Talk:Ludlow Massacre/Merge debate 1

Merge tagging

I suggest the merger to the Ludlow Monument article back into this one, most of the text and all of the images are already duplicated here. Chris 01:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I vote not just no, but emphatically no. There is a significant history to the monument itself, including the dive-bombing of strikers by Colorado National Guard aircraft in a later, 1927 strike at the Ludlow Monument, that doesn't easily fit into the Ludlow Massacre history — it was a different union, different period. There are the annual commemorations, many aspects of which may not be directly relevant to the history of the massacre. There should be some history about the ghost town of Ludlow, which may fit more appropriately in one article than the other. There is the recent destruction of the statues, and their rebuilding, which arguably have much more to do with the monument than with the massacre, and some coverage of which you may find on my website:

http://www.rebelgraphics.org/ludlow.html

and

http://www.rebelgraphics.org/ludlow_second_century.html

Concerning the massacre itself — the incident became known internationally, and on my website you may discover it is still being written about in Mexico. It contributed greatly to the political climate of the period in which it occurred. It has inspired annual commemorations which continue long after all the participants have passed on. The Ludlow Massacre helped greatly to inspire an international awareness of the need for legislation to protect workers' rights.

Two historian friends of mine are about to have new books released on new aspects of the Ludlow Massacre. The subject of the Ludlow Massacre is so complex, and so great in scope, that it will eventually be necessary to separate out aspects of the history, in my view. For example, issues relating to the strike will include the Ten Days War, the company union that resulted from the strike, and other related subjects. Merging the massacre article and the monument article is going in the wrong direction, i believe.

Add to that the fact that the Bessemer Historical Society has about nineteen thousand boxes of documents released from CF&I that haven't yet been catalogged. We don't yet know how much new information will become available about the Ludlow strike that will add to the history, perhaps offering new material from a company perspective.

Now, i haven't spent much time on the Ludlow articles lately, for there are other historically significant strikes that have no articles. But i hope to see these articles grow and provide a much richer view of the Ludlow history in the coming year. When i find the time, if no one else has done so, i will insure that each of the two articles maintains its own focus, so any current overlap will no longer be a concern. (In the meantime, of course, others are welcome to make such improvements...) Richard Myers 03:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)