Talk:Mussel Slough Tragedy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMussel Slough Tragedy has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 18, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
February 3, 2008Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 11, 2011, May 11, 2015, and May 11, 2020.
Current status: Good article

Plagiarizing?[edit]

Do not plagarize! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.20.29.253 (talk • contribs) 12:31 December 14, 2005 (UTC).

It's not plagiarized. Using the source material I linked to, I rewrote it enough so that it avoids any copyright restrictions. Yes, the basic outline is the same, but it's in my own words.
howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 16:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We prohibit copyvio, but encourage what would constitute plagarism in academic and some commercial publication contexts.
--Jerzy•t 02:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facts preceding confrontation[edit]

Victor Davis Hanson, "often considered to be a neoconservative" (but, perhaps on the other hand, a California viticulturalist) reviewed (under the title "Zola in San Francisco") Frank Norris: A Life, in New York Times Book Review (Sunday supplement) 2006 January 1. He says "purchased...for $2.50"/acr and "then discovered nearly a decade later" about the land titles. I suppose his "sought to sell ... out from under the farmers" is within a reviewer's artistic license assuming the same facts, but otherwise it sounds like he's describing a different set of facts. Has someone got a source for our article, or maybe read the bio that is presumably Davis's source?
--Jerzy•t 02:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I used the two sources I listed in the References section. The second one (Kings County Office of Education) seems to be offline but I did find it in the Google cache at [1]. I have not read the book you mention or any of the other titles in the "Further reading" section. howcheng {chat} 16:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As of now, the King's County link works again. howcheng {chat} 19:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Hold[edit]

Article is well-written, NPOV, and stable. But I'm putting it on hold for now pending responses to some issues below.

Necessary for GA:

  • Lead mentions two novels not talked about in the article in violation of WP:LEAD.
  • I'm not sure the article is broad enough. Is there anything to say about the influence this tragedy may or may not have had over subsequent American history? (Perhaps such a section would be a good place to include a mention of those two novels also).
  • Only two sources are used as references for the inline citations. Do you have the books in "Further Reading" and can perhaps use them as sources for inline citations? Material from these books might help make the article more broad in scope.

Not necessary for GA:

  • Please move all ref tags after punctuation.
  • A picture perhaps?

- Merzbow 08:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I guess this isn't going to pass then. I don't have either of the non-fiction books and they are not at my local library. The Octopus is just a fictional work that was inspired by the incident and deals with capitalism's relationship to land in the U.S., but it's not suitable as an article source. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. howcheng {chat} 16:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this incident has indeed had a notable influence on parts of American culture, law, literature, etc. over the subsequent century, that should be covered. My suspicion is that it has, given the name of a book like "Gunfight at Mussel Slough: Evolution of the Western Myth". - Merzbow 18:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I have to fail the article for now; but as stated above I think the issue of broadness should be easy to address with access to that book (or the like if available). - Merzbow 03:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How Did S&P get title?[edit]

The article is ambiguous as to how the conflict between the S&P and the farmers started in legal terms. It says homesteaders moved in and then Congress gave S&P right to build a railroad through there. Is the implication that Congress gave SP title to these lands or had S&P obtained it through a different process? Tom Cod 23:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find anything in the sources I used that states how SP originally got the title to the land in the first place, but I would imagine that SP purchased the land from the government. howcheng {chat} 00:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, according to California and the railroads, Congress granted the land to the railroads in return for building the line through there. howcheng {chat} 00:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right. The Mussel Slough settlers, according to Richard Orsi's study, moved in to the area under speculation that the government would revoke the land grant promised to the S&P, because of the change in the planned course for the rail line. Orsi cites a San Francisco newspaper from 1870 making predictions along those lines (Sunset Limited 96). There was a dispute within the Department of the Interior over the matter, which held up any land patents being issued for years. Many Mussel Slough settlers moved in thinking that the patents would not be issued by the gov., the land would be reopened for homesteading, and the settlers would get the land for free. When court decisions went the other way, the settlers refused to purchase the land they occupied from the S&P, who had by then been officially granted the land (according to common policy) by the federal government.--Ahatcher (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, it should be noted that the Southern Pacific was referred to as the SP not the S&P. I have corrected the article accordingly. Second, the means by which SP acquired title to the land is well-described in The Mussel Slough Tragedy by J.L. Brown, originally copyrighted in 1958 and reprinted in 1980 and 2001. The gist is that to aid private enterprise in building one or more transcontinental railroads, Congress in 1862 passed a law awarding alternate sections of public land in a strip extending ten miles from the track on each side. The law was later amended to double the width of the strip and thereby increase the grant of land to 20 odd-numbered sections per mile of track (a section is one square mile or 640 acres). In 1876, the Southern Pacific constructed a line west of Goshen through what was called the Mussel Slough country. Parenthetically, it may be noted that Mussel Slough was a natural water course that drained into Tulare Lake. The whole district was named after Mussel Slough at that time and the site of the Mussel Slough Tragedy was actually several miles away from Mussel Slough itself. In any event, that is how the Southern Pacific acquired title to the land from the Federal government. A third point is that the article as written does not make it clear that for practical purposes the Central Pacific and the Southern Pacific were one organization.Armona (talk) 01:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA status[edit]

Nice work with the recent expansion people. Do we have more to add, or do you all think we can resubmit this for good article status? howcheng {chat} 22:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article looks pretty good - it seems like the problems identified in the GA hold have been addressed, and the article maintains a generally neutral position on the issue. Should there be a statement at the beginning of the article acknowledging the different perspectives that exist on the history of the tragedy (i.e. that of the railroad vs. settlers/squatters)?--Ahatcher (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes. The introduction needs to conform more with WP:LEAD. Right now, it's a little short. howcheng {chat} 01:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the recent additions. One question, though - is there some sort of copyright permission needed for the images that have been posted? --Ahatcher (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, anything published in the U.S. before 1923 is public domain and per Bridgeman v. Corel digital images of public domain works are also in the public domain. howcheng {chat} 22:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed it at WP:GAC. It may take some time before someone comes around to assess this, so we still have time to do any more improvements. howcheng {chat} 23:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The images look good but what happened about getting a picture of the historical marker? I can run out and take a photo of it if the weather if the weather is favorable. Armona (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I still want that. I just decided to stick it in the GAC queue since it will be some time before it gets reviewed. howcheng {chat} 02:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

A good article, which can reach GA status with some minor fixes.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    I can see how it is possible that some may find an NPOV problem with the article, but I think it seems to fairly represent both sides and blames them both.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Detailed issues[edit]

  • I have placed the fact tag at various locations through the article which need to be cited.
    • The fact tag in the lede after the sentence "a clear example of corrupt and cold-blooded corporate greed" has been referenced, with the citation coming at the end of the sentence immediately following it. howcheng {chat} 22:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the tag from the parenthetical "the historical marker indicates that the two local men were Deputy U.S. Marshals, which was not in fact the case" because the list of involved persons is right below (and which is cited), so the reader can immediately see this is the case. howcheng {chat} 22:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citations added for everything else except one, which I don't have access to. howcheng {chat} 01:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph in the Mussel Slough Tragedy section is difficult to read, and doesn't flow well at all. The prose here could use a re-write.
  • The References and Footnotes sections need to be fixed a bit. Kings Cty COE should be broken out completely, at least the word county, as that abbreviation is confusing. Also, there are two references in the footnotes section that do not appear in the references section. This should be fixed.
    • All the "Kings Cty COE" references now read "Kings County Office of Education" and references have been consolidated, except for two. It seemed kind of pointless to move those to the other section, but I can do that too if you think it's necessary. howcheng {chat} 01:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:REF, "When footnotes are used, some editors find it helpful to maintain a separate "References" section, in which the sources that were used are listed in alphabetical order. With articles that have a lot of footnotes, it can become hard to see which sources have been used, particularly when the footnotes contain explanatory text. A References section may help readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used.
"When a separate reference section is included, the citations are listed there in alphabetical order, with the footnotes in a separate section entitled "Notes" or "Footnotes"; short footnotes may be used, giving the author(s), year, and the page number, and perhaps the title, but without the full citation." -- PEPSI2786talk 03:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. howcheng {chat} 05:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any more information on the aftermath of the affair? Did the "Mussel Slough Five" serve jailtime after being found guilty?
    • Sentenced to 8 months and fined $300 each, which I've added to the article. howcheng {chat} 22:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the Settler's League? As there is no article for it, there should be some brief description in the article.
    • Description added.

Once these issues have been corrected, please strike through them here. After that's been done, the article should be ready for promotion to GA. Until then, I am placing the nomination on hold. -- PEPSI2786talk 20:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on the fixes so far. As soon as that last citation is in and you throw those last couple references in the references section, I think the article will be set.
I left a message for the editor who put in that statement, but it occurs to me that there's no coverage about recent analysis of the event that the sentence in the lede alludes to, so it may have to go if we can't expand upon it. howcheng {chat} 05:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since we haven't heard from that other editor, I removed the uncited sentenced. howcheng {chat} 18:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the article now meets the GA criteria. Great job! -- PEPSI2786talk 04:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

poor wording/POV in lead[edit]

In the lead, there is a comment reagrding different takes on the situation, which includes a sentence that reads "Muckraking journalists and anti-railroad activists glorified the settlers and used the events as evidence and justification for their anti-corporate crusades.[1". Given that this is the opinion of one source, and that the preceding sentence says there is disagreement as to that fact, I am not comfortable making that statement directly. I think it should either: 1) be removed form the lede (as it just adds detail to the sentence before it which says the same thing, or 2) be reworded to indicate it represents one opinion. As it stands now, as a separate sentence, it reads as a statement of fact, rather than a statement of opinion by one source. Given the POV language it contains, I think this is misleading.204.65.34.180 (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the whole Mussel Slough Myth section seems rife with OR, and is based primarily on a single source. There seems to be a pretty strong POV going on here. Can someone please take a stab at rewriting this?204.65.34.180 (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. POV is definitely not neutral here, the first paragraph just leaped off the screen with a cry of "I am not a history article, I am fodder for the culture wars." Well, propaganda really, more than fodder. Also POV problems in the rest of the article, as stated above. Please some historian with an eye on this, fix this article.69.17.65.107 (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the primary author, I have to disagree. The lede says that today we don't know exactly what happened because anti-railroad sentiment was high, and that populist journalists at the time framed the shootings to conform to an anti-corporate narrative. The Myth section is cited to three different sources (Brown 1991, Orsi 2005, and Beers 2004) and describes how this anti-railroad position pushed by the muckrakers became the dominant story. This article itself takes neither pro- nor anti-railroad positions, but we don't have any pro-railroad commentary about the shootings because there weren't any. News coverage at the time was exclusively pro-settler. —howcheng {chat} 16:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i also agree that the lead in is tilted in favour of corporations. clear anti leftwing stance. a clear violation of NPOV. 188.220.151.59 (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Rothbard[edit]

Removed this sentence, because it needs a citation: "Modern historians, such as Murray Rothbard have conceded that the court followed the law correctly, and focus their criticism on the whole policy of granting public lands to railroads; calling it an unjustifiable privilege." —howcheng {chat} 21:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mussel Slough Tragedy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Preview box for this article not completely filling in[edit]

As of the date of this entry (2023-10-08, about 16:30 US-EDT), the preview box for this article does not completely fill in when you hover over a link to this article on another article. The preview box appears, and has the image of the historical marker in the right half of the box, but the left half of the box is completely blank, except for the gear icon at the lower right.

I checked a few other articles that link to this one, and the text part of the preview box is blank on all the ones I checked. Some examples:

Christopher_Evans_(outlaw)#California's_"Octopus"

Tulare_Lake#See_also

Kings_County,_California#History

The text part of the preview box is also blank on the link to this article in Template:Gunfights_and_feuds_in_the_Old_West.

This is on desktop Firefox 115.3.1esr. I tried clearing the browser cache and cookies and reloading, but I still see the same problem. The problem also appears whether I use the current default skin on Wikipedia, or append ?useskin=vector to the URL to get the previous skin.

I looked at the source for this article and didn't see anything that would obviously make the preview not work. I thought the preview box feature always uses the lead sentence of the article, but maybe there's some other markup that needs to happen. Or maybe the preview boxes are generated in bulk, and this might fix itself the next time that process runs.

Thanks!

69.247.204.209 (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mussel_Slough_Tragedy&oldid=1207813457"