Talk:Great Railroad Strike of 1877

message: The "economic downturn" in Economic Conditions in the 1870's is clearly referencing the Long Depression, but that article needs work. I feel it should be a piped link, but hesitate to do so until the target article is improved. Thoughts? KillerChihuahua?!? 01:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That article needs serious help.  It should really be tagged as an article in need of improvement/cleanup.  I could note the reference to Long Depression itself (not the article) without piping it, or, if the article is tagged, I could pipe it.  I'm open for suggestions.  Jim62sch 10:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagged. You could alwasy fixityourself. :D KillerChihuahua?!? 13:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I will (I have to dredge up an old (1940) world history book I have, and one of my poli-sci text books).  Next I'm doing a disambig on "Glaucon", then the stubs (with one eventually being a real article).  But, I have a long weekend coming up, so why not.  Jim62sch 17:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I forgot about Mangasarian.  Jim62sch 00:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economic downturn

message: Should have a brief mention about the riots in the Coal Region (notably in Shamokin).  Also Reading; cf. Franklin B. Gowen (but nothing there, either).  Billbrock 07:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coal Region 

message: Just a note that many of the ref links don't work. Maybe someone could update them, or find the original links on the Internet Archive? bobanny 21:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: The article gives very vague descriptions of the workers' reasons for striking. Moreover, it...well just have a look at the causes and strike sections; judge for yourself. It makes the workers sound like unorganized mobs, and with questionable motives. If this is so, DISCUSS THIS! Don't just weaslingly imply it..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.236.67 (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More biased than a high school textbook... 

message: Is important to know the number of wounded and killed workers during the strike  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.164.52.89 (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Just seconding this - the infobox says "Deaths: 20" but more people than that died if you add up the deaths listed in each city. Quite unclear. I'm going to remove the unsourced data from the infobox for now. Sweet kate (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Accurate data

message: I came across this while trying to edit the very problematic entry for Archbishop Purcell of Cincinnati, who died under a cloud six years after this strike and five years after his brother was accused of mismanaging monies of a quasi-bank supposedly established after the Civil War or Panic of 1873 because parishioners feared the risks taken by local banks. Since Cincinnati has railroads, and a history of unrest relating to its large German population (many of them Catholic and vigorously defended by this same bishop before the Civil War), I wondered exactly what the link between the financial events could be. However, I don't have time (given my other responsibilities) to visit a library to find out.13:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cincinnati, Ohio? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Great Railroad Strike of 1877. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151022102337/http://socialistappeal.org/uslaborhistory/great_railroad_strike_of_1877.htm to http://www.socialistappeal.org/uslaborhistory/great_railroad_strike_of_1877.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm going ahead and starting this conversation in case there's not much interest and it takes a while, or an RfC to reach any sort of consensus. Currently I count six articles that that are really sub-articles of this one:
* Baltimore railroad strike of 1877
* Pittsburgh Railway Riots
* Reading Railroad massacre
* 1877 Saint Louis general strike
* Scranton General Strike
* 1877 Shamokin uprising
So there's a wide variety of naming used, and it seems to make sense to see if they can be standardized at all. We have riots, strikes, massacres, and general strikes. The Baltimore and Pittsburgh articles were created by me, and the names were chosen with no purpose other than to create a space to write the articles. The Scranton article actually had an RfC about the name, and I was probably the single largest opponent of the change. Even so, it was a fairly weak argument either way. 
My main opposition to the Scranton name change was that it was a distraction and otherwise relatively unimportant. However, since, I've created the last two articles, and fully intend to create the next half dozen or so more as needed, there is a risk that any naming convention I choose more-or-less at random, might become an argument for adopting that standard for no real reason. 
My inclination, on articles that don't have a clear WP:COMMONNAME rationale, is simply to adopt an adaptation of the main article name: CITY railroad strike of 1877. This is what I've done with the Baltimore article. Consensus would have to be reached in cases where there is a moderate or strong COMMONNAME argument to be made. Thoughts and suggestions welcome. TimothyJosephWood 21:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming convention for sub articles 

message: Moving this content to talk since it is almost entirely referenced and likely contains significant OR. TimothyJosephWood 13:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laying blame 

message: Hello  and any other interested editors -- I've just requested page protection to counter the persistent minor vandalism here -- Green, thank you for keeping after this.  --Lockley. (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem at all Lockley. Thanks for your help. The more the merrier. Obviously the long term solution here is to get this article to FA, so it'll be on like 500 people's watchlist :P. GMGtalk 18:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: well, protection was declined (shrug) but I'll keep an eye here.  best  --Lockley (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: The page was moved unilaterally yesterday. I came here to read discussion on the consensus for the move and found none. I advocate that it be moved back. The historic reference is “Great Railroad Strike of 1877.” Jeff in CA (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is consensus for the page move? 

message: I'm noting there's language in the article that might reflect bias. EG, "The local population feared workers would . . ." The local population is comprised of workers so the statement doesn't make sense. More specificity would fix this. EG, what population? Was it newspaper editors? Was it business owners? A source would also help on this, as there is presently none for the claim.
"Defensive buildings still stand" Why are we describing buildings that would have been utilized to violently suppress strikes and other forms of domestic resistance as defensive? Wouldn't it make more sense to describe them as oppressive as the goal was not to defend against something external but to oppress resistance? More neutral language would be to remove the word defensive as it implies bias against the workers. SocialCM (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources or more neutral terminology would be extremely important since things like this aren't taught in school. 2804:D59:8724:2E00:D119:D6D2:FE5C:438A (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page bias? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Public-historian-90 (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: HIST 121 - U.S. History since 1877

message: We added a sentence to the lead. We redid the introduction to the strike paragraph. Added to the strike ends paragraph. We also added a general effects paragraph. JSL22 (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outline for contributions for this article.