Talk:New York City draft riots

message: While the casualties while listed under the aftermath are definitely factually accurate (greater than 100 dead), they seem to be highly underreported compared to estimates given by Asbury in Gangs of New York (1927).  He lists the following "conservative estimates":
-2,000 killed (mostly rioters)
-8,000 wounded
with what I assume are breakdowns of the above totals
-3 police killed and hundreds of police injured
-at least 50 soldiers killed
-18 Negroes lynched and 70 disappeared (probably also lynched)
-more than 100 buildings burned (including two Protestant churches), and 200 looted
-property damages of at about $5,000,000 ($80,000,000 in 2006 dollars) not counting loss of business activity 
-only 20 people convicted with average sentence of 5 years
Asbury may not have been the most unbiased author, but none of the estimates are unreasonable and should be included in the article unless directly contradicted by an author with more reliable sources.  
--Gprimos1 00:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath (Casualties) 

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I made several corrections throughout the article. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a good article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Pass

message: I've found numerous sources which state the 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment was used during the Riots, and their CO was killed. They aren't mentioned in this article. Any idea why? --Daysleeper47 (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment]] 

message: The primary source used here may not be trustworthy, anti Irish sentiment was at an all time high at the time.  A newspaper accusing a commonly scapegoated ethnic group may not be entirely accurate.  Perhaps this should be changed to say "newspapers of the time blamed the Irish"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.241.83 (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: and Mainly does not mean 80%  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.204.47 (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  80% -- and I don't know where that number comes from -- would be accurately described as "mainly" or "mostly" or "predominantly", et al. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rioters Mainly Irish? 

message: A Wish After Midnight by Zetta Elliott portrays the riots in the climax of the story as well.--98.150.18.203 (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional Portrayals 

message: Considering how much work has been done by historians on ethnic and minority history in recent decades, there seems to be an overreliance in this article on dated sources (e.g., 1863, 1899) Current scholarship should be used for more about context, background and interpretation. The New-York Historical Society produced a landmark exhibit on Slavery in NY (2005-2007), including material on the Draft Riots. Parkwells (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Two lists, to make it clear for readers what was used in the article. Parkwells (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate References and Further reading

message: I find this sentence, from the lede, very confusing, particularly since the preceding sentences ends by noting that they occurred during the Civil War. Was not the war "the largest civil insurrection"? Perhaps someone with access to the Foner work cited can explain this but it seems to warrant explication in the text of the article.Czrisher (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The riots were the largest civil insurrection in American history." 

message: One can say that the draft riots broke out when the casualty lists for the Battle of Gettysburg hit the streets. Anger at the loss of so many  was surely the trigger for all the pent up frustration of the New York masses.   The third New York corps, mostly from New York City, was particularly hard hit.  General Sickles had led them, against orders,  to "The Wheat Field" and  "The Peach Orchard"  directly on to the flank of the Confederate army and so was just about wiped out.    He was a New York politico who was known for having shot his wife's lover and gotten away with it.  He would have been up on charges if he had not lost his leg there and so left the army.   The crowds knew all this and the idea of being forced to be cannon fodder sent them in to the streets, where Southern sympathizers  targeted them on to the blacks, who were not subject to the draft at that time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.9.215 (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gettysburg and the draft riots 

message: Both the intro and the "Monday" section of the article includes a claim about "100 black people" killed. In the latter section, the claim is sourced to (Leslie M. Harris, "The New York City Draft Riots", excerpt from In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626-1863, University of Chicago Press, 2003). I checked that source, (which names several of the victims), but no claim of "100 black people" could be found, instead, it says "In all, rioters lynched eleven black men over the five days of mayhem".
I first corrected this from a tablet on which I accidentally hit edit before I could finish the edit comment, with the unfortunate consequence that Parkwells thought I merely miss the source. On second try, Rms125a reverted it with the comment "rv unsourceable (for now) ref", which I don't quite get: the source is already in the article. 188.127.135.58 (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see Rms125a reverted his/her revision, rendering the above obsolete before I finished it :-) 188.127.135.58 (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, no problem. I am always ready to admit when I make a mistake. Although I think it should be noted that while 11 blacks were lynched, obviously more died than that, which is where the 100 number may come in. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: 100 or 11 blacks

message: Blacks were either citizens or they were not. To say that "Black men were excluded from the draft as they were largely not considered citizens" cannot be correct. What people considered was not the point, what the law said was. Blacks were citizens. The fact that they were exempt from the draft was a separate matter.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacks citizens 

message: The New York City draft riots were, for the most influential and emblematic purposes of mankind, the worst race riots in American history. And that is just for starters.shyjayb 04:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: YES IT IS

message: :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: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: New York draft riots →  – per the WP:commonname. It was moved to incorrect title because "New York City did not exist at the time", but New York City, consisting of Manhattan island, was called that since the 1600s.  Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

text: 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.
I just noticed this article move request, which was approved (perhaps unwisely). Given that the name of the article was changed, the article and the infobox need to reflect that. Coretheapple (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 5 January 2017 

message: With the first citation, (from McPherson's Ordeal by Fire) 120 deaths are estimated as "recent research", with initial estimates at the time ("contemporary") being as high as 1200. It is basically a guess. This number does not get a citation itself, we're unsure where this "recent research" has come from. 
The second citation from VNY Draft Riots Aftermath also lists no citations, but claims "The 'official' death toll was listed at 119", but there seems to be no official death toll. This website goes on to say that many estimates from the time were also more than a thousand. 
Howard Zinn in A People's History of the United States says in the 2003 edition "On the fourth day, Union troops returning from the battle of Gettysburg came into the city and stopped the rioting. Perhaps four hundred people were killed. No exact figures have ever been given, but the number of lives lost was greater than in any other incident of domestic violence in American history." He goes on to cite a source (The Great Riots of New York) which describes the event, but also doesn't give a number.
I think it's clear that no number is agreed upon, and giving a "119-120" seems overly authoritative. It should say something like "Around 119-400", or maybe other citations should be found.
TheWerepyreKing (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death-count is Overly Certain and the Citations are Not Great 

message: There was a source showing the inflation adjusted price of the $300 but I felt it was not enough. Altho purchasing power was adjusted it didn't contextualize the cost to the typical person. I included two sources for typical day laborer wages for 1863. I feel both are useful to convey the burden of the cost. 72.28.3.64 (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost 

message: Regarding [who?] in the following sentence:
To prevent other parts of the city being notified of the riot, they[who?] cut telegraph lines.
It seems apparent that "they" refers to the rioters. I propose that "they" be replaced by "rioters" to provide disambiguation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawnvawn (talk • contribs) 21:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who cut the telegraph wires?