Talk:Philadelphia Nativist Riots

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Philadelphia Nativist Riots has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
June 10, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Philadelphia
Philadelphia Portal
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage and content of articles relating to Philadelphia, its people, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
This article is also supported by WikiProject Pennsylvania.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Where is the death toll?

"Rioters burned down St. Michael's Catholic Church and rectory, at 2nd and Jefferson Streets, the Seminary of the Sisters of Charity, and several homes before soldiers arrived and the fire was contained." If memory serves me, my (non-Irish) father told me that some 20 nuns were murdered during these race riots. Or was that another event? Corrections, anyone? Shir-El too 15:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a tough one. First off, of course, your father's recollection would obviously have to have been what he had heard or read, source unknown.
More problematic, though, are two other points: for much of the 19th century, the city was experiencing riots on a fairly regular basis. Lombard Street Riot (1842, whites attacking blacks); Pennsylvania Hall (1838, whites attacking abolitionists); and a number of others I haven't added yet. So was it this riot? I don't know.
Next is the question of records. Those in power kept the records. Others tried to maintain records, but their records often disappeared. Both used somewhat dubious sources. Both tried to paint their sides as the good guys. So, official sources likely understated deaths/injuries/property damage to blacks, Irish, Catholics, etc. while somewhat exagerating the innocence of (and injury to) everyone else. Black/Irish and/or Catholic sources, of course, went the other way.
Do some digging and see what you find!
Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The main sources I used did not mention any specific numbers of deaths from the May riot, or who died, not even if they were Catholics or Protestants. Its possible that the information was lost or never properly recorded. Medvedenko (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Or was written-out, the way CNN reports "news". Thank you anyway. My father probably learned about it in his Political Science course at UC Berkeley in the late 1940's-early 1950's. I also remember seeing a written reference to it, possibly in an article; I do remember the source was reputable and non-partisan. Cheers, Shir-El too 00:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
All this talk has renewed my interest in the subject. I've done some more digging and I finally found a death toll for the May riots. According to the The Irish in Philadelphia: Ten Generations of Urban Experience a total of 16 people died. According to 1910 book, A History of the People of the United States: From the Revolution to the Civil War (which is clearly biased on the side of the Nativists) 8 nativists died and does not mention Catholic deaths. I'm adding the sixteen death toll now and other found information soon. Medvedenko (talk) 03:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Philadelphia Nativist Riots/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is currently on hold.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    1) Lead - very good summary.
2)"On November 10, 1842, Philadelphia's Roman Catholic bishop Francis Kenrick" Why is bishop in lowercase?
3)"Anti-Catholic and nativist groups held further meetings and rallies twisting Bishop Kenrick's requests to the Board of Controllers into an attack against the Bible, which further inflamed anti-Catholic feelings." ----> Awkward sentence. "Further" & "anti-Catholic" used twice. Maybe something like:"Anti-Catholic and nativist groups further inflamed hostile feelings towards Catholics by twisting Bishop Kenrick's requests to the Board of Controllers into an attack against the Bible."
4)"After about an hour the mob, left the church and a another group of men took up the mantle of guarding St. Philip Neri's." ----> a) Who were these men? Not members of the mob? What did they do? (Committee of twenty: Allow no-one in, & all to leave) b) remove commma after mob c) I would not use the word "mantle" in this sentence. Since it occured in a church might cause confusion if it was meant as a noun or verb.
5)"only to be stoned in the process" --> I recommend changing to "only to have stones thrown at them." Since it was nonlethal stone throwing, don't want to leave the reader thinking this was a biblical Stoning.
6)Some mention that the soldiers did capture the rioter's cannon on July 7 seems appropriate. Currently this is a bit of a cliff-hanger.
  • I believe I fixed the above items. About the men in point 4, the sources do not indicate whether they are nativists or who they are affiliated with at all. I tried to make it as clear as the known facts allowed. Medvedenko (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. B. MoS compliance:
    In-line references: 8 & 9 are out of order regarding the St Augustince library; 11 & 12 are out of order regarding the grand jury; and 11 & 15 are out of order for July 8
  1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    "The riots had gained national attention and condemnation." Is this references in #16 ( I do not have this ref) Is it possible to provide a secondary source. Where was the condemnation coming from? Kept thinking I would find something at HSP.
    C. No original research:
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  3. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Good job with NPoV. As discussed on the talk page, this was difficult.
  4. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    1)Image:FrancisKenrick.jpg - no source of author provided. How can we determine the portrait was made +100 years ago (besides common sense, of course)
2)The caption for Porter uses "David R. Porter" while article text uses "David Rittenhouse Porter" - should be consistent
3)The Porter & Patterson images don't contribute much (nor detract) to the article. Okay to stay, but gives me a mild concern of mere decoration.
  1. B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  2. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


That is all for now. This article is very close to GA, just a few items to clear up. Note - this is my first GA review. Mitico (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to remove my comment regarding "mantle." It is still appearing. Please disregard. Mitico (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe I have resolved all your issues. In regards to your question about the ref for "The riots had gained national attention and condemnation." You can actually see that book on Google Books here. I'd appreciate to see if you feel that statement is appropriately supported by the source or if it should be better clarified. Thanks for the review, this was a much better review than what I gave as my first GA review. Medvedenko (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This cite is right on. Any further comment or clarification is unnecessary and might go off-topic. I think as stated is accurate. (I didn't realize Google books was such a resource!)

With the changes implemented by Medvedenko, I believe this article passes GA. This is a well written and referenced article. The only comment not addressed was 1A)#5 regarding stoned vs. stones thrown at them. Since this is a minor nuance (& maybe just my preference) I am now promoting to GA. Mitico (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)