Talk:Montana Vigilantes

Suggestions

Nice work @Mike:! Interesting storyline overlooked until now. A few suggestions:

• Expand the lede to better summarize the article....making sure anything already in lede is in the article as well.
• Saw only two examples of extra wikilinks aka overlinking. Add additional links if possible.
• @Montanabw: had some interesting observations about the article in her post at your talk page...I concur with her assessment overall. I think some of her suggestions can be addressed later if this article is advanced to peer review and or FAC. The 3-7-77 item would be neat to see incorporated and it's important we are balanced as much as the references allow though we may be limited by what we can add based on the reliable references so an article may not always seem politically correct.

More later.--MONGO 15:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• NPOV is a pillar. "PC" = NPOV. Just saying. ;-) GAN doesn't mandate comprehensiveness, FAC does. ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 04:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  Hum...cannot agree with that...PC means Personal Computer, silly!!!--MONGO 23:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Mike...I'm too vested in the editing due to some copyediting I have done so I can't do the GAN, but I did post some clarification and cite needed templates on the page. Just a few other points...

• Should the Media and Literature section be last? Y I might also add The Missouri Breaks...based on cattle rustling in Montana...Cattle Baron hires Regulator to track down rustlers.Y
• Can we find any more images...maybe even the images of the ghost town of Bannack or Virginia City? How about the lone hanging tree? I found one image from a blog...[1]...not allowable though.
• The intro still needs slight expansion...
• I find the 3-7-77 thing to be facinating...I guess we would be speculating that the reason its a secret is because the number probably came from one of those secret associations...Too bad we don't have a definitive answer, but the mystery makes it more fun I suppose.
• Lastly, lets be double sure there is no close paraphrasing issues which I don't spot well, but others who have better access to books and are more astute might.--MONGO 23:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is there a tag on the first line of section: Failure of the miners' courts. Isn't reference to the territorial act enough to verify the date.? --Mike Cline (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh....that ref just needs to be properly templated.--MONGO 14:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Y

• My humble opinion is that the Stockgrowers and stuff on rustling has at best a tangental relationship to the Vigilantes. Not really sure its relevance (if there is relevance, maybe expand it a bit). I am still not thrilled with the long blockquotes or the dismissive "revisionist" language. It's either a credible theory or it has been discredited. "Revisionist" just means "IDONTLIKEIT" which is kind of meaningless. Montanabw^(talk) 21:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

How do you square that with the fact that multiple reliable sources use the term "revisionist" history for several of the contemporary accounts (WP has an article Historical revisionism that says nothing about "I don't Like It") and that Dillon and others go into a lot of detail about "Stuart's Stranglers" as vigilantes in 1884? --Mike Cline (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree that "Stuart's Stranglers" need to be in here. Intothatdarkness 13:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Historical revisionism" is a neutral term, but the way you use it to describe the theories about Plummer appears to claim that theory is Historical revisionism (negationism) - a distorted view that is fringe to the point of lacking legitimacy (fringe as in alien abductions or something). If you want to tweak the section to be more neutral, then the former term would fit, but as it sits, then this article - and the "multiple reliable sources" (?) you note, use it in the sense of the latter. (No, I am not arguing that Plummer was innocent) I'm explaining that if it's a legitimate, if minority view, then discuss it neutrally; if it's a truly fringe theory, then arguably, it should have MORE on why it's not legitimate, but what I see is mostly the reliable sources saying, "we don't like it." with insufficient analysis of why. Montanabw^(talk) 22:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to read Dillon cover to cover. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Not particularly interested. Sorry. And you're missing my point, I think. Montanabw^(talk) 09:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Please point me to the content where "I" claim contemporary views are revisionist or fringe. The content merely says: "These accounts, more specifically those of Ruth E. Mather and R.E. Boswell, Hanging the Sheriff-A Biography of Henry Plummer (1987, 1999) and Vigilante Victims: Montana's 1864 Hanging Spree (1991) are considered "revisionist" history.[36] by Montana historians Michael P. Malone[37] and Richard B. Roeder[38], authors Mark C. Dillon[39] and Carol Buchanan.[40]". Do you dispute that these authors and scholars consider the works of Mather "revisionist"? --Mike Cline (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You did well to add material since I last popped by with the tag, as the "More On Vigilantes/Vigilantism" was a superficial analysis done by an anonymous contributor. That said, my issue remains with your tone - "scare quotes" are a mistake and "revisionist" has multiple meanings - I know from other interactions we've had that your own view is that "revisionist" = "liberal crap." (I disagree on both points) But your note on the Malone piece suggests the author himself called the work "revisionist" in the positive sense (that history is continually revised as more data is uncovered), so perhaps it would be more accurate to state that Malone was "critical" of the analysis (which your quote in the footnote suggests). Also, FN 38 needs formatting. Montanabw^(talk) 09:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Did any of you notice that Stuart's Stranglers already exists? Added the link. Montanabw^(talk) 19:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  Wow....was looking the other day for that and didn't see it anywhere...must have had my blinders on.--MONGO 19:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  Popped up when I Googled the topic. Sometimes Google does a better job of finding WP articles than the WP search does.

  I had. Not a great article, honestly. It might be better if it were merged into this one. Intothatdarkness 20:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• I was of the opinion that it could stand alone and be improved. While there are similar roots, the cattle industry situation is rather distinct from the mining camps and cities. I do agree it needs some work, but I don't see it as a fork. Montanabw^(talk) 05:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

While there are similar roots, the cattle industry situation is rather distinct from the mining camps and cities. Dillon would disagree. In the 1880s, cattle represented wealth, the open range was insecure, and there was a distinct lack of a justice system. These are the exact same conditions spawning vigilantes that prevailed in the gold camps--gold (wealth), insecure transportation, and lack of a justice system--in 1863-64 and 1865-70. Alder Gulch and Helena were distinct instances of vigilante committees as WERE Stuart's Stranglers as Montana Vigilantes (1884) in the territorial period. Splitting it out represents a classic WP:CFORK unless we choose to treat each vigilance committee with a separate article and trash this one. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Mike here if the purpose of this article is to discuss vigilantes writ large in Montana's territorial history (which is what the article title implies). Intothatdarkness 13:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You are creating a false equivalency (and wasn't is you, Mike, who was all concerned that other stuff would work its way into this article with the broader name? Now you want it? Make up your mind) My only point was that Stuart's Stranglers should stay a separate spinoff article, with what is here pretty much kept, but maybe some of it moved to improve the other. There obviously were links between the mining and cattle industries (miners liked to eat beef, for one thing), but there were adequate differences (ranches not based in towns with concentrated populations, distances involved, terrain, geography, transport of the stolen goods on the hoof a lot different from stealing gold dust and coin...). Montanabw^(talk) 08:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

And frankly, as the child of two generations of cattle breeders, your "I know everything because I read the latest book" tone really is starting to piss me off. Historians from New York or California or wherever the ivory tower is may not have always been able to confirm stories I have heard since childhood (as no one published them in the newspapers of the seven biggest Montana cities), and they also may have drawn some connections with the benefit of microfilm and the internet allowing them to gather multiple sources (for which I will grant a nod), but at the end of the day, they are armchair quarterbacks and their accounts need to be tempered with a little common sense and local understanding; I'm most apt to trust the material I am seeing come out of the Montana Historical Society in many cases, as those folks are on the ground where it happened. Montanabw^(talk) 08:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Montana Vigilantes (1863-1889)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: KingJeff1970 (talk · contribs) 00:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to take on this review ASAP.--KingJeff1970 (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This article is well-developed and close to meeting all the good article criteria. A few improvements explained below need to be completed, therefore the article is being put on hold for 1-2 weeks.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article is clearly written, with minor copy edit issues. It nearly meets the manual of style guidelines required by the good article criteria. The lead section is well developed and reasonable in size, adequately summarizing the various sections of the article. Yet at one point in the first paragraph there is a reference to the San Francisco Committee of Vigilance being a model for Montana's group, though as far as I can tell the influence of this group on the Montana vigilantes is not mentioned in the article. This apparent oversight may be easily corrected.Y Also a full read-through should identify multiple copy edit mistakes, extra or missing words and small punctuation errors; I found about ten or more instances (Since I've already located them, I'll gladly correct these).

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The article is nearly all verifiable and it avoids original research. One important statistic that I could not adequately verify needs some work. The citation at the end of section 1.4, "Prominent members," stating the number of people killed by the Virginia City-Bannack vigilantes is unhelpful. The article in note 17 states that 21 men were killed by the vigilantes (and it's citing Dimsdale's count). Where do we get the range of from 15-35 mentioned in the text? This important citation should be clarified to achieve good article criteria.Y

I've added more information to the citation to clarify this. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Mike Cline, I appreciate your effort in adding more info to the end note (now end note 18), but the info on the 1884 Stuart's Stranglers confuses things. I suggest that you move this 1884 material down to the appropriate section of the article (Stuart's Stranglers) and leave the info about the 1863-65 Bannack-Virginia City vigilantes. Also, and important to the good article criteria, your work to count the victims of vigilante justice yourself strikes me as original research. I think just citing a couple of the reliable sources will clear up any problem here and will meet the criteria. Steer clear of your own estimates, though in a couple more days of revisions, Mike, you will be a reliable source, yourself. Thanks for making the last push on this.--KingJeff1970 (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Have added citation (Dillon p 370-71) to the "at least 20" in the lead and the list in the content related to the Alder Gulch vigilantes 1st six weeks of 1864. Have also added "Alder Gulch" clarification to Allen's estimate. I don't think the reference to "Stuarts Stranglers" in Allen's quote is confusing as Allen is trying to support his contention that Alder Gulch (1863-65) was deadlier than the Mussellshell (1884) as contended by Brown. If it is removed from the quote, the remainder of Allen's position isn't that clear. I am not sure where Also, and important to the good article criteria, your work to count the victims of vigilante justice yourself strikes me as original research. occurs unless it was the sentence in the lead that is now cited. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is broad ranging, covering vigilante activity throughout Montana's territorial period from the 1860s to the 1880s. This helpfully ties together the mining camp groups with the livestock groups, noting the similar conditions giving rise to both.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Most of the article is well handled as far as neutrality goes. A problem develops in sections 6 and 7, "Period accounts" and "20th and 21st century analysis," when varying perspectives on the historiography of the Montana vigilantes are explored. Undue weight is given to the alternative viewpoints of Mather, Boswell and Fazio (see WP:UNDUE). Their POV is given half of the space in section 7 while the substantial work of Frederick Allen, Merrill Burlingame (both in his book 'The Montana Frontier' (1942) and his article, "Montana's Righteous Hangmen: A Reconsideration," in 'Montana, The Magazine of Western History' (Autumn 1978)), and Lew Callaway are neglected. Description of the earliest accounts of the vigilantes by Dimsdale and Langford could be enhanced to give them proper weight. It may help to combine sections 6 and 7 into one section entitled, "Historiography," though of course this is not necessary to achieve NPOV. Overall, the pool of reliable sources are not proportionately represented and this should be redressed before the article moves forward. Y

I trust the section name change and additional references to other works added balances this section out.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

2. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The painting by John W. Norton should probably be dated 1907 when the book it appeared in was published, rather than 1863.Y

3. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   With some limited work to improve the NPOV, clarify a citation, fix one portion of the lead, and perform some copy editing this article will meet the good article criteria. It's real close, so let's getter done.--KingJeff1970 (talk) 08:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Thanks Jeff, good review, will work on this over the weekend. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Final Review

I'm satisfied with the numerous adjustments and improvements made by Mike and others. I'm going to pass this article as meeting the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Congratulations! And thanks for your patience and responsive work over the past couple weeks.--KingJeff1970 (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Pics

Took a few shots of the alleged hanging tree, locally famous, over by Clancy, Montana. Ellen Baumler at MHS says there are no documented hangings in Jefferson County, but this tree has long been claimed by locals to have been a site used by the vigilantes. Adding it in hopes it helps. Also digging through my dad's stuff found a small book titled "Vigilantes Days and Ways" that contains a bunch of Masonic rituals and such, some printed in code... sound of interest to anyone here? Montanabw^(talk) 00:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Could be interesting, although my interest runs more toward Stuart's activities than what happened around Virginia City. Intothatdarkness 14:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What is interesting to me is this Masonic connection to the Vigilantes. Montanabw^(talk) 03:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Check out Burlingame's article in Montana The Magazine of Western History which covers the Masonic connection pretty well. This is one aspect of the Vigilantes that could be better covered in this WP article.--KingJeff1970 (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. I didn't think the possible Masonic connection was a new theory (seen it mentioned in a few places). It's interesting to be sure. Intothatdarkness 17:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No, nothing new, I was just immensely amused to see the little Masonic book of my dad's titled Vigilante Days and Ways," with a significant amount of it written in some sort of code...Doesn't appear to be the Langford Text, it's mostly Masonic rituals. The evidence of their involvement may be scant, but they sure want to claim it, I think! Jeff, you interested in looking at this little ditty? Montanabw^(talk) 23:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, always interested. There are a bunch of history geeks in this building just waiting for the next cool thing to walk in the door. You're very welcome to bring it by for a look-see. The code sounds very intriguing. We apparently have some other books with some Masonic related code written in them.--KingJeff1970 (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm kind of wondering if these little books had fake covers on them to conceal what they actually were. Montanabw^(talk) 07:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

FAC next?

Mike Cline...any plans to take the article to FAC?--MONGO 05:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)