# Talk:Cripple Creek miners' strike of 1894

Cripple Creek miners' strike of 1894 is a current Good Article nominee. The only problem I have with the article, is that many of its links are to nonexistent articles (red links). Other than that, I see absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be a good article, and some day even featured.
In fact, I accidentally relisted it on the nomination page for good articles; I didn't notice another user had already nominated a day before me! So, looks like I'm not alone on this feeling. ♠ SG →Talk 05:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I think there is too much red at the moment for a Good Article Lurker 11:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That looks like a colorized photo. Can we collapse it back down to black and white and mention that the greyscale might be alterred?? It seems... fake. -- 67.121.112.48 07:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right: It is colorized. A hand-colored stereopticon image from 1900. Prior to the advent of color film, hand-colored images were quite common keepsakes. See the [description of the image] for more information. Tim1965 22:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the external link * [http://www.iww.org/unions/dept200/iu210 I.W.W Metal Mine Workers Industrial Union 210 because there is nothing on the page which indicates it has any relationship to the article. Is MMIUW 210 the successor union to Free Coinage Union Local No. 19? Does MMIUW 210 now represent workers at the Cripple Creek mines? There's nothing which indicates MMIUW 210 has anything to do with the Cripple Creek miners' strike of 1894, and the page contains no history or informatin about the 1894 strike. Rather, the link appears to be just an ad for an IWW local. Unless there's a change on the page or additional information, I think the link should come down. Tim1965 21:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't share the views of User:SG and User:Lurker about this article, although the references are plentiful, (Though im not certain what "Holbrook, Suggs, and Philpott are, books maybe? Authors?) the article seems, well, riddled with a whole bunch of pro-miner POV statements everywhere. It's not that im the ressurected form of the mine owners come to seek my revenge or anything weird like that, but im afraid I just can't ignore so many of the parts of the article which just plain aren't NPOV, i'll list some below. Also, the lead seems too short, perhaps insert another paragraph concerning the impact of the strike or go into a few more details on the events, because there's lots of information in the article.
As for examples of the non-NPOV language, the intro states that it was a "successful strike" without defining how a strike even becomes successful or who's perspective it was successful in, "The price of silver crashed, and the silver mining industry was hit hard" sounds more like a History Channel special, that is, it's too dramatic, "Desperate to keep their jobs, gold miners worked longer....." starts with an unreferenced generalization which may not of been universally true, "etc. etc. etc. decided to take advantage of the economic dislocations caused by the depression." is pretty bad looking there, for all anyone here knows, their business could of had hidden internal difficulties that required more efficient gold mining, (Though I doubt that's likely, but still.) "Unfazed, the miners impozed...." who said they were unfazed? The article doesn't say, and they may of just been giving the outward impression of not being fazed, "The strikebreakers were so intimidated that few of them reported for work" sounds like another generalization, (though it's referenced this time) which might not of applied to all workers somehow, and the list of this sort of thing goes on and on and on. A good script for a History Channel special, lots of drama, but not good for a Wikipedia article. I suspect one of the problems is that alot of these statements use the same reference over and over again if at all, remember, just because you've referenced something doesn't mean it's NPOV, the source needs to be mentioned, especially when you only seem to be using 2 or 3 things. Homestarmy 03:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggs authored a book, "Colorado's War On Militant Unionism".
The POV issue relating to strikes is tricky, because labor initiates strikes, and many of the folks who write about strikes are at least somewhat sympathetic to labor, while corporations prefer to publicly ignore strikes and/or pretend they never happened. To be sure, management will facilitate the study of strikes in business school. But it is presented within the context of preventing, dealing with, or winning strikes as part of their management training.
To what extent should labor historians try to publicly balance labor history, when the companies don't want to talk about it? PR can work both ways for the companies. When Rockefeller's CF&I corporation in Pueblo was confronted with the Ludlow Massacre in 1914, they created a PR department (first of its kind) to deal with the damage. They didn't have much choice; Ludlow was a PR disaster. After CF&I went out of business and its archives were opened to the historical community, what came out was information about how that same company had infiltrated, spied upon, attempted to sabotage and provoke the union during a strike in 1927. Perhaps we should not be surprised that labor wants the history between capital and labor told, while business owners and managers generally would like the history to just go away. Thus, the business community has established a great deal of influence over local and state school boards, and over the school textbook selection process.
So, books by labor historians typically tell the history of strikes and labor disputes, with considerable input from labor sources. They are good, but do not achieve wide circulation. It is obviously not Wikipedia's fault, but we should consider that there is already a very significant level of anti-labor bias in the typical presentation of labor history in our schools over the past century or so. Many school textbooks (which are used to teach our children) either ignore labor history, or generalize about unions from a business point of view.
In its ability to reach the public and present significant labor history, Wikipedia represents a departure from the past. As such, we should all strive to insure that the history is NPOV, but also that we are free to present the truth. User:Richard Myers

Probably of Mid-Level importance, because it caused the backlash which forced the WFM out of the AFL, and to form the IWW—one of the most important labor unions in U.S. history. As a strike, therefore, of national importance, that pushes it above low-level status. Tim1965 02:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with one point. It was the strike of 1903-1905 which caused the WFM to form the IWW. That strike is dealt with on the Western Federation of Miners page, but should have a page of its own because there is so much significant history relating to that strike (including the governor's campaign to destroy the WFM, which resulted in much killing of striking and non-striking miners, and an assault by the national guard on the WFM union hall in Victor.) Richard Myers
Cripple Creek strike of 1903-05 now has an article of its own, Colorado Labor Wars—Richard Myers 22:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I just finished a major revision of this article. Having little familiarity with the history itself (but being an Elements of Style-wielding English teacher), I tried to fix the writing itself, to make the article WP:NPOV and get it in Good Article shape. -- Scartol 21:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,
I've just complete your request to have this article reviewed for promotion to GA Status.
As mentioned by the previous GA Reviewer, there's no problems with references in this article, and I believe this article is stable and makes good use of images, which appear to be licensed correctly.
The previous issues raised by the reviewer were non-NPOV, and issues with the article's lead and style.
I'm fairly confident that the article meets the GA Criteria for prose and style now. I'm also of the opinion that the article is now written from a Neutral Point of View, considering the controversial nature of the topic, I understand that this was likely difficult to do and the editors should be proud of this effort.
I'm was two minds as to how to handle this review. I'm still relatively new at GA Reviewing, and this topic does appear to be fairly controversial so I was tempted to ask for a second opinion. However, I'm fairly confident I'm making the correct decision and as far as I can see all criteria are met, so I'll be passing this article. If anyone finds this review to be in error, feel free to take it to a good article review.
Congratulations, and thanks for all your hard work. Pursey Talk | Contribs 11:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me: I don’t see why this article claims, the militia was called out ‘in support of’ the striking miners. What I read below in the text says: the militia was called, by the sheriff, to restore order, especially after miners captured sheriff’s deputies.
This claim ( 'in support of') is also made in the article ‘History of Colorado’ and should be removed there too, if concluded incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corriebertus (talk • contribs) 14:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)  Corriebertus (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC) sorry I first forgot my tildes
Allright: the militia is called in a second time, May/June 1894, and this time to protect miners and citizens from the mineowners... Corriebertus (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, this struck me as odd too—if the Guard was just called in to act as a buffer between both sides, then it's not the only example of that... see the Flint Sit-Down Strike. --140.247.241.237 (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cripple Creek miners' strike of 1894. 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/20061006143435/http://www.kued.org/productions/fire/photos_stories/showdown.html to http://kued.org/productions/fire/photos_stories/showdown.html
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) 05:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The intro table says "federal troops" but the article at one point says"state troops". Elsewhere it refers to the "state militia, the predecessor to the Colorado National Guard". Forgive me for being confused. Can anyone clarify? Seananony (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed so I took a look and noticed uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. Some of these have been tagged with "citation needed" templates that date from 2021 or 2019, and even a citation needed template in a reference from 2016 (which I have never seen before.) Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)