Talk:Rock Springs massacre

Archives Archive 1 - September 2006 - April 2007 Archive 2 - May 2007 - July 2007

Superb work

I edited The Asian Pacific American Heritage: a Companion to Literature and Arts (Routledge: NY, 1999) which won an American Library Association award as "One of the Outstanding Academic Books" of the year. I write to express my admiration for this article, which is living up to all we once hoped Wikipedia might be, despite the presence of hot button topics like race, immigration and class. It's fair, balanced, beautifully researched and beautifully written. It faces up to two embarrassing facts-- the immigrant Chinese willingness to be scabs; and the union willingness to exploit racism and even to turn a blind eye to wildcat acts of violence by its members. It is American history at its most troubling and unpleasant. But it's true. Congratulations on this work. Profhum (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"Not the most significant event"?

The article says that "the Rock Springs massacre and the exclusion of Chinese workers were not the most significant events in the history of the Knights of Labor." How can this not be a subjective statement and violation of NPOV? To the dead Chinese, their families, and many of their sympathizers, the Rock Springs massacre probably was the most significant event in the Knights' history. To 19th century Eastern urban laborers and industrialists, of course, the Knights' labor organizing activities in the East would be far more significant. Why should the article arbitrarily side with one group? Pirate Dan (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Historians have, the article just compiles what has been written. History is inherently subjective. If you have a source that counters that, by all means, present it.--IvoShandor (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hear hear, Piratedan! Wiki needs to keep in mind that this is a fight to strive for objectivity. One should not have to provide an alternative source to omit a redundant statement. Ph33rspace (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's a goal to be objective but not at the expense of what has been compiled about any event. We cannot arbitrarily substitute our own opinions over what is available in the sources either. Piratedan was not commenting on a redundant statement that I know of, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Nothing I assume.--IvoShandor (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"Wow!"

This is a really well written, gripping piece. Only gripe is that the header makes it look like the Chinese were rioting over the civil rights issue of equal pay. Just looking over the account of the "riot" makes it look more like a good old fashioned pogrom / extermination campaign of whites protective of their jobs and mad at strikebreakers (black Americans were also used in this fashion, much to the displeasure of mostly white workers) Great that it was featured, I would never have noticed it. A lot of Asian American topics are very sparse, but this looks good. I have to check to see if there is a general article on anti-Chinese or anti-Asian violence as this was hardly the only similar incident of the period. Bachcell (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's a pogrom. Thanks for the clue. Yes, nice to see an article about Asian-American issues as a featured article, if only the article were clearer about what it's about. --68.127.233.138 (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"The riot, between Chinese immigrant miners and white immigrant miners," - this sentence is a blatant mischaracterization of what occurred. The Chinese didn't riot, they were massacred. None of the many accounts that I've read suggest that the Chinese miners made even a perfunctory effort to defend themselves, let alone that they took any offensive action. What they did, if they had the barest chance to do so, was flee for their lives. Although I don't see any reference to it here, I have read elsewhere that a single Caucasian was killed. I have rephrased the sentence. Irish Melkite (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Truckee, CA: Similar incident

Very fine job.

A similar pogrom happened in Truckee, California, which at one time had one of the largest Chinatowns in the state (perhaps the 2nd largest, after San Francisco). Or maybe it was a series of pogroms. Wikipedia doesn't have much about it, but there is a date of 1886, which would imply an influence of the Rock Springs Massacre. Truckee was a railroad town (Central Pacific), and there was lumbering in the area. I don't have time to research this, but I hope someone will. Oaklandguy (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Oaklandguy 9/2/09

What's the article about?

I suppose it's well-written, but usually you can tell what a featured article is about in the first sentence, at least in the first paragraph. Hopefully someone writes an introduction to this article that says what it's about, for example, the Rock Springs massacre was the murder of Chinese immigrant miners in a racial riot about wage inequity or something. I don't know, it's taking too long to read the article and would require research to figure out what it's about for me to rewrite it. --68.127.233.138 (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the first paragraph, I'm not sure how much clearer it could be. That graf pretty much sums it up I think. Are you even reading the same article? ;-)

The Rock Springs massacre (also known as the Rock Springs Riot) occurred on September 2, 1885, in the present-day United States city of Rock Springs, Wyoming, in Sweetwater County. The riot, between Chinese immigrant miners and white immigrant miners, was the result of racial tensions and an ongoing labor dispute over the Union Pacific Coal Department's policy of paying Chinese miners lower wages than white miners. When the rioting ended, at least 28 Chinese miners were dead and 15 were injured. Rioters burned 75 Chinese homes resulting in approximately US$150,000 in property damage.[1][2][3] ($3.55 million in present-day terms[4])

--IvoShandor (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a massacre. Who got massacred by whom should be the first sentence. It's a riot, why they rioted should be up front. Racial tensions between Chinese and whites caused the Chinese to riot because they got lower wages? Then they were killed for rioting for getting lower wages? Really this explains nothing. Describing a riot and a massacre should be pretty simple, somehow conditions existed, a riot was started, during the riot some people got killed. What conditions existed, how the riot got started, who was doing the rioting, and who got killed. So, no whites were killed or injured? Who killed the Chinese miners? It seems as if the whites were rioting because the Chinese got lower wages. That doesn't make sense.

No, it's not clear because you've danced around the facts. I'm not going to guess them. And I'm not going to read any more when you haven't bothered to start the article with the basic facts. And I don't think the whites were rioting and killed Chinese because Chinese got lower wages. No one who actually read this would consider it clear or summed up at all if you don't say who was rioting and who got killed by whom in a massacre, in particular when you lead off with it seems the cause of the rioting was the lower wages, the Chinese would be the ones rioting due to lower raises, yet they're the ones killed in the massacre. By other Chinese? By the whites? By the police?

A massacre involves who got massacred by whom and why. That's how you're clear. This is not clear. --68.127.233.138 (talk) 06:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, obviously the article is too long for his/her little brain to comprehend...love how they think they could rewrite the article even though they couldn't read it closely enough to understand what it's about! Pathetic... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.206.121 (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What your looking for is summarized in the lead and included in the rest of the article, but since you can't be bothered to read it I don't know what to tell you. your understanding of this is minimal, obviously, but your statement that it doesn't make sense that Chinese miners were hated by white miners shows the depth of your lack of knowledge. Please read the article before criticizing it.--IvoShandor (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. The article is not written for an audience of one, you. It's written for a general audience to learn about the topic. If even you admit that the article is only understandable if you already know everything about the topic, and if even you feel the need to insult people for not understanding the whole topic before reading the article this article should not have been featured. It fails, and is only an article written by and for one person. It did not belong on the main page.

Please read about featured articles, the lead paragraph should be a good summary of the entire article and the reader should be able to read only that and understand the topic.

Since you did not provide such a lead to this article and you admit the article requires that you read the entire thing to understand it you don't seem to have written a featured article. --68.127.233.138 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The lower wages caused (in part) white miners to riot because the coal company then preferred to hire the Chinese for the lower wages, this angered the white miners. It's in the article, read it, instead of just bantering senselessly about nothing.--IvoShandor (talk) 07:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

But it's not in the lead. And it's the main idea behind the article. This is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia has writing guidelines for both featured and non-featured articles that can help writers make better articles designed to be read by the general audience of an encyclopedia. In other words: informative articles that don't require someone to know all about the topic in order to understand the article. Thanks for the insults. But no thanks for the poor article. --68.127.233.138 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The riot, between Chinese immigrant miners and white immigrant miners, was the result of racial tensions and an ongoing labor dispute over the Union Pacific Coal Department's policy of paying Chinese miners lower wages than white miners. This sentence absolutely sums up the crux of the cause of the riot. The only thing I can think of that its missing is a statement that spells out that this made the coal company hire Chinese over whites, which I thought should be plainly obvious. I don't know what you want, your argument isn't really cogent. But you are criticizing a piece you didn't even read by your own admission. I am not going to respond to you because this is a fine article, and the community agrees on that, thus it was given FA status. I will add a explanatory sentence to the lead but I really think it is overkill, it should be obvious to anyone that workers who accept lower wages will be hired over those that want higher wages. And I wasn't insulting you, your rambling about the fact that the Chinese should riot over lower wages and not the other way around was senseless, in that it is supported by nothing other than your assertion, which began with the phrase I think. I didn't say your were senseless, I said your rambling was. Which it was, it didn't make much sense to me that you would base your criticism of the article, which you said you didn't read, on what you think, on your opinion of why riots should start. I'm sorry if that offended you but I was commenting on the content of your comment, not on you as a person. As I said I will add what I interpret as what you are asking for.--IvoShandor (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You also called me a troll when I commented about your insults on your talk page, and chose to bring the discussion back to the article talk page, and this reinforced my conclusion that you meant it as a personal attack. I'll rewrite the lead in a way I think makes it work better as a stand-alone paragraph, and then you and others can edit it, and discuss the differences. --69.225.12.99 (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That's only because you instigated a FAR, outside of the rules of FAR, which made it seem like you had an ax to grind, and struck me as trollish behavior. I have apologized for being brash and perhaps quick to judge your intentions. I had assumed that this was in the past. We probably can't work together if either of us hold grudges. As I said, I am sorry. If that isn't good enough for you, I don't know what to tell you.--IvoShandor (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

How about start out assuming good faith and avoiding all name calling of other wikipedia editors ever? In all instances, that someone really doesn't understand the article because the introduction is worded strangely making it hard to figure out who is who, an that an editor who expresses concern about the content is concerned about the content. Assuming good faith will take you far. I instigated a FAR, with a clear statement that the purpose was to get other editors working on the article. Have you ever tried to find something on wikipedia when you didn't know where or what it was? First, I'm an IP, so I get crap like the Sandy guy just reverting my edit, with no discussion whatsoever. And, of course, he can just revert, and ignore all of my questions, because I'm an IP and I don't matter. Then you personally attack me, belittle my comments, and call me a troll. Then I get attacked, called a troll, my motives questioned, simply because I'm an IP. I was focused on improving the article, making it readable.

And, then you say to me, "I am not going to respond to you because this is a fine article, and the community agrees on that, thus it was given FA status." Dismissing me completely, and have the nerve, on top of calling me a troll, personally attacking me, and dismissing me, while another editor is reverting and ignoring me, to imply that I'm the one holding a grudge?

It's also easier to see what's going on when you're not name calling. My opinion: calling someone a troll goes nowhere useful faster than a lead weight. --69.225.12.99 (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Call the waaaabulance, haha, loser. I dont give a fuck what you do, I hope you are reverted every single time. Piss off, Wikipedia is schmuck ville anyway. I am so done with this fucking place, go cry on someone elses time dipshit.--IvoShandor (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, IvoShandor. You need a break. Seriously. Take some time off before you get blocked for incivility. 69.225.12.99, let's focus on article content. Let's get away from what people think others' motivations are. Give some suggestions for what you think the article should look like. Back it up with sources. If you continue to complain about nebulous concepts without offering constructive suggestions, what else are others to think than you are here to complain without a point? Both of you need to be constructive. --Moni3 (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A Couple of Problem Areas

First, the whole Knights of Labor thing. It looks to me as though some supporter of the current Knights of Labor (do they still exist?)or a friend of theirs has been through the article trying to mitigate the responsibility of the National group for the actions of the Rock Spring chapter. Quite a lot of the article is based on a deposition made by the Chinese workers to the Chinese consulate (if you go to the list of victims, there is a link to this document), and that deposition is very clear that it was the Knights of Labor who instigated, organized, and carried out the massacre; and that this involved pre-planning. While it needs to be said that the riot was likely not instigated by the National organization, the article as it currently is seems to go quite a distance towards denying the KOL had anything to do with it, and that's clearly not the case. So maybe something needs to be said specifically about the relations between national organization and local chapters. And did the national organization ever issue any kind of statement that clearly condemened the actions of the local chapter? If they did not, then that is a significant fact that needs to be noted.

Second, the mutilation of the bodies. Currently, this is asserted to have happened, but the way it's written, it isn't clear whether it happened in this riot, or whether it happened in other riots at other times. The deposition by the miners themselves makes absolutely no mention whatever of any of these atrocities, so that ambiguity needs to be cleared up.

Theonemacduff (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, in terms of the national organization's response to the massacre, I believe that's addressed toward the end where it says the Knights' leader, Terence Powderly, basically blamed the whole massacre on not enforcing the Chinese Exclusion Act strongly enough, and clearly endorsed white laborers' opposition to competing with Chinese, while saying nothing to condemn the local Knights' actions. Pirate Dan (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I did think the local chapter's culpability was made evident in the article. But I cannot find a source that says the national organization had anything to do with the instigation, I suppose they did in the sense that they supported the local chapter. I will take a look at the second concern noted above but I'm not sure what I can do with the first unless some other sources come to light. This event has not been very well covered in academia. --IvoShandor (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Also the KOL were dead by 1900, I am not a shill for labor unions, and I don't appreciate the implication that I am. The deposition is mostly used to describe the events of the riot only, almost no other parts of the article come from that source.--IvoShandor (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sic?

"To murder an industrious Chinaman is the same kind of fiendish work as the murder of women and children – it is equally a violation of the rights of the defenceless (sic)." What's the "sic" for? I can't see what's spelled incorrectly. 115.64.118.162 (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is the "defenceless" which is ok in British English, but wrong in US. Maybe back when the quote was made that was the current spelling, so really the "(sic)" should only be present if in a source (otherwise it would be original research/incorrect).--Commander Keane (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is what I suspected. My concern being that Wikipedia would be teaching people that British English is just an incorrect form of spelling. Probably not the best thing for an encyclopaedia site to be doing. 115.64.118.162 (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I consulted the source, and fixed it. Twas the result of a misunderstanding of the usage of "sic", that's all, sorries.--IvoShandor (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ironic

Although the Knights would grow into one of the first de facto labour unions, this article demonstrates how early labour movements were undermined by pitting labour against itself by never discouraging and perhaps even encouraging conflict focused along racial lines. At the same time, employers were using early globalisation techniques to reduce the cost of labour, encouraged to keep doing so by bottom-line economics and by a government reluctant to acknowledge that any violation of civil rights had actually occurred. After all, the difference between this and modern-day globalisation is only that of shipping in labour vs. outsourcing parts of the labour structure in their entirety.

One wonders how much has actually changed. Repeated riots even up to modern times remind us that such perceptions are still very close to the surface. What civil rights can be claimed by illegal immigrants is still a matter of debate. Even today in this talk page, the role of the Chinese in the prelude to the conflict discussed in the article has been dismissed as "scabs", a concept that would not have applied within their cultural background and just barely within the historic economic background, but completely out of context -

"When God had finished the rattlesnake, the toad, the vampire, He had some awful substance left with which he made a scab.... the modern strikebreaker sells his birthright, his country, his wife, his children, and his fellow men for an unfilled promise from his employer, trust, or corporation." - Jack London

Note that London's assumptions don't apply in this case. In fact, since those workers were brought into the country specifically to provide cheap labour, the Chinese were caught between the choice to assimilate into the labour/cultural collective and not receive employment in future (being Chinese) or to be employed and not assimilate. If they would not be "scabs", they would be nothing, at least not in the United States. In effect, there was no birthright, family etc. to sell and at best a possibly filled promise to gain ... for the Chinese, at least. - Tenebris

• Hi! Talk pages are only to be used for discussion of the article itself. Wikipedia:Original research is not allowed within articles themselves. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured article review

An IP can't initiate a review of a featured article, still, I request one to get interested and capable editors to rewrite portions of this article to make it a proper featured article including a clear, concise lead section that is a summary of the event and unbiased reporting of the event throughout the article. The article's primary owner has been notified, and even he appears to admit above that the problems with the article exist, and, while insulting users who raise the issues, demands they have to read the entire article to understand the lead section. This is not correct. The lead of an encyclopedia article should be a well-written summary of the entire article. In addition, primary sources should not be picked from to choice what an article is about. That's why encyclopedias rely upon secondary sources: no original research. I will also notify the wikiprojects Wyoming and LabourProject. --68.127.233.138 (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Personally, I see nothing wrong with the lead as it now stands. . Indeed, the Main Page editors just featured it on the main page, which (I would argue) indicates no real problems with the article's FA status. I would not support a review of FA status. - Tim1965 (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Please see instructions at WP:FAR regarding mainpage day; I've removed the FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

How's that point of view? That's what happened, and it says it in the article, much farther on.[1]

And, indeed, the article writer says that I must read the entire article to understand the first paragraph. So, since the article writer says it violates FA criteria, you're arguing with FA criteria? --68.127.233.138 (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A lead is a summary, it cannot include every bit of information in the article. I'm not sure what you are proposing but how can you say the article doesn't meet FA criteria when you won't even read it? The article has gone through multiiple peer reviews, a GA review, and an FAC. Numerous editors assisted this process. The lead can be tweaked if it needs to be, but this article is neutral, fair and accurate. --IvoShandor (talk) 04:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to have everything. But the massacre was the murder or killing of Chinese immigrant miners by white immigrant miners due to the Chinese being hired more for their willingness to work for lower wages, or so it appears so far. If you're talking about a massacre someone has to be killed, and if that's the title, the killing should come right away, and some proximate and ultimate cause also. This is not every bit of information, this is sufficient to tell about the massacre, and it's how encyclopedia articles are written and designed, even on wikipedia. --69.225.8.92 (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I dont own this article. You are free to make changes yourself, just bring sources. I would also welcome a FAR, which I know this article will pass with flying colors and may even lead to some minor improvements. So go right ahead. I don't see a FAR as a threat, but a chance to improve the article further, nothing is ever "complete" around here.--IvoShandor (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that improves it some, but more work is needed, imo. We're in agreement on FAR, it seems to be a call to improving the article. I think the article could use some development as it appears to be written in couched language that detracts from providing good information.

I think I already pissed someone off, since he/she couldn't be bothered to do anything but call my changes POV, without explanation, although I only included information from the article. I assumed information in the article is sourced. As an IP it's almost impossible to edit a featured article, no matter what. I've been reverted for removing vandalism from a FA, simply because the assumption is IPs are morons/vandals/useless/expendable. I'm a paleontologist and I edit a lot of geology featured articles and am used to my edits being reverted and ignored, but they're accurate and eventually get in. I had heard of the Rock Springs massacre and wanted to learn more by reading this somewhere else. --69.225.8.92 (talk)

Well I don't view IPs as "morons", or at least try not to. It is a problem on WP though, and it has much to do with how a lot of IPs edit. Definitely something that needs to be addressed, but that's another issue altogether. I really don't think the article is written in couched terms, it was very difficult to keep the text neutral on this one, which is really what I was trying to do. Anyway, sorry if I was brash at first, mostly just a misunderstanding of what you wanted here, which I am still not entirely sure of but if you have some ideas please do share them here. I'm sure we can work together to address any concerns you might have but please be specific. I still think the lead does a good job of summarizing the content here, again, every little detail cannot be worked into the lead but we can find a way to alleviate any concerns you have, this, I am sure of.--IvoShandor (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition the very first paragraph states it was a riot between white and Chinese minors, touches on the labor dispute and racial tensions that led to the massacre and tells the number of Chinese that were murdered, as well as noting the amount of property damage the rioting caused. I'm not sure what you think it is missing, but please, expound on this issue.--IvoShandor (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that your efforts. It would be easier for me to just rewrite the introduction, but my edits will be reverted for being "POI" which I suspect means "IP-edits." I will revise and post my revisions here since your'e trying to work with me on this. --69.225.8.92 (talk) 05:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't y'all work on a lead here on the talk page space? Paste it to the article when it's as close to agreement as it can get. --Moni3 (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's what we agreed to try. It's a good idea to work off article space some times rather than being bold, particularly when you're an IP. I bet we'll come up with something. --68.127.234.44 (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested moves

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: consensus not to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

---

• Rock Springs massacre → Rock Springs Massacre
• Wah Mee massacre → Wah Mee Massacre
• Rufus River massacre → Rufus River Massacre
• Ponce massacre → Ponce Massacre
• Golden Dragon massacre → Golden Dragon Massacre
• Coushatta massacre → Coushatta Massacre

– capitalization of proper names per WP:NCCAPS and its included reference proper noun and Talk:Chicago Race Riot of 1919#Requested move 23 October 2014 Hmains (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• No indication that these are proper nouns. Category:Massacres_in_the_United_States shows no clear capitalization rule.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• A proper name is the name of a particular/certain/specific name, place or thing. So it is in the English language and the article proper noun says so. And proper names/proper nouns get capitalized in English and article and WP:NCCAPS. This was previously discussed in Talk:Chicago Race Riot of 1919#Requested move 23 October 2014. Hmains (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hmains, if the discussion here turns out the same way, great. However, it's pretty clear that the result of the request at Chicago Race Riot of 1919 can't be used as an indication that all moves like this are uncontroversial, especially when the current titles are well established. Dekimasuよ! 05:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"well-established" - only by inertia. I remember when the Rock Springs Massacre article was de-capped and it didn't sit well with many; the response from the de-capper was invoking MOS, without any reference to what sources use. I just did a quick scan of Canadian titles of a similar bent - the Anti-Oriental Riots of 1907, the Winnipeg General Strike, the Riel Rebellions, the On-To-Ottawa Trek....the Regina Riots title is a redirect to a section on the On-To-Ottawa page, as "Regina Riot" though most histories use the plural form....the Komagata Maru incident title is lower-cased but most sources using that phrase use capital-I on the "incident" part...... and re lower-casing, it's maniacally obsessive in my experience, e.g. "Fraser river" and the like. Like it's been applied by a robot without considering the proper usage.Skookum1 (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

For "especially when the current titles are well established," please read "especially in cases in which the current titles are well established." I'm not stating an opinion here, just advising that moves like these (which were listed as originally listed as "uncontroversial requests") are unlikely to be uncontroversial. Dekimasuよ! 20:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose—Ngrams is not at all favourable to this request. We can largely discount the cases where "the" is capped, because most of those would be titles with title case. And please remember WP's overriding rule: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization." Tony (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Later: Ngram for "Coushatta massacre". BTW, adding "the" yields no data. But by parity of reasoning with the argument concerning the primary article, this too stongly disfavours upper case. Given that many instances with "the ... Massacre" will also appear in titles that use title case, by further parity of reasoning the available ngram results do yet more to discredit this request. Strong evidence here—"golden+dragon+massacre"+-wikipedia&oq="golden+dragon+massacre"+-wikipedia in a raw google search—for one that has too few hits to turn up on ngrams. Of the the hits that reveal the phrase at all, 24 or so favour lower case, and only 16 favour upper case. "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization." Tony (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • comment I really don't know where you got "24 or so favour lower case" as in the preview listings of the 50 results on GoogleBooks I got show 16 with the caps, 16 without, and a bunch with no highlighted quote where the content must be in the linked item; do you mean you've read them all? In any case, I think that quantitative counts of source-usages is mechanistic thinking, and note that in TITLE somewhere it says plainly that a usage need only be widespread to be valid and that the majority of sources can be set aside for various reasons. Of the 18 unaccounted for, which are the other eight that use the lower-case as you appear to be claiming? And what do the other ten use? I'd say this is a draw, not any kind of conclusive proof against the all-caps title.Skookum1 (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose and request Hmains stop his campaign of treating all descriptive titles of particular events as proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• I notice that the editors who want to lower case everything do not discuss the relevant MOS WP:NCCAPS and its incorporated article proper noun. Instead, they just want to do things the way they want to do them, even getting so excited about this subject that they are unable to contain themselves for the duration of this discussion and are going about reverting upper case names right now. This emotional reaction does not create a rational discussion. So how about confirming that the guidance we are to follow is not personal opinion, but is WP:NCCAPS and its incorporated article proper noun and then review its content. If quotes from these articles are to be used, then the location and context of the quotes need to be noted and not just inserted here as quotes from who knows where. Hmains (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not the first time that players move pieces during a discussion to "make their case" that it's the "norm".Skookum1 (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:NCCAPS is pretty much accepted by all. The problem is editors who want to declare descriptive titles to be proper names; MOS:CAPS advises against this, and suggests looking to sources to help decide what names are considered to be proper. Dicklyon (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    • There's plenty of sources that do use caps on this title, I haven't looked at the others yet, so it's not like "editors...want to declare descriptive titles to be proper names" - many historians and other writer and newspapers regularly do as per my comments about Tony's alleged google above. The ironclad "the world must obey Wikipedia guidelines" impilcit in your comment is hokum, as is the insinuation that those who title articles that way are not following sources, which it can be seen by that same google that they are.Skookum1 (talk) 06:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: The Tony1/Noetica evidence (see #Discussion, below) cinches it, but as I already said when controverting attempts to move these and many other similar articles to upper case via WP:RM's "non-controversial technical" moves process, articles like this cannot reasonably be mass moved, ever, because in each individual case, it's a matter of a detailed WP:COMMONNAME analysis. I disagree with Noetica's view that we couldn't use near-universal capitalization in external reliable sources as an indicator of proper name status (we actually do so routinely – it's why World War II is at that article name, not World war II), but a) that's only applicable when looking at general-audience sources not specialist sources which habitually overcapitalize (see the essay WP:Specialist style fallacy for an explanation of the severe logic problems in failing to distinguish between these two kinds of sources when it comes to style matters); and b) the case for Golden Dragon Massacre still fails that test. So does over-capitalizing Rock Springs massacre [2].

  The cases of Wah Mee massacre, Rufus River massacre and Coushatta massacre would need more research, but I'd bet good money they're not conventionally capitalized. A case can be possibly made for capitalizing Ponce Massacre [3], but the ngram shows a huge spike in favor of capitalization in a very narrow time period, and the low number of sources involved almost certainly means that a single book was the source of the capitalization, and that most capitalization since then is due to direct quotations or citations to that source. The kind of detailed analysis done for Golden Dragon massacre would have to be done for Ponce massacre, and the proponent hasn't done that. There's no evidence the capitalized form is the common name for WP purposes.

  (PS: Quite a number of similar moves were performed by this nominator using RM's "non-controversial technical moves" process, despite myself and I think some others contesting them (I'm not sure why; there's been some discussion at WT:RM about whether process was followed properly, and I submit that it was not). These need to be discussed on the merits individually in normal RMs, if not outright reverted to status quo ante as moves made without consensus. Same goes for nom's recent mass-moves of river articles from "Name River" format to "Name (river)", most if not all of which appear to violate WP:NATURAL policy. In cases where the river's name is not of the form "Name River" in English, the format "Name river" is more likely to be preferred, except in cases where the "Name" part already includes a word for "river", e.g. Spanish rio.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: I agree that the arguments advanced by Tony in the discussion below pretty much convinces me that the grounds for capitalisation are not founded. They are merely descriptive and not proper names at all. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Pulled from proper noun: "It is often indeterminate both whether an item qualifies as a proper name and whether it should be capitalized." It's very clear that these are not proper names and thus, per WP:TITLEFORMAT are not, by rule, exclusively capitalized. It thus essentially comes down to usage and whether the common use employs sources capitalized "massacre" or not. I have thus far seen no indication made that the common usage is capitalized.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment I just ran a googlebook scan for Wah Mee massacre and 8 of the first ten items in the results use "Wah Mee Massacre", on the next few pages it's 50-50 or so, I didn't look at all 157 results.Skookum1 (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • A googlebooks search for "Rock Springs m/Massacre" gives eight out of ten on the first page of results are capital-M, with only one preview showing lower-case 'm', the others with no previews.Skookum1 (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Be aware that Google Books uses case and title status in its rankings, pushing capitalized uses toward the first page or two of hits; look at second and third pages for a more balanced view of usage, and you'll typically see an overwhelming majority are not capitalized. In the case of the "Rock Creek" (not Springs) massacre, the caps are mostly from the book title by Jones, not uses in text. Besides, the one you searched for is not a subject of the present RM, and is a mythical, not historical, event, so more likely to be given a proper name. Search for Rook Springs as you should have and you find many more lower case, though you do still find a lot of hits to work titles with caps, and some other caps usage; no evidence of proper name status in books as a whole. Dicklyon (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Rejoinder. First of all, talking of Skookum hokum, your googlebook scan is for the Cambodian (Khmer) WP. Second, it's not even for English-language texts. Please be careful in gathering stats.

Here is the exact URL for Googlebooks search results. The search line reads precisely as follows (recall that Google searches are insensitive to case):

"golden dragon massacre" -wikipedia

I asked Noetica for an opinion, since he has considerable experience in independent analysis of such matters. I received this response not long ago, in relation to what he says is a representative example, "golden dragon massacre":

____________________

There were 57 hits, which is a reliable report of the Google holdings because it is low (not affected by Google’s controversial “1,000 limit”). The actual texts of all hits are shown in the appendix [Tony1: available as a Word file on request, since it's a long and detailed list of the 57]. Of the actual shown texts in hits, shown on the results screen, for the phrase "golden dragon massacre":

• 21 have massacre
• 15 have Massacre
• 0 have both
• 36 is the raw total of hit reports (on the results screen itself) that show one form or the other.

Of the 15 that show Massacre, two have it plainly in a title that uses title case (hit 1, "Golden Dragon Massacre: Pain Still Felt a Decade Later") or as a qualifier in an expression that is itself treated with capitals independently (hit 35, items in a list "Gold Star Recording Studio Location ... Golden Dragon Massacre Site"). In other hits the usage may in fact be title-like; but setting that consideration aside, the conservatively adjusted count from a reduced total of 34 is that:

• 21 hit texts out of 34 (61.8%) support lower case in the phrase
• 13 hit texts out of 34 (38.2%) support upper case in the phrase

Conclusion

Just for the sake of argument, let's temporarily assume:

• That nearly universal capitalising in printed sources is a useful way to determine Wikipedia’s best choice (it is not).
• That WP’s guidelines genuinely do call for deciding from sources what is a “proper name” (they don't; indeed they can't, because capitalising is not a good guide to status as a proper name, even in the thinking of our so-called reliable sources).

Accepting those errant notions, the evidence still opposes the styling "Golden Dragon Massacre". The evidence runs 62% to 38% against that choice. I don't understand how anyone aware of this evidence can still support “Golden Dragon Massacre”. The beginning of the lead at MOSCAPS is itself sound and widely accepted: “Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization.” How can capitalisation chosen by only 38% of print sources even begin to count as necessary?

____________________

Tony (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Reply I used your search string on that search; "Skookum hokum" is rank NPA as is Dicklyon's slag of Hmains; but nastiness from MOS types I've had experience with before re WP:MOSHYPHEN and WP:MOSHYPHEN, which was misapplied to Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District and endless MOSDASH manipulations/misinterpretions/claims were used to try and block reversion to the proper title; MOS is not Holy Writ but its advocates pretend like it is, including in their resistance to changing it (little club="consensus"). In this case 38% is not insignificant, and if the capital-M is used in chapter titles, that says something write there about what could/should apply on Wikipedia article titles. But no, MOS is sacred and mechanistic "thinking" will always prevail,and those touting it engage in personal slurs like those against me and Hmains here.Skookum1 (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Re the GoogleKhmer search, that can't be helped; I'm in Cambodia and I can't get to "google.com"; as far as I know it's English-language results that are being generated...I certainly don't see any results in Khmer.Skookum1 (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Skookum: I couldn't resist the "Skookum hokum", and half-assumed you'd used "hokum" on purpose to ring with your username, which would have been quite clever. Concerning you, personally—no negativity. Concerning your visit to Cambodia: will you visit Angkor? I've never been, but a friend of mine is part of an archeological project there—on the water pipe system for irrigation (back so many centuries ago), and more recently using radar imaging to uncover underground structures. Sounds fabulous. Tony (talk) 09:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Not that clever, nor have been "Snookums" and others used around Wikipedia...and '-okum' and 'hokum' don't rhyme. I was at Angkor last year and have lots of pics....but as far as somewhere to visit, unless you're willing to hike, and camp out, in the jungle away from the main ruins, it's not much; too many tourists ruining the views and overrun at the exit with masses of tourist-trap stalls like any major world attraction.....and Siem Reap is a hole...I'm on a beach near Sihanoukville......what I saw of inland Cambodia on the trip from Siem Reap to Phnom Penh to here was not appealing (flat and dusty with bad roads); the coast between here and the Thai border though is quite beautiful and, so far, mostly unspoiled and relatively wild. Around here, Koh Rong is about to get an int'l airport and will go the way of Samui and Phuket, though four years ago there was only one bungalow operation there.....Skookum1 (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2014 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rock Springs massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009111207/http://www.wwcc.wy.edu/wyo_hist/ev.wyoming_and_the_chinese.htm to http://www.wwcc.wy.edu/wyo_hist/ev.wyoming_and_the_chinese.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Rock Springs massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060831071908/http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/RobertsHistory/rock_springs_massacre_chollak.htm to http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/RobertsHistory/rock_springs_massacre_chollak.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928051204/http://www.dioceseofcheyenne.org/history/RS_SCM_Pilot_Butte_1885-1973_NRHP.html to http://www.dioceseofcheyenne.org/history/RS_SCM_Pilot_Butte_1885-1973_NRHP.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060912130847/http://www.washington.edu/uwired/outreach/cspn/Website/Course%20Index/Lessons/15/15.html to http://www.washington.edu/uwired/outreach/cspn/Website/Course%20Index/Lessons/15/15.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061013073013/http://www.census.gov/population/documentation/twps0056/tab65.pdf to http://www.census.gov/population/documentation/twps0056/tab65.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rock Springs massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070629032756/http://www.colorado.edu/Sewall/killrock.pdf to http://www.colorado.edu/Sewall/killrock.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

FA criteria

The article isn't in terrible shape but I think it needs some improvement to meet the FA criteria. For example, despite considerable later coverage of the incident, the article still cites 1885 press coverage. I don't think that qualifies as a "high-quality reliable source" per the FA criteria. Besides the downsides of breaking news as a source, contemporary press has been criticized for being racist. Instead, the article should have a section based on secondary sources that discusses the contemporary press coverage. (t · c) buidhe 02:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)