Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour/Archive 2

message: Hello everyone. I have noticed that the entry for George Woodcock (trade unionist) looks somewhat neglected. Seeing as the chap is from the same village as me (Bamber Bridge), and went to the same school, I thought that I would have a go over the coming weeks and months to expand upon it. Any one who wishes to help out is most welcome - I am a bit of a newbie and any help is appreciated! Charlie odd 21:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Woodcock 

message: I removed the "older" new articles from before September 2006 on the New Wikipedia articles related to Organized Labour section. Everyone is doing a great job of adding info (most notably Tim1965, Warofdreams and Dave Smith... wow.)
Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 17:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Articles

message: Mayor Joe Serna, Jr. was a key supporter of the UFW in Sacramento, CA for many years. He deserves to be a part of your project. Please place your project tag on his talkpage. Cheers, Ronbo76 04:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for this project's inclusion - [[Joe Serna, Jr.]] 

message: I have made some corrections to the Bill Haywood article. Am finishing his autobiography, about to start another book about him, so hopefully will have some contributions soon.
However, i have an editting dilemma with one particular point. The article states, within a reference, that "The WFM initiated a series of strikes to combat the brutal working conditions and starvation wages." 
I believe this brief treatment leaves an erroneous impression; the strikes were intended to extend the union to new areas (specifically, the mill workers.) The strikers who became the focal point of the repression had been unionized; they were elsewhere-- in the Cripple Creek area; and, they were paid comparatively well. 
Almost invariably, any historical account focuses on these miners, because that's where all the shooting and killing occurred. Thus, while "starvation wages" may be accurate in describing the not-yet-organized mill workers, it is innacurate in describing the miners of Cripple Creek, where their very militant unionism had greatly improved living standards for most of the community. 
This situation is discussed in two other works, in Suggs but also in Jameson, which is considered the definitive account of the strike. 
Since the existing text occurs inside someone else's reference, i'm reluctant to simply make the change. I could use another source to replace this one, but i'm not sure that's the best approach. Anyone have suggestions how to handle situations such as this one? 
Mentioned briefly in Talk:Bill Haywood Richard Myers 20:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that. I'm uneasy about adding text to someone else's referenced sentence, but that wording is pretty non-controversial, in my view. I think it will work. Thanks! Richard Myers 23:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editting Dilemma, Bill Haywood Article 

message: User:Richard_Myers/Anna_Lo_Pezza Someone deleted this brand new article relating to the Bread and Roses strike in Lawrence because the individual wasn't notable. Currently under deletion review. Please see what YOU think — and let me know... Richard Myers 11:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Result of Deletion Review process — article returned to previous status, moved to corrected name: Anna LoPizzo. Thanks to everyone who supported preserving this labor history. Richard Myers 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anna Lo Pezza article deletion

message: The deletion debate can be found here 
J.R. Hercules 05:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please vote in the [[Anti-globalization and antisemitism]] article deletion debate

message: Violence in industrial disputes offers examples of unions committing violence, yet without any citations or links. The article attempts to offer a balance on the question of violence in industrial disputes, yet fails to provide the rigorous documentation that is necessary for such a topic. 
The article hasn't been edited very much recently, so these problems are probably long-standing. It would be great if someone could find the time to adopt this article and do it justice. 
I think that a section on the history of violence in industrial disputes would also be a valuable addition. Richard Myers 08:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article: Violence in industrial disputes 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 3#Category:Labor leaders, a proposed renaming. — coelacan — 20:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: related CFR

message: For anyone who missed the notice at 'New labour articles', Haus42 has started building the Labour Portal. It's at User:Haus42/Organized Labour right now and it looks great, but Haus42 is looking for input and ideas as well. Have a look. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 18:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback!  I moved the portal to Portal:Organized Labour last night.  There's also a doodad for "See also" sections  which can be used like this.  Cheeers. Haus42 12:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Labour Portal

message: An article that i've just re-worked has been tagged as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management. 
Are there any organized labor editors involved with this project? Anyone have a sense of the likely impact of this project on articles in our project? And are they really concerned with "managing," resolving, or evaluating labor/management battles that occurred more than a century ago? ;-)
I know, i know, it probably has to do with managing the articles about such "disasters"... but i'm still just a little curious about what the impact will be, since i don't find anything about labor struggles on the linked page...
Oh... Could they have tagged this article because of the sentence, 
The response to that violence, disastrous for the local miners' union, became the primary motivation for the formation of the Western Federation of Miners (WFM) the following year.
???  Hmmmm.... Richard Myers 22:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the late reply. I suspect it was a categorisation issue. Follow the category tree up and you find your article under :Category:Violent incidents in the United States - and it probably gets into the :Category:Disasters tree that way. I agree, it shouldn't be in the scope of the WP-Disasters  - sorry about that. Carcharoth 15:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Disaster Management" of labor struggles? 

message: My mom and dad are both active in the teacher's union so I'm going to try and make some edits to some unions and union leaders. My question is -- do we have a specific info box for leaders or should i just use a basic box? It's also the first time i've tried to add a infobox anywhere. If anyone can please look at Albert Shanker and tell me if i did the right thing. MrMacMan 00:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi MrMac.  It's .  It's in use a million places, off the top of my head: Sailor's Union of the Pacific is an example.  Good luck. Haus42 00:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My bust -- the fact that you were doing a bio didn't sink in.  The one you used looks dandy.  Haus42 00:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Um... any advice about the edits i'm going to make about teacher union leaders and their unions specifically... for example the New York State United Teachers is horrible. No sources... tons and tons of broken wiki-links... United Federation of Teachers has 1 reference... about criticisms against the organization...  and somehow the AFT article got a B rating... even tho it looks like a huge block of text and has tons of broken wiki links. BTW, thanks for getting back to me so fast. MrMacMan 01:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Broken Wiki links aren't bad.  They just show that an organization, date, event or person is important.  I find them to be a useful guide in fleshing out Wikipedia (especially when it comes to labor union history and organizations). - Tim1965 17:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops... I just shot myself in the foot... you commented on AFT article i just mentioned about over Talk:American_Federation_of_Teachers/Comments... sorry for questioning your judgement. MrMacMan 02:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: My pleasure.  I took a quick look at AFT and left some comments on the AFT discussion /comment page. Haus42 02:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: seems like i commented at the same time as you.. thanks for the input. MrMacMan 02:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: hehe, yeah I saw your great work in the history section of the articles. Your doing great work. Hopefully my contacts to some of these organizations can provide some useful resources to review and mention. MrMacMan Talk  18:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had the cash or a good library nearby, I'd check out these books which are good AFT resources:  William Eaton's "American Federation of Teachers, 1916-1961"; Philip Taft's "United They Teach: The Story of the UFT"; Robert Braun's "Teachers and Power" (fairly anti-union, but lots of good factual stuff); Dave Selden's "The Teacher Rebellion" (awfully self-serving, but really detailed); and Steve Golin's "The Newark Teacher Strikes."  Jerald Podair's "The Strike That Changed New York" and Jane Anna Gordon's "Why They Couldn't Wait" are excellent on the Ocean Hill-Brownsville strike.  Sadly, I don't think there's anything on the AFT post-1970.  When I tried writing articles on the United Teachers of New Orleans, the Florida Education Association and the Florida statewide teachers' strike of 1968, I couldn't find anything!  I had to scrape around for stuff in the D.C. public library for weeks.  There's almost nothing on the AFT affiliates, outside of the UFT.  (Not even about the Chicago local.  Go figure.) - Tim1965 00:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  specific labour related infobox? 

message: I have been developing two related articles — Labor spies, and a re-worked Union busting. These two articles have much in common. Both are quite large, so there's no prospect of combining them.
For many purposes, the two concepts are closely related. The same consulting agencies that bust unions are likely to employ labor spies.
The issues at hand: 
* Labor spies has a tag calling for more of a worldwide view. I do not disagree. But the solution to this problem is a bit tricky. Professor Robert Michael Smith has stated:   
:In no other country has the struggle between management and its employees engendered a contingent of mercenaries who specialized in breaking strikes. [From Blackjacks To Briefcases — A History of Commercialized Strikebreaking and Unionbusting in the United States, 2003, page xiv]
:John Logan, a labor expert at the London School of Economics, observes:
:...large union avoidance firms [in the U.S.] are increasingly seeking export markets for their expertise...
:Several union avoidance firms operate internationally, but only in the US has this industry developed into a multimillion-dollar concern that operates throughout the country and in every sector of the economy. And only in the US do employers, policy makers and (to a lesser extent) the general public consider the activities of union avoidance experts a legitimate part of mainstream industrial relations.
:[One union avoidance firm] has established an international division... which operates in Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, United Kingdom, Belgium, France and Germany. It tells clients that [the international division] enjoys an international reputation for ‘eliminating union incursions.’ In recent years, [the firm] has conducted several campaigns in the UK, including those at T-Mobile, Amazon.co.uk, Virgin Atlantic, Honeywell, GE Caledonian, Eaton Corporation, Calor Gas and Silberline Ltd. In all of its campaigns, [the firm] prefers to operate ‘beneath the radar’... [The Union Avoidance Industry in the United States, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, December 2006, pages 651–675.]
:Now, someone has proposed either internationalizing the article with additional content, or changing it to (something like) Labor spies in the U.S. 
:I'm seeking comment on which is the more appropriate option. Certainly with globalization, the international dimension is likely to provide new source material. But everything seems to point to these still being U.S. corporations operating in other countries. 
:If someone can make an argument either for a U.S. specific article, or for leaving Labor spies open to internationalization, please weigh in. I'd like to get that tag removed (one reader has actually sent email to me complaining about it) but for right now, it still does apply.
Some other issues relating to these articles:
* The final section on current union busting activities needs to be expanded. Anyone with current info to contribute, please do so.
* I'm thinking that Labor Spy Agencies may be more appropriate in, or connected with, the union busting topic. Or maybe a separate article would be best, with links from Labor spies and Union busting. In any case the section needs much more input, especially with current data.
* A comparison with the strike breaking section of Strike action would also be appropriate, with some thought about how Strike action and Union busting work together.
Comments/feedback invited on any/all of the above.
best wishes, Richard Myers 07:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Union busting and Labor spies articles 

message: As you may be aware, the Center for Union Facts is an anti-union website operated by major corporations. 
Someone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.122.95.100
...has been adding this anti-union website as a link to a significant number of organized labor pages on Wikipedia.
Richard Myers 20:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put a  tag on the anon talk page. Hopefully it's just someone who is unfamiliar with WP. --Bookandcoffee 21:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack on all union pages 

message: I think it would be interesting, and for some purposes useful, to have a polling capability for organized labor issues. I personally think it wouldn't be too "gimmicky" for Wikipedia as long as it isn't used too much for fluff type purposes.
I have some ideas for specific uses. For example, which article is a better destination for links referring to strike breaking — Strike action, or Union busting? This would be a useful, rather than a fun, question, and i'd like to see what people think about it, to help determine where such links could best be directed. But educational or fun questions would be good too.
Certainly, asking for comments is a mature way to ascertain the community's sense on such questions. However, in my experience we're limited in where we can ask such questions, and we often don't get much feedback. 
If we had a simple polling interface, we could include more popular, trivia type questions — on the same level as DYK; and, put the interface in appropriate places — like on the web pages where it might be relevant.
And if polling was possible through a sleek interface, there could be a selection process for polling questions, invitation for additional questions... 
I don't know if the framework for this exists on Wikipedia, but it seems like something similar is pretty common on a lot of sites.
Just an idea... — Richard Myers 08:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. An interesting idea. I wonder what the reaction would be, as there are strong opinions about polls here on things like  and . You would certainly get a response if you brought this up at the WP:Village pump, but I don't know if it would be a positive response, or a not so positive response. :)--Bookandcoffee 08:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For whatever reason I imagine that people who be against the use of 'polling'. I believe that for something like you mentioned - a short and specific question -- i believe its perfectly fine, but I don't believe wiki uses polling much. MrMacMan Talk  09:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea -- develop a polling capability 

message: Correct me if I'm wrong but the wikiportal and wikiproject are effectively the same thing, right? I mean it seems like some stuff is just... broken tasks seems very broken... the top part of the page is broken/nonfunctioning... and I believe the bottom is the entire wikiproject page.  And at somepoint I'm going to get around to making the articles i want better than they are. MrMacMan Talk  10:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kind of, but not exactly.  A copy of the project page is transcluded into the "Tasks" tab of the portal.  The recent redesign of the project page threw a monkey-wrench into the transclusion, but I think I've sorted it all out.  If there are remaining concerns, please advise.  Cheers. HausTalk 12:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiPortal same as WikiProject? 

message: This page (Solidarity union) was started today as "a new union in Aotearoa / New Zealand, founded in August 2006". But it looks a lot like a blog to me. Does anyone know anything about it? I'm afraid I don't know enough to say. I don't have a problem if it's small, but the contact names are Joe and Grant (first names only) and all the info links are to other blog pages... Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 15:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At first glance, I thought it was bogus.  But it's registered.  It looks like there's an IWW connection, but I'm not sure.  Cheers. HausTalk 16:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, thanks.--Bookandcoffee 16:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Solidarity union]]

message: Special:Contributions/151.200.188.147 has added this to a few websites, including some labor/union related sites:
* National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights: opposition group to Davis Bacon Law
I've removed the link from Trade union. 
Some of the others are questionable.
Need to watch this for spamming, seems activity has stopped after five or so edits.
I need to leave for a few hours, haven't issued any sort of warning.
I think its interesting how they declare themselves for employers and for workers, but they are purely anti-union. It is purely propaganda. Richard Myers 21:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They've been warned on some topics, such as :Right-to-work laws; they've violated the 3RR, but done some of them under IP addresses and some under account names, to cover it up. --Orange Mike 23:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: NRTW added criticisms to the article on "Kate Bronfenbrenner" some time ago, but the criticisms were borderline legitimate and so could not be removed.  (Although the criticism is so ludicrous that it really make NRTW seem like a bunch of high school freshmen who've taken one stats class.) - Tim1965 14:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spamming from another employer-funded anti-union website? 

message: anyone from the organised labour project going? Goldsztajn 00:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimania 2007 

message: I left this alone. There are stacks of different legislation, true, but it seems to me that many countries can point to one or two pieces that are understood as "primary". However, I'm talking from a pretty small base of knowledge, so I could just be full of it. :)--Bookandcoffee 18:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary trade union legislation

message: Looking at Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees got me thinking. There is a  structure that links up to  and down to  - should there be a similar setup for law? Say  linking up to  and down to . We would want to run it by the WP:LAW people, but would this be useful?--Bookandcoffee 23:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so, absolutely.  I've written a few articles that would fall into the intersection of  and .  Cheers.  HausTalk 23:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted a small note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#Labour law category for comments.--Bookandcoffee 14:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Labour law category?

message: Outriggr has been kind enough to add this project to his article rating script. It's a tool that facilitates rating articles on the assessment scale. If you're interested you can find details at User talk:Outriggr/metadatatest.js.--Bookandcoffee 05:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article rating script

message: User:Tim1965 just tagged Hanapepe massacre. If WikiProject Organized Labour has any interest in collaborating on Hanapepe massacre (or Pablo Manlapit) with WikiProject Hawaii, drop us a line, here. —Viriditas | Talk 02:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hanapepe massacre 

message: (x-posted from Portal_talk:Organized_Labour) I think we've tweaked and prodded and poked until we've put together a pretty nice portal.  I'm getting an itch to submit the portal to the peer review process, but there are a few things we should probably fix up first.  Here are the items that come to my mind:
# Topics is weak
# I'm still not thrilled with the header.
# I think the featured pictures should be formatted more like the pictures in the featured quote.  It'd be useful if we could figure out a way to standardize their sizes, too.
# On just a brief glance, the "categories" and "tasks and projects" look ok, but there might be some lurking problems.
# A couple of good reads through the portal guidelines would probably be useful.
What do you think needs to be done before we go to peer review?  Cheers. HausTalk 01:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towards a featured portal... 

message: The labor spies article represents a significant amount of work. I took about four days off from Wikipedia, returning to discover that it was about to be deleted based upon the five day deletion template added by User:Tommythegun, an individual who also edits white supremacist articles, gun articles, Marine Corps articles and Special Operations Forces articles. 
Fortunately, fellow editor User:DGG deleted the template (followed guidelines in doing so), suggesting that any POV in the article could be dealt with via editing.
But Tommythegun violated the terms of the template which state:
:You may remove this [deletion] message if you... object to deletion of the article for any reason... If this template is removed, it should not be replaced. (emphasis added)
Tommythegun re-installed the template. 
I took it out again, but i won't be surprised if it is added in again. 
If you agree with me that this article is a significant contribution, then i'm asking you to please put labor spies on your watch list, and help insure that it is not deleted. 
(As far as editing for POV: well, i've combed twenty or so sources looking for examples of unions spying on companies, and have found only two or three examples. But new information that helps to balance the article would be welcomed. I'm just not certain that much of it exists.)
:Side note: Tommythegun suggested an alternative to deletion, which was merging the Labor Spies article with union busting. However, these two articles are already 94K and 93K respectively. The merge idea is not a good idea either.
Thanks everyone, Richard Myers 07:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed: please watch Labor Spies 

message: You may have recently noticed BetacommandBot taging trade union logos and images with deletion warnings. Apparently there is an effort being made to ensure that "non-free" images such as logos include a Fair use rationale in the description text. There is a bit of a conversation about the usefulness of this activity over at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. If you are wondering what text to put in the description, Dave Smith has written an excellent blurb that you might find helpful using the . You can see a copy of it on :Image:CCL logo.png. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 16:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Truth is, I've stopped trying to meet Wikipedia's fair-use guidelines. First, they change every few months, which means I have to keep going back to alter the image tags. Second, the rules are so onerous now (e.g., citing an article about the important of a logo in the rationale tags) that it's not worth the trouble. Most images or historic photographs (and labor images are often nothing but historic photographs) are like pornography: "I know it when I see it." It's not like authors go around saying "XYZ photo is historic". Third, the value added to an article by the images (whether a logo or photograph) is often so minor that it is outweighed the hoops I'm forced to jump through in order to add the image. Personally, I can't see how the vast majority of images on Wikipedia are going to survive this, unless taken by a Wikipedian for the express purpose of illustrating an article. (And from a labor perspective, I don't want photographers donating their time, energy, talent and resources to a corporation for free.) It's too bad, too. - Tim1965 19:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo deletion by BetacommandBot

message: Wow!  The Cripple Creek miners' strike of 1894 made the "On This Day" feature on the front page of Wikipedia for June 6.  Pretty cool!  - Tim1965 00:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "On This Day"

message: This isn't a page that i've contributed much to: Centralia Massacre (Washington) However, it is an article in which i'm interested. 
What is the actual history of the Centralia Massacre? 
Please read this excerpt from an account at the Washington State Historical Society website:
In May of the year that would see the end of World War I, members of the Centralia Home Guard and Elks marched in a parade to raise money for the Red Cross. The marchers broke ranks in front of the IWW hall and raided it, throwing furniture, records and Wobbly literature into the street and setting it on fire. A desk and phonograph from the hall were auctioned off and the money donated to the Red Cross. The men inside the hall were "lifted by their ears" into a truck, driven out of town where they were forced to run the gauntlet while being beaten with sticks and ax handles.
At a meeting of the Centralia Protective Association in October 1919, a vigilante threat had been made "to handle the Wobblies [the] way they did in Aberdeen. Clean 'em up; burn 'em out." By the first week of November rumors about an intended raid during the Armistice Day parade were an open secret. The Wobblies were very aware of what they could expect based on past experience. This time the IWW members sought legal advice from their attorney, Elmer Smith, and were told that they had the right to defend themselves and the hall. It was the legionnaires who were surprised when the Wobblies did just that. The hostility that had been seething for years between the businessmen, the American Legion and the IWW came to its flash point during the parade. Years of smoldering anger on both sides now became a class war.
All of the marchers had passed the IWW hall except for the Centralia contingent; as they moved ahead to close the gap, the command of "Halt!" was given in front of the hall. The sounds of a door being kicked in were mixed with glass breaking and shots being fired. The hall was raided; the Wobblies defended their hall, and two legionnaires were killed. When Wesley Everest who was was armed and inside the IWW hall tried to make his escape, he shot two of the men who were pursuing him. Now there were four legionnaires dead. The need to exact instant retribution overcame the survivors; Everest was captured and almost hanged before he was taken to jail. That night the power was cut off in Centralia and Everest was taken from the jail there to a bridge over the Chehalis River and hanged.
http://www.wshs.org/wshs/columbia/articles/0399-a2.htm
Now please read what an anonymous poster keeps putting into this article:
The clash was initiated when IWW snipers, perched on rooftops, fired into American Legion troops who had paused to reform ranks while on parade. This attack resulted the shooting deaths of four Legionnaires, the wounded of at least a dozen more, and the subsequent storming of the Wobblie Hall by the remaining Legionnaires. The Legionnaires, though initially unarmed, were able capture a number of IWW members and turn them over to local authorities. These IWW members were formally arrested and jailed.
The article could use a rewrite, and desperately needs sourcing. But this anonymous poster is determined to make his version of events (with premeditated murders rather than self-defense, and total innocence on the part of the real attackers, central to his account) the one that sticks.
Assistance in improving and protecting this article would be greatly appreciated. Please, at the very least, put it on your watch list, and consider how far this individual's bogus history diverges from the account offered by the state historical society. Richard Myers 09:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another (new) editor has reworked the article, in an attempt to incorporate different points of view. It is not too bad. Don't yet know if the edit war is over with. Richard Myers 09:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting development in the editing war over the Centralia Massacre article. Discussion on the talk page for Warren Grimm, here, reveals what i had strongly suspected, the edit war was by parties very close to those involved in the history. Perhaps cooler heads have prevailed, at least for now. Still some fixes necessary to these articles, but things look better today than they did yesterday. best wishes, Richard Myers 22:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centralia Massacre (Washington)