Talk:Warren Grimm

message: Note to others — there is a recent history of edit warring behind these comments. That is the reason that simply editing the article doesn't appear to be a solution, at least not until the parties to the edit war can engage in some discussion. This represents an attempt to begin such a discussion.
Panther1991, it appears to me that you've written an interesting article about a  very brave man, but it has some significant errors. The article omits information necessary to understanding what happened when it declares:
With the Legionnaires paused in front of the Roderick Hotel, Grimm gave the command to “Halt… Close Up.” At that instant, shots broke out. 
This appears to deliberately accept the abbreviated and sensationalist account of Stewart Holbrook, who also states, 
What happened in the next split second has been hopelessly in dispute for the past twenty-nine years.
http://www.workerseducation.org/crutch/others/true.html 
You will note that i believe you also edit under 65.6.152.232, and that you have extrapolated your imagined sequence of events to the point where [you've written], 
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. [emphasis added]
This adds much to even the Holbrook account; he never made these statements. Where did they come from?
Holbrook was a popular writer (not a historian) who obviously did not have access to the research of historians. Otherwise, why would he believe that what happened was in dispute? When your source admits he doesn't know what happened, it is prudent to seek other sources!
But you've also cited just such a source that does report what happened, from the University of Washington Libraries:
During the parade, not unexpectedly, the Centralia Legionnaires slowed to leave a gap between their group and the Chehalis group ahead of them. The Centralia group stopped in front of the I.W.W. hall, and a subset of the Centralia group left the main group, ran to the I.W.W. hall, and forced the door open. Much to their surprise, they were met by gunfire. There is little doubt, from later testimony, most notably that of Dr. Frank Bickford who admitted leading the raid, that the Legionnaires initiated the conflict. [emphasis added]
http://content.lib.washington.edu/iwwweb/read.html
But this isn't the only writer who quotes Dr. Bickford. 
There is this:
...an Associated Press dispatch from Centralia, Washington, mentioning, quite casually and incidentally, that Dr. Frank Bickford, one of the marchers, testified at the coroner's inquest that "the former soldiers attacked the I.W.W. hall before any shots were fired." 
http://www.teleread.org/brasscheckfull.htm
In the book Lumber and Labor by Vernon Horton Jensen, the author states, 
Dr. Frank Bickford... [said] the door of the I.W.W. was kicked open before the shooting from inside began.
(I'd be happy to provide more references, if you want additional sources...)
You ignore the specificity of the history that you yourself have cited, in order to project your own biases into the article. You'd rather leave Wikipedia readers without this critical information, because it doesn't conform with your notion that the IWW must have initiated the attack.
If in citing a historian you distort or ignore his statements of fact, at the very least that appears to be a fraudulent practice.  
I'm not interested in engaging in an edit war on this page, one edit war is enough. But i would like to discuss what appears to be this intentional misrepresentation of the very source this article cites. 
For others, there is more information on this and related articles/editing issues at:
Talk:Centralia_Massacre_%28Washington%29#First_Step_in_a_Dispute_Resolution_Process
best wishes, Richard Myers 04:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Early comments

message: Phi Alpha Theta buff 17:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grimm page vs. Centralia Page 

message: Phi Alpha Theta buff 21:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uploading Pictures 

message: Welcome to Wikipedia to both of you. 
Lets try to get you up to speed on some Wikipedia discussion protocols, and some other useful info: 
*It is customary to indicate a response to a previous subject by indenting. Indenting is accomplished by placing a colon in front of the line of text. Indenting twice (two tabs) entails using two colons, etc.
*If you put a space in front of text, you end up with
 this
*It is customary to sign your input at the end. Easiest way to do that is with four tildes ~
*Each title that is created automatically becomes a part of the menu. Therefore, it is helpful to people new to the page to have the titles reflect the content, but it is also best if there are not too many titles.
*You both know how to edit the talk page. Good. Participating on the talk page is very important, it demonstrates that you are part of the community, and therefore interested in improving Wikipedia. 
*One of the most important considerations is how we handle disputes. If someone refuses to interact with the community and continues to edit in a contentious fashion, they may find themselves banned from editing.
*Removing notices (about point of view, need to wikify, etc.) without discussing or explaining that action is an unfriendly action, and could be used against the person who does so. Different notices have different procedures for resolution and removal. 
*Patience is a plus. I don't always have as much patience as i would like; nonetheless, it helps to remember that there is a community of editors, and there are established processes for resolving different points of view.
*There is a history of everything that you do on Wikipedia. It is easy for anyone to track down every action and every edit. Being respectful and courteous of others' points of view is the best way to insure that no one will be able to build a case for getting your editing privileges suspended.
*It is a very good practice to learn about inline footnotes from the start. That is because they provide the best record of citation, and such notes are difficult to add at a later time. Inline footnotes automatically create bottomnotes in a notes section, if it exists. 
*For legacy reasons, the notes section may be called either "notes" or "references." 
*The footnotes page is here.
*A good place to practice creating footnotes is called the Sandbox; it is here.
*Simply adding references at the bottom of the page is a deprecated practice. The section that is often seen there is better used as a bibliography than as specific citations.
*Normally, discussion on a talk page (such as this one) should be about the article — how to improve it, etc. But it is also possible to move unrelated discussion from a talk page to an archive file. So for now, discussion not relating to the article on this page is fine. Good to be careful about that on other pages, however.
*When you do edting but are not logged in (i.e., when you have momentarily forgotten your password... ;-) your edits will reflect your IP address rather than your login ID. These two modes of editing are considered equivalent for many purposes on Wikipedia. In practice, however, it is always more friendly to do edits logged in as yourself. That allows other editors to contact you with greater certainty; it is also important to fostering a sense of community with Wikipedians who share similar interests.
I hope these tips have been helpful. I'm glad that you've joined the Wikipedia community, and look forward to working on these articles with you to make Wikipedia a reliable resource for readers. Richard Myers 23:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Welcome to Wikipedia

message: Phi Alpha Theta buff 10:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Starting Updates

message: The article is somewhat improved, but appears to still be biased. 
Bias can also be introduced through omission, or down-playing of the history that doesn't appear to serve one's point of view. For example, consider this excerpt:
:"The hall was looted in 1918 during a Red Cross parade, allegedly at the hands of the local lumber companies."
"Looting" is a totally inadequate description of what happened. It was an ATTACK.
It would have been in keeping with IWW philosophy to suggest that the lumber companies were ultimately behind this attack. But identifying only the lumber companies in this Wikipedia article serves to shield the community from any responsibility. And indeed, it appears that we know more precisely who committed the attack. This is from the Washington State Historical Society:
: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.
Beatings, burning, destruction of records, destruction of furniture, theft of property, kidnapping, expulsion. How can anyone consider "looting" a fair description of this brutality? 
Also, consider that the Centralia Home Guard and the Elks were not the alleged "local lumber companies." They most probably included "pillars" of the community, and probably either were connected with, or had close ties to the authorities.
Now, if this more complete history is considered, it would seem that the IWW members simply found it necessary to take up arms to defend their union hall, and possibly to protect their very lives from another, expected, illegal attack. 
That makes it self-defense, in a community where the authorities cannot be appealed to for protection, for those very authorities may have sanctioned or ignored the previous, life-threatening attack.
What is the precise history? I cannot say, because i haven't yet studied this massacre thoroughly. 
But the difference between what is here in the Warren Grimm article, and what has been published by the Washington State Historical Society, is quite stark. 
If the account of the Washington State Historical Society is even partially true, then that puts everything that followed under a very different light.
The actual events may be open to interpretation, or dispute. But it could be argued that Warren Grimm died at least in part, resulting from events resulting from the bias and evil intentions of some in the community who sought to illegally attack individuals who, finally, decided to stand up and defend themselves. 
Was Warren Grimm sympathetic to those who attacked the union hall, or might he have sought to stop them from committing a rash and dangerous act? As far as i know, the record is unclear. But let us please not place all of the blame on victims who finally decided they'd had enough abuse.
best wishes, Richard Myers 00:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning achieving balance in the historical account 

message: I'm wondering what proof exists that "the enraged IWW was sending death threats to Mrs. Grimm..."
Were these death threats from the national organization? The local organization? From local, known IWW members? From parties who remained anonymous? 
I'd like to see these claims clarified, substantiated, or removed. 
best wishes, Richard Myers 00:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threatening letters 

message: "Assassination", "descended upon Centralia", "spoiling for revenge", "Rifle fire continued to pour into", "a sad conclusion". All of these totally loaded and insinuating phrases should be removed and everything dealing with IWW needs a complete overhaul with a listing of only verifiable facts. Please? We might start by citing from the standard books on the topic none of which are drawn upon as sources for this article. 71.227.135.121 (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Richard Myers (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: The section titled "IWW" is completely unsourced and contains factual errors and biased rhetoric. To avoid this problem and simplify editing by removing redundancy, I suggest scrapping most of this section and the next, and providing a brief summary that outlines the article subject's place in the events but linking to Centralia Massacre (Washington) as the main article. If there's anything that should be moved/added to the main article on this event, then please remember to cite your sources and maintain a WP:NPOV. Djr13 (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  IWW section 

message: This article doesn't make it very clear why the subject is notable. The reason(s) for notability should be plain in the introductory paragraph, but the paragraph lists that he was: a) an "All-American" (shouldn't that be "All-American football player"?) at U of Washington; b) an officer in the Army who served in a particular force; and c) killed in the Centralia Massacre. Which of these is why there is a Wikipedia article about him, and why I might be looking him up? Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for notability? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Warren Grimm. 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/20080725103356/http://www.iww.org/culture/articles/zinn15.shtml to http://www.iww.org/culture/articles/zinn15.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified