed to that is also sourced.Parkwells (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scranton general strike/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chris troutman (talk · contribs) 03:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This looks fine in my initial review. I intend to have the review completed by the end of the week and will have comments by then of what needs fixed, if necessary. I'm glad after the work put in on this article that it's getting a GA review. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   I don't like the citations in the lede; it evinces a failure to establish these claims in either the background or concluding sections. The citations aren't prohibited so I'm not requiring a change. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   The format of the sources looks ok. As I verify I'm finding cases where the citation isn't accurate. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   The last Azzerelli citation needs a correct page number. I cleaned most of this up myself but shouldn't have to. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   No sources verified the number of strikers so I removed the "30,000" claim. Bruce on page 296 says that "35,000 people depended utterly on the shops, mills, and mines of the anthracite railroads" but that's much larger than just the striking employees. Azzerelli mentions a few thousand onlookers had gathered in the town square but those aren't all striking workers, either. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

   It was ridiculously laborious to go through citations and probably unnecessarily so. I put a lot more work in on this than I should have had to. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   The quote in the notes from Huidekoper is unnecessary and really undue. I don't see the import of this quote, at all. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

   Fixed it myself since asking for it to be done was too much. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images are public domain. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Upon further reflection, I don't see a good reason to include both of the Pittsburgh riot images; I'd choose one or the other. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

   You addressed my concerns here. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @Timothyjosephwood: Sorry for the horrific delay on this review. The GA Cup started on November 1st and I grabbed five nominees out the gate to ensure I'd get those points. Sadly, it's been a slog going through each review and I'm now focusing my attention on this with three other reviews more or less done. I plan to have this review done next and I'd like to finish it this weekend. I'll continue to post notes as I make progress verifying sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Chris troutman, don't worry about it. No rush. Let me know if I can be of any help. TimothyJosephWood 01:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Chris:

• One of the Pittsburgh pictures has been removed.
• The footnote quote by Huidekoper has been shortened by about half. I do still think it adds some context, that the troops left on good terms, but a lot of the general commentary by the general didn't add anything to this effect.
• I have removed all of the page numbers from the Azzarelli citations. The e-book version does not include page numbers at all, and I've been unable to find an alternate version that does. Per guidance at Wikipedia:Citing sources, I have therefore replaced the page numbers with section numbers.
• The citations in the lead are mainly to establish a WP:COMMONNAME rationale. I have condensed them into a single ref to avoid over citation.

Hopefully this resolved the issues identified thus far. Apologies for the trouble. I have little to no experience with GA noms. I've simply never bothered to nominate anything I've worked on thus far. If there's anything else that needs addressed, feel free to let me know. TimothyJosephWood 15:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: I'm going through this source material to verify information and add page numbers (which takes a fair amount of my time) and you think it's appropriate to undo my work? You need to rethink how you treat my effort to help this pass and my comments thus far. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't realize those had just been added. I have restored. I will try to find a source for the missing page number. TimothyJosephWood 16:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ping @Chris troutman: just in case. TimothyJosephWood 16:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Chris. I realize you're busy, but I hope I've addressed the issues raised above. I apologize for the misunderstanding over the page numbers. But overall, when you get time, I'd like to see where this goes. There's a couple of other articles that I think would be greatly improved by the kind of in-depth critique this involves, but I hesitate to have too many irons in the GA fire at the same time. TimothyJosephWood 13:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: No, you didn't remove the note I asked about. I spent a lot of time going through these citations, checking books out of the library to confirm everything, and now I'm thinking perhaps the GA criteria doesn't even require it. So, I can offer you a profuse apology about the inexcusable delay or I can offer you nothing at all since my words make no difference, anyway. Your choice. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Well...I thank you for your efforts. You've certainly caught a lot of errors and problems with refs that got muddled in the process. But I can say as my first nom, that if every GA is as adversarial as this one, I might not be a frequent visitor. 02:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not. I took on this review at a difficult time and I was really trying to do more than what was necessary. By all means, continue to nominate articles for GA. I promise I won't review your nominations so as not to put you off the process. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. I appreciate your exceedingly exceptional thoroughness. It's done a great service to the article, and I would be grateful to have you review even more in the same manner. I just hope that such as process in the future could be more of a collaboration than a contest. We're both here to make the encyclopedia better, and you've gone above and beyond in that respect. Keep up the good work. TimothyJosephWood 02:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)