Talk:Lattimer massacre
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Lattimer massacre is part of WikiProject Pennsylvania, which is building a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit the attached article, join or discuss the project. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | |
 |
This article has been selected for the Organized Labour Portal Article Of The Day for September 11. | |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. |
Contents |
[edit] NPOV
This article seems to be lacking in the NPOV department. (User:Daegred forgot to sign) 19:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Sensationalistic
I think the tone of this article is a little sensationalistic and emotionally-charged. I'm not a great writer but I think this article needs to be looked at. (at 15:45, 26 May 2005 EDT Anonymous User:65.167.23.134 forgot to sign)
- Please, give some specifics. Proclaiming that an article is POV without any evidence to support your claim is essentially meaningless. Since I am the only substantial author of this article, there is a considerable risk that it is POV. I really would like to know what specifically you think is POV, so it can be fixed to improve the article.-Casito⇝Talk 20:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I'll agree that there are some phrasings that suggest a particular POV. Here are some that struck me:
- "... an atrocity in which a sheriff's posse killed more than nineteen unarmed immigrant miners and wounded scores more."
- Would it be incorrect to describe this as "an incident in which many unarmed immigrant miners were killed or wounded by a sheriff's posse during a labor dispute"? I'm not an expert on NPOV, but putting the actions of the posse in the active voice makes it seem less objective IMHO. Also, the fact that "scores more" were wounded seems less appropriate for the opening sentence of the article than perhaps later on, and it suggested a sense of outrage to me.
- Under Events > Lead-up, bullets described as "perfect for penetrating multiple ranks of demonstrators" is clearly emotional. Perhaps an objective remark about the increased lethality of such munitions would be in order, but this seems too inflammatory.
- Under Events > Massacre, it just seems to me like an anecdotal account without much corroboration -- and given the sides taken in the dispute, even the corroborating testimony of many witnesses from a given side is probably still biased. We all know that even body counts can rise and fall depending on who's counting the bodies. I think the article should underscore who reported the actions of the posse, et al., if known or if it could be reasonably inferred, e.g. "Miners reported that ..."
- "An unknown person, perhaps the sheriff" seems clearly POV -- either the person was known or he was unknown. There shouldn't be any implication of a certain identity, unless of course there's sufficient evidence to suggest it. If there is such evidence, include it.
This isn't an exhaustive list -- just the ones that caught my eye as I scanned through. Nice work on the article! Mcgrawcm 23:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Modifications
- incident was my origional phrasing -- I added atrocity as a link to the atrocity/massacre article. There is a link to the same article later in the same paragraph, so I will restore the origional wording.
- This issue of the bullets is a bit tricker. Metal-jacketed amunition is actually less lethal against a single target since the bullets do not mushroom on impact. The added lethality here comes, however, from the rounds' ability to penetrate multiple targets. I did my best to neutralize the statement while still conveying this information.
- The body count of 19 is quite certain and can be found in any article on the subject. The number wounded, however, is more speculative, since many miners were too afraid to seek treatment at nearby hospitles. I will also try a few more tweaks to improve the POV of this secion.
- The issue of the unknown person is more a problem of summarization than my POV. I have expanded it to two sentences to explain.
Part of the problem is that the sources I had available were somewhat vague as to who said what. I presume that the major primary sources for this event were newspapers and trial testomony. The former is undoubtedly biased (as the yellow press ran the roost in those days), while the latter would shed light on several points of view. Unfortunatly, I don't really have the resources to track it down and read through all of the testimony. Furthermore, I suspect that most of the books written describing the event are written with a pro labor/slavic point of view.
The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission article (the first external link) is the most extensive, relativly NPOV, and a trustworthy source. I recommend it to anyone fact-checking or revising the POV of this article. On that note, someone other than me should probably go through and further neutralize the point of view of the article. As a decendent of Slavic miners in PA, I am passionate about researching and writing about their history. The downside is, of course, that I have a point of view about the subject. In contrast, however, I think that people tend to question this article because it is a seemingly signifigant event in American history that they have never heard about (Slavs sometimes seem like a "forgotten" ethnic group in the U.S.).-Casito⇝Talk 02:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] POV tag removal
I will assume from lack of responce that people approve of my modifications, and that people find the article to be more NPOV, thus I'm removing the tag. If you disagree, you won't hurt my feelings if you restore it. -Casito⇝Talk 3 July 2005 14:53 (UTC)
[edit] Inaccurate firearms information
The article claims that that metal jacketing bullets increases their lethality. This is incorrect; metal jacketted bullets are less lethal since the jacketing largely prevents expansion and thus reduces the amount of kinectic energy absorbed by the target as well as reducing the size of the bullet paths. The Geneva conventions even REQUIRE military forces to use full metal jacket ammo for precisely this reason.
