Talk:Centralia massacre (Washington)

Untitled

I wrote the original article on this, not because I am an expert, but because there was no article. It was my first for Wik. And I see that the first edit by someone else was a nice job. The reminisces I added were without names, because this is still a sensitive topic in this area. When all parties have died I may consider adding names, or at least more details.

You did a fine job. I think that someone sould also do a piece on Wesley Everest as well.

Quotation of Dos Passos corrected

The quotation of the passage of John Dos Passos describing Grimm's character was wrong and with twisted meaning. Dos Passos does not view Grimm sympathetically as it was in the article before. The passage on a section of 1919 (the second book of the USA trilogy) reads: "A young man of good family and pleasant manners, Warren O. Grimm, had been an officer with the American force in Siberia; that made him an authority on labor and Bolsheviks, so he was chosen by the businessemen to lead the hundred per cent forces in the Citizens' Protective League to put the fear of god into Paul Bunyan". This section of the book called "Paul Bunyan" is a praise of Wesley Everest who is equated in the text to the mythical character of the title, and is very sympathetic towards the I.W:W. and takes a very ironic and cynical view regarding the other side.

(it is the first time i edit an article on wikipedia, so apologies for any inadverted breach of etiquette) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.130.71.187 (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Just questioning some of the facts

I checked the link provided in the article (http://content.lib.washington.edu/iwwweb/read.html) which gives a somewhat different view than the article itself. Also, this incident has been discussed in at least three history classes I've taken at a university in Washington State and the viewpoint has been quite a bit different, and has been perhaps just a bit less slanted towards the American Legion's viewpoint. I'd be interested in seeing this article edited by a historian who might have a slightly different viewpoint than the current one expressed, perhaps a viewpoint a bit more distant or disinterested. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.160.163.50 (talk • contribs) .

This is my first time on Wikipedia so I'm not familiar with how this works. I was very happy to see an article on the Centralia event. There are a number of factual errors, however: 1) Wesley Everest was not castrated 2) Everest was not hung from three separate locations 3) He was not buried in an unmarked grave (I've seen his gravestone - Wobblies met at his gravesite for meetings starting soon after he was buried - There's even a photo of the burial in Chaplin's book) 4) The coroner's report did not list the cause of death as suicide. 5) McElfresh was probably killed by someone from inside the IWW hall, not by someone from Seminary hill. 6) Cassagranda was killed by someone from the Avalon Hotel, not by Everest. 7) Everest did not pistol whip Grimm. 8) Legionnaires were the ones who formed the mob to break into the jail and get Everest, they were not enlisted by the sheriff to protect him.

I am the author of the book The Centralia Tragedy of 1919 published by the U of Washington in 1993.

I would be happy to assist with making these corrections in this article, but I'm not sure how to go about doing so.

Tom Copeland tom(insert "at")redleafinstitute.org —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.173.112.254 (talk • contribs) .

Why the animosity between the IWW and the Legionnaires?

The article doesn't say why the IWW and the Legionnaires were in the adversarial relationship that resulted in the incident. What was the conflict between the two groups? Cla68 20:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It was largely due to the 1919 Red scare. The American Legion was then, as always a patriotic organization of war veterans. The IWW, by contrast has always been a labor union with strongly anti-capitalistic views, which some perceive as anarcho-syndicalist. The lumber companies, which pretty much controlled the local government of Centralia used the veteran's organizations, the Legion, the Elks and others to fight the IWW by stating that the union was in league with the newly formed Communist Party (not really true) and that by fighting the IWW they would be defending Democracy and the american way of life.

In fact, the year 1919 almost ended the IWW. Many of its leaders including Bill Haywood, Emma Goldman* and left the United States to settle in Soviet Russia, though Goldman lived to regret it. Others were arrested and spent time in prison. Still others were lynched by mobs, often spurred on by local governments. And finally, many rank-and-file members abandoned the IWW in favor of the Communist Party which adapted a campaign of more covert operations by infiltrating more mainstream unions in the AFL. Though the IWW did make a comeback in recent years, its membership never exceeded 1000 world wide since the end of WW I. Piercetp 08:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Your explanation is very informative. In fact, if no objection, I think I'll add it almost verbatim to a "background" section in the main article. Cla68 16:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The IWW is an unabashedly anarcho-syndicalist organization in fact as well as perception. It refers to itself as such. This article seemed to me at first reading somewhat slanted towards the Legion's perspective of events, but with a little work could become a reasonable account.

I repaired the link(*) to Emma Goldman, above.

Some corrections.

• • The above reference to Emma leaves an incorrect impression; she was not IWW, although she was sympathetic to the IWW cause.

• • There is a continuing debate within the IWW on whether the organization is anarcho-syndicalist. It is correct to say that it is perceived to be anarcho-syndicalist by some. The union refers to itself as professing (revolutionary) industrial unionism. Most Wobblies do not describe the organization as anarcho-syndicalist, in my view.

• • In 1917-1918 the U.S. government estimated in the trial of the IWW members and leaders that the IWW had 200,000 members at that time. This is probably high. But the organization is believed to have had more than 100,000 in 1917 in the AWO (farm workers industrial union) alone, and also more than 100,000 in 1923, which some have described as the high point of membership. The split followed in 1924, and in 1925 roughly half the membership quit the organization to join the communist party.

• • It is correct to say that the IWW was not in cahoots with the communists. In fact, the union's constitution has prohibited any such arrangement since 1908, when the Socialist Labor Party was essentially expelled from the IWW. However, there were some IWW members who initially believed that the Russian revolution might be a good thing for working people. Except perhaps for Bill Haywood, most of the leadership were skeptical, in my view.

In 1927, the IWW and the American Legion conducted a joint funeral service for coal miners shot down by the state of Colorado in Lafayette, CO. The Legionnaires fired a volley over the grave of WWI veteran Mike Vidovich, and played taps. The difference, i think-- in Colorado, the Legionnaires knew that the miners were simply demanding respect and fair wages in the IWW strike conducted that year. 12,000 miners had walked out state-wide. Richard Myers 07:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

@Piercetp - Emma Goldmann was deported by the US Government, she didn't leave willingly. See "Soviet Ark".

The article incorrectly states that the IWW and the Legion had bad blood for many years prior to the massacre. The American Legion was begun in 1919 so that is factually incorrect. The American Legion was from the start set up to be a militant nationalist organization and was from the start against the IWW and Bolsheviks. Read the Story of the American Legion, Chapter VI. As soon as they were established they raided IWW offices around the country and harassed its members.PaulRaunette (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

That was due to their perception of it as an anti-democratic organization, like the Communists. The Legion later came to see they were not the same, thus the later joint service at Columbine. Many Legionnaries were also union members. 2A00:23C3:E284:900:481D:79C2:96B1:B4C (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Centralia massacre (Missouri)

I want to put up a page on Centralia Massacre (Missouri) about an attack during the Civil War involving Jesse James. In the process I would like to convert the Washington page to Centralia massacre (Washington) and then set up a disambiguation page for Centralia Massacre. Of the two incidents the Missouri incident was probably the bigger of the two. Americasroof 13:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

All done now. Twisted86 09:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I just fixed all the internal links.-- Randall Bart 05:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

If anyone who reads or edits this page lives in the Centralia, WA area and has access to a digital camera, perhaps they might consider taking a picture of the park memorial statue for the killed Legionnaires and of the Elk's mural honoring the Wobblies and then posting the pictures here in this article under a "PD (self made)" license. It would make the article look much better. Cla68 20:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Emma Goldman

This article makes it seem that Emma Goldman settled in the USSR of her own will, when in fact, she was forcibly exiled there by the FBI. Beret 21:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Kind of correct, except that the FBI wasn't created until later. The Department of Justice and Attorney General Palmer was behind the deportation of Emma.PaulRaunette (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

FBI founded 26 July, 1908 2A00:23C3:E284:900:481D:79C2:96B1:B4C (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

About POV in the history of the attack

For the record, i think the history of the attack should be revised, with citations added.

I have undone two edits this past week which made that account much more POV, and much worse.

Contrary to what the anonymous editor has charged in their edit summary, i did not add any POV whatsoever. Rather, in two cases i undid that individual's edits, without changing a word of text beyond that necessary step.

It would be great if someone could find the time to revise, and add sources to the account. Richard Myers 01:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The POV in this article is still horrible, and I took a pass at some of the more obvious problems. IWW members were often locals and had support from other residents, and were not always itinerant even though many were recent immigrants, just as many other townsfolk were recent immigrants. Most worked for local industries such as logging or mining, so claims of widespread unemployment are simply not true, and claims of a town invasion by outside agitators ignore that many Wobblies were not outsiders (though some were, just as many Legionnaires were outsiders from Chehalis and other towns). There's also a lot of IWW background info which doesn't relate directly to the article, and is POV anyway. I boldly deleted it all.

Even with my edits, there's a lot here that is dubious, and IMO the writing style is poor and unencylopedic. I think we would be better served by a briefer account of events, and then separate sections for the different viewpoints over various controversies related to the massacre. But I'm going to settle for just excising the most egregious problems in the article. Llachglin 23:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I made two more edits to continue cleaning up the mess acknowledged in my previous comment. I deleted references to "citizens" as it's not clear if all residents involved in these events were citizens of the US. The term has POV overtones in this context, because many Wobblies were residents but not citizens, and an anti-immigrant sentiment contributed to the hostility from other residents of town, many (but probably not all) of whom were citizens. Also, people are citizens of countries, not towns. People are only residents of towns. Since the status of Wobblies as locals is the heart of the POV I am removing, this is a critical edit.

Also, Armistice Day marks the end of WWI, not allied victory. (The text of the original Armistice Day resolution in Congress can be found at Veterans Day, and "victory" is not mentioned in the resolution.) This is a crucial distinction in an article related to an organization, the American Legion, that has a distinct political view that fits closely with this misrepresentation of the holiday. While Armistice Day was declared in the Allied countries that technically prevailed in the war, the original sentiment was for the end of the war and a commemoration of those who had lost their lives. Similarly, Veterans Day today is a holiday for all veterans, and not a commemoration of victorious US wars or an occasion to menace war opponents who in some cases are veterans themselves. Because attitudes to war were a key area of disagreement between the main groups in the massacre, it is critical that the meaning of the holiday not be misrepresented. Llachglin 00:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The Allies did not ‘technically prevail’, they won. Armistice Day celebrated the end of the war that the Allies won. It was not celebrated in the Central Powers, and it was as much the end of the war for them as for the Allies.

It later became Remembrance Day, a day to recall the fallen in all wars. The victory aspect then faded into the background. In the US, this was a problem, as there was already a Remembrance Day - Memorial Day. That is why it is ‘Veterans Day’ in the US, remembering survivors of all wars, rather than the fallen.

Note that Memorial Day, despite its expanded purpose, still has associations with the Civil War. It is not a celebration of the Northern victory, though. Veterans/Armistice Day, despite its expanded purpose, still has associations with the Allied victory in the Great War.

‘Menace War opponents’?? Some of your opinions seem a little wobbly. 2A00:23C3:E284:900:481D:79C2:96B1:B4C (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

First Step in a Dispute Resolution Process

We have an editing dispute. In accordance with Wikipedia policy, i am going to attempt to resolve this by taking the recommended steps.

My first issue — editor 65.6.152.232, are you also Panther1991? This is an important issue in the resolution of this dispute; the editing history of Warren Grimm suggests that you are the same individual.

Since we haven't yet determined that for certain, i will address myself to 65.6.152.232:

You have edited Warren Grimm, and you have edited Centralia Massacre (Washington). I have concerns about much of the content you've introduced. But for now i'll limit myself to one historical question: who initiated the violence that has come to be called the Centralia Massacre?

One of the changes you've made to Centralia Massacre (Washington), and have re-introduced many times, is the allegation that:

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]

The article Warren Grimm cites a reference,

http://content.lib.washington.edu/iwwweb/read.html

which states,

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]

Since i believe that you, 65.6.152.232, are also Panther1991 (and you can certainly deny this if it is not true!), it appears to me that you have linked to a source in the article Warren Grimm, and deliberately distorted the history through omission of important details by writing in Warren Grimm that,

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 does not square very well with the historical account that you've linked to, does it?

Nor does it agree with other historical accounts. Please read this excerpt from an account of the history at the Washington State Historical Society website. Although there may be some historical differences in focus in different accounts, the following, by its appearance on the WSHS website, would appear to be an acceptable version of the history. Note that this refers to two separate incidents, in subsequent years:

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

In both cases cited in this history, in subsequent years, the violence was initiated by others against the IWW.

Now i have some other questions for you, 65.6.152.232. In making these significant changes, why have you not linked to a source that supports them?

On what grounds did you [remove the totallydisputed notice], without any sort of discussion or procedure?

Why have you not attempted to explain your edits on this talk page?

I have sent you a notice at: User talk:65.6.152.232, and at User talk:Panther1991. Please respond, so that i don't have to take this to dispute resolution without a record of your point of view.

best wishes, Richard Myers 04:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Phi Alpha Theta buff 06:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC) hoping I am doing this correctly.... to Mr. Myers and 65.6.152.232(?).. I have updated the Centralia Massacre article with a significant re-write... (although I left alone sections of the Aftermath which are outside my area of expertise).

Please read all the way through. I have tried to be fair to both sides of the event (IWW & Legion) since I am assuming 65.6.152.232 is affiliated with the Legion..? Likewise, I have tried to highlight the positive side of both Elmer Smith and Warren Grimm and explain Everest's actions at the river.

Mr. Myers, one specific reply for you... Warren Grimm DID apparently say "Halt. Close Up.". A number of sources seem to agree on this, including noted labor historian Stewart Holbrook, newspaper clippings from the actual trial, the offical diaries of the American Legion (yes, a potentially biased source), and a few other minor sources........ WHY he said it, I don't know... although I included a third theory of the sequence of events that I found when I was doing researching for my graduate thesis on this incident.

65.6.152.232, I have some additional comments for you, but since I can't determine anything about you, I don't quite know how to frame them. Simply stated, this incident is extremely inflammatory and I'm sure passions run deep. However, it helps all of us to minimize the adjectives. Please DO respond to this talk.

Peace to all.  :-)

Sincerely, Phi Alpha Theta buff.

(PS. yes, I am a member of Phi Alpha Theta, the National History Honor Society. I was honored back in 1990.)

Centralia Massacre

Phi Alpha Theta buff 06:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC) from Phi Alpha Theta buff

Mr. Myers, assuming this gets to you.. This is my first article post, so I'm still trying to figure out all the ins & outs... including how to include citations.  :-)

Some of the sources I'm trying to put in include:

The Centralia Conspiracy, by Ralph Chapin The Wild Wild Wobblies, by Stewart Holbrook

The personal memoirs of Mrs. Warren Grimm (which i find REALLY REALLY interesting since I saw that Warren Grimm/Panther1991 article you mentioned.. and Grimm was a Husky!) Think I may have to politely edit that sight also!

Interestingly, those memoirs included a picture of Grimm in his miliary uniform and a group picture outside Centralia's town hall that "may" have both Grimm and Elmer Smith in it. I'm trying to figure out how/if I can upload copies of those images.

Various documents from the American Legion library, Univeristy of Washington library, and copies of newspaper clippings from the trial.

Some of my other sources, such as 1919 and the Wobbly Wars have already been mentioned in the article.

Sincerely, Phi Alpha Theta buff

After a quick read, i like it. Responding specifically, i have no quarrel with the words attributed to Warren Grimm. My objection relates to two statements, primarily any claim that the IWW members were unprovoked when they began shooting, which is contradicted by Dr. Bickford's testimony (which was reported by the Associated Press,) and the argument that the Legionnaires were unarmed and innocent victims. They were in a parade right after coming back from a war, and Legionnaires normally carry their guns in parades. Now whether their bullets were in the chambers or in their pockets, i cannot say.

A historical account that i read just a short time ago states that shooting began pretty much simultaneously from both sides. The history from the previous year also strongly suggests that the "innocence" of all those who despised the IWW was unlikely, and they intended for this to be a replay of throwing out the Wobs.

Several accounts of events just prior to the shooting demonstrate that these changes by 65.6.152.232 have been inappropriate, to say the least. Add to that an irritation factor that 65.6.152.232 seems uninterested in Wikipedia rules or process or discussion, and, well... i guess we'll see, since i extended new invitations to have a discussion here.

I welcome the changes, and the introduction of an alternative theory, and consider this a good basis for an excellent article.

Side note, i reject the argument that Stewart Holbrook was a noted labor historian, that he was a labor historian, or that he was a historian. He was, in my view, a popular writer who happened to write about the history of unions. I find his research to be superficial, and his accounts are frequently biased.

I've added a notes section, and hope that we will begin to see some citations.

OK, here are some tips.

• Indent one tab by preceding text with a colon. It is customary to indent when replying, until the columns get narrow, then return to left margin.

• You can send personal messages by writing at the end of someone's talk page. They get a notice of that message.

• Take a look at the text of the citation that i put in. It is inline, right after what is referenced. It appears below automatically.

• I'll post this, then add more.

Phi Alpha Theta buff, welcome to Wikipedia!

best wishes, Richard Myers 07:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If i reply (even to my own message) i can set off the new text by using two colons, which equals two tabs.

Here is the Manual of Style. In particular, there is a link for footnotes on that page, or click here: Footnotes.

Inline footnotes are vitally important in updating articles. The old style with references at the bottom of the page is deprecated.

I'll probably erase these guidelines later, since they don't relate to the article.

All for now, have fun. Richard Myers 07:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Phi Alpha Theta buff 17:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Phi Alpha Theta buff

I printed out the above, Thanks!! Feel free to erase, I've also been checking out some of the tutorials.

I'll concede the "noted labor historian" point on Holbrook and yes, he was a somewhat of a sensationalist (although, compared to the yellow journalism that was occuring at the time... Holbrook was pretty tame). In his defense, although biased, he never did seem to "manufacture" evidence.

I'll crop down his description to say just "historian"... fair??

On a second topic, I've found the discussion of whether or not the Legionnaires were "armed" (and what consitutues being armed) pretty fascinating. As you point out, Legionnaires at that time often did return home with their service rifles. Although having bullets for those rifles is another topic entirely!  :-)

The one aspect that I kept coming back to, though, is the fact that none of the Wobblies were shot (at least from every source I've been able to find). Considering that a gun battle was going on and that many of the Legionnaires were combat veterans, at least one of them should have been able to hit a target! More importantly, with wounded and dead friends around them, I'd expect the Legionnaires to have shot and killed every IWW member that they could get their hands on. Likewise, that one gun Hubbard, et al. did "officially" use (gotta love that term) was a revolver, which was definitely not army issue!

In contrast, charging gunmen with your bare hands and then subduing them definitely ranges from brave to outright foolhardy!!!

The truth is probably somewhere in them middle. I think it's safe to assume that the Legionnaires did have their service rifles, but that they were probaby unloaded and used as clubs (which also fits in with the IWW claim about Everest having his teeth caved in by a rifle butt later that night).

Let me know what you think and I'll tweak the article.

Sincerely,

Phi Alpha Theta buff

I've had more time to spend with the article, and have some suggestions for improvement. Wikipedia does not allow original research in contributions to articles:

Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

There are some passages which sound like original research. For example, the section that begins, "As an interesting historical side note..." Are the references to Grimm and Smith's "personal logs" published anywhere? If that cannot be demonstrated, then those passages are questionable. The conclusions about the personal relationship of the two men, while interesting, may violate Wikipedia policy if it cannot be cited in a secondary source.

Judging these types of issues is much easier if footnotes are included. Some Wikipedians recommend that to attain Good Article status, there should be approximately one footnote per sentence.

Some of the language is not encyclopedic. For example, the paragraph that begins with the words "More menacing..."

Concerning our discussions about content — i have a theory that it can be demonstrated logically that there was an attack on the union hall before the shooting began. I would offer my theory this way — if the IWW simply wanted to shoot to kill, why didn't they attack the Chehalis group, which had already passed the hall? Why did they hold fire until some of their "targets" were already beyond the so-called killing field? My response would be, they believed they had a good argument for vindication if they were defending their hall, and so they waited until the hall was attacked. (Someone could argue that they were targeting particular individuals, but i find that argument entirely unpersuasive.) Now, maybe this is a new theory, or maybe it is published somewhere. According to Wikipedia guidelines, i can only put this type of speculation into the article if it is published somewhere. It could be in a book that i have written myself; it could be in a newspaper article. But if it is only my own idea, or the idea of someone that i know, but it hasn't been published, then it is original research and is not allowed.

Another sentence that isn't encyclopedic: "Regardless of the veracity of these rumors, they began to take on a life of their own, as rumors typically do."

This sounds like the Wikipedia contributor's conclusions. If it isn't published somewhere, it is not allowed. I would argue that interpreting such examples requires judgment, and the editor certainly has some freedom to explain what appears in published sources. However, the examples i've flagged appear to me to cross the line, if they cannot be cited as the opinion of someone from a published source.

Now let us consider ways in which we must be very conscientious not only about facts, but also about our presentation of facts. Consider this paragraph:

According to the IWW, their union members, fearing attack, decided to place men armed with revolvers within their hall. To help prevent a repeat of the 1918 street beatings, additional Wobblies were staked out across the street in the Avalon Hotel, further ahead in an old rooming house, and on the rooftops to gain a good view of the area in front of the hall and provide warning. Likewise, members were stationed on nearby Seminary Hill with a commanding view of the street in front of the Roderick.

This paragraph reports a number of facts:

• armed men in the hall
• men in the hotel
• men on the rooftop
• men on the hill

The paragraph begins, "According to the IWW..." Did the IWW report that they had men in all of these locations? Or is this the opinion of the Legionnaires?

The paragraph appears to attribute facts to an IWW source, yet unless it can be demonstrated that there are published accounts attributing these facts to the IWW, then it appears that the paragraph is stating something which is simply untrue.

Perhaps facts that are persuasively attributed "to the opposition" are less likely to be challenged. But that's not an encyclopedic method of presenting facts; it is, rather, deceptive. Not saying that's what's happening here; i'm just observing that we must be careful about such presentation style. The more intellectual rigor we can achieve in our contributions, the less likely they are to be challenged or deleted.

As the contributing editor, you are familiar with what your sources say. In order to be more confident that your edits survive, it would be worthwhile to provide references for all statements of fact, and also reread the contributions analysing for integrity of the attributions. Otherwise, some other editor may come along and flag your contributions like this, or worse, delete your contributions entirely.

Hope these observations are helpful, best wishes, Richard Myers 19:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes to the article

I have removed the text in italics:

The IWW, by contrast, was and remains today a radical labor union with intense anti-capitalistic views verging on anarcho-syndicalist

The IWW practices, and promotes, revolutionary industrial unionism. There are some who have described this as anarcho-syndicalism. Others (including me) consider these two similar, but distinct, union philosophies. Historically, the difference can be easily demonstrated. The industrial unionism of the IWW had a uniquely American birth, growing out of the experiences in the Colorado Labor Wars, and from union philosophies of men like Bill Haywood and Ed Boyce. While the IWW did organize, and was influenced by, immigrants, the basic philosophy of the IWW was crystallized in 1908, and has remained essentially unchanged since that time. Syndicalism is primarily a European concept.

I have removed the text in italics:

At that time, the national leadership of the IWW also had strong ties to the Bolsheviks and the union was passionately opposed to American involvement in World War I.

This (strong ties to the Bolsheviks) is a false accusation.

• In fact, the IWW promptly began organizing the workers in Russian ports after the Russian revolution, against the wishes of their leaders, the Bolsheviks. Some IWW organizers in Leningrad were killed by the Red Army for doing so.
• From 1908, the IWW constitution has prohibited the organization from forming an alliance with any political party. That includes the Socialists, the Communist Party, or the Democrats.
• The IWW — leadership or membership — never had ANY strong ties to the Bolsheviks whatsoever. Even Bill Haywood, who exiled himself to Russia in poor health and isolation in order to avoid a very long prison sentence (his book records his sentence as 38 years), had no real ties to the Bolsheviks until he was granted an audience with Lenin.
• John Reed tried to establish a tie between the IWW and the Bolsheviks; the Bolshies "ordered" him to tell the IWW to dissolve itself and send all its members to infiltrate the AFL. The IWW told them where to stick it, the IWW had been in existence and organizing for fifteen years and the Bolsheviks were an underground conspiracy until 1917.
• In 1925 about half of the membership of the IWW became disenchanted with a year-old split in the organization, and left. Many of them became communists. That left behind a core who firmly believed, and had been publishing in the Industrial Worker for more than a decade, that the Communist leadership were just another set of bosses.

I have revised:

by this time, the Wobblies were openly supporting the Bolsheviks and union members were being arrested across the country on federal sedition charges.

and changed it to:

The Bolsheviks had come to power in Russia, and many feared that the IWW's intentions were similar. Union members were being arrested across the country on federal sedition charges.

I added some text here:

The rest, allegedly armed with high-powered rifles and stationed in those other buildings, rooftops, and on Seminary Hill, served not as lookouts but as ambushers. Since they could not influence any confrontation within the Hall, these citizens believed, the Wobblies' goal was to create a killing field in the middle of North Tower Street.

Changed this:

The American Legion counters by pointing out the amazing coincidence

to this:

The American Legion counters by pointing out what they believe is the incriminating coincidence

I added this text:

In contrast, IWW memoirs make no mention of this final brutal act, if it in fact occurred.

This concludes the substantive changes that i have made. All the rest are minor spelling or wording changes.

best wishes, Richard Myers 05:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

65.6.152.232 update and Additional Comments

Phi Alpha Theta buff 18:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC) To all: I talked to Panther1992 over the weekend. He wanted to forward apologizes for the juvenile behavior (figuratively and literally) of "65.6.132.232". He has received assurances that this will not happen again and will keep an eye out for future anonymous use of this server.

Mr. Myers, by and large  :-), I really like the changes. Thank you! There are a few points I'd like to clarify, but no additional changes to the most current article itself.

I pulled the anarcho-syndicalism from the earlier posts and, from my admittedly limited understanding, wasn't there a significant French influence on many of the founders back in 1905? However, I'll leave this exclusion to your expertise.

On a simply personal side, I'm curious if you think there was a major difference between the "Chicago going east" and the "West Coast and Rocky Mountains" members of the IWW in the 1905-1923 time frame and if this helped contribute to the 1924/1925 split?

I think a good case can be made supporting ties between the IWW and the Bolsheviks post 1917. I specifically used the wording national leadership and strong ties because I trying to convey the fact that interaction between the two groups did occur at the leadership level and that the some of the "inteligencia" of IWW (please, no offense intended! Is always hard trying to identify a specific subset that isn't always grounded in reality) did strongly agreed with the Bolsheviks on social, economic, and political issues. I was also hoping to separate the actions and speeches of IWW leadership at the national level from the backbone rank and file (hmmm, kinda sounds like the Republican party today)

I did NOT want to imply that the IWW was a lapdop of Bolsheviks and that the union was taking orders from them. I have a feeling those might be considered fighting words! :-0 (Good bullet points, I didn't know about Leningrad.)

Tough call, yes? I'm OK with leaving as is. At some future point, though, I would like to craft a better succinct description (or maybe link to a separate IWW article page with explanations behind arguments for and against?).

Many of the American Legion point-of-view sections come from notes taken when I was doing research (more years back than I'd care to admit) at the American Legion Verna Grimm Memorial Library. It's going to take me a while to get back there and properly footnote and double source some sections. I'll also update the Warren Grimm article.

Nice add to the Everest pistol whipping Hubbard IWW memoirs sentence. I was uncomfortable with how it was hanging out there, but couldn't think of a good closure. Thanks!

Also, http://www.centraliaguide.com/history/photo_detail_2.tpl has some pictures of the Wesley Everest mural. Based on Wikipedia images policy, I'd assume best way to capture is simply add the link?

Enjoying this! Sincerely, Phi Alpha Theta buff

"...wasn't there a significant French influence on many of the founders back in 1905?"

The most significant influence, and impetus, for forming the IWW came from the Western Federation of Miners. One of their centers of power was Cripple Creek, Colorado, until the Colorado Labor Wars defeated the union there in 1904. Of 17,193 Cripple Creek residents in 1900, only 44 were from France. In comparison, 846 were from Ireland. That's just one indirect measure, of course. Some information about the makeup of the founders can be found here. I'm not aware of any French influence on any of the mentioned individuals or organizations, although i'm admittedly not familiar with all.

I approach this from a different direction. It is quite an easy matter to trace the evolution of many of the principles of the IWW to Ed Boyce, except for the IWW's egalitarian view on immigrants. I attribute that at least in part to Bill Haywood, who seemed to sense that all working people had common interests from a very early age, and who was always interested in broadening the base of a movement for the rights of working people. In contrast, the Western Federation of Miners and the American Labor Union had practiced exclusionary membership practices, particularly of Asian workers, but also of Blacks.

But if we go back to Ed Boyce (who became Haywood's mentor for a time,) it is apparent that much of the wording in the IWW Preamble came from his writings and speeches. This suggests that the IWW was born as a uniquely American institution, primarily out of the experiences of the hardrock miners in the western states.

Now, some of the men present at the founding convention had read European theorists. Debs and DeLeon are good examples. However, they had so little influence on the IWW that by 1908 they were both gone. When Haywood was in prison in 1907, he finally had a chance to read economic theorists. But that was two years after the founding of the organization.

The unique contribution of the French to the early IWW was probably their example of the practice of sabotage by railroad workers, i.e., sending trains to the wrong destinations. But that also came five years after the founding. In his autobiography in around that period, Haywood briefly talked about the differences between French syndicalism and the industrial unionism of the IWW.

On the question of relationships with the Bolsheviks: at the time of the October revolution, one account i've read states that at least one IWW branch was split down the middle, with half sounding something like Bill Haywood's fanciful claim a couple of years later, when he was facing decades in prison, that the Bolshevik success was the IWW, "all feathered out." (Sadly, Haywood went downhill from there...) But the other half were adamantly opposed to this interpretation of events in Russia, and tried to point out that the Bolsheviks were a political party, and that the IWW had constitutionally prohibited alliances with political parties for a very good reason — politicians could not be trusted to identify with the needs of working people. I imagine that there were similar intense debates in IWW halls across the country. But it wasn't long before the voice of the organization, expressed through its newspapers, echoed the skeptical faction. And as subsequent events revealed, the Bolsheviks were just a new group of "bosses."

As for agreeing on social, political, and economic issues, there is a profound difference between what the IWW has always advocated, and what the Socialists and the Bolsheviks have advocated. If you check all of the IWW Constitutions:

http://www.workerseducation.org/crutch/constitution/constitutions.html

...and official documents, you will find approximately zero references to government. In brief, the IWW has never sought to take over the government. The IWW, rather, is revolutionary in terms of wanting to abolish the wage system. Granted, that has government-related implications. But the IWW doesn't believe in the ideas of the Socialists, that nationalizing industries is a positive, or that a political party can "fix" things for working people. The IWW has never adovcated armed insurrection of the sort advocated by the Communists, and never embraced Boyce's views on workers having guns. (After events of the Colorado Labor Wars in the two years before the IWW's founding, an attitude sprung up, never have a shooting war with a capitalist, they can buy more guns than you can...)

The IWW doesn't want government to own anything. Rather, it believes that groups of workers should form cooperatives and own their own businesses.

So, from the very start there are major ideological differences.

best wishes, Richard Myers 19:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

==The article portrays this as a conflict between the IWW and "the populace of Centralia," which is false and which builds bias - not all of the people of Centralia were opposed to the IWW, some supported the IWW. Jacob Haller 00:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Phi Alpha Theta buff 07:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC) ....GOOD NEWS!! I was finally able to get the actual newspaper clippings and transcript quotes from the trial (United Press & The Chronicle, Spokane, Washington). I've got over 75 scanned pages of close to 400 clippings that I now have to collate and start incorporating, so it will take me some time to fully update this article (hey, trial lasted over a month... this is going to take a while).

IN THE INTERIM, PLEASE HOLD OFF ON DELETES... as I add testimony and references, sections will be going back and forth between pro-Centralia/American Legion and pro-IWW but I promise I will do my best to have it balanced when I'm done.

I'll be adding quoted and referenced testimony from Frank Bickford, Tom Morgan, Wesley Everett's female companion, various additional IWW Members, Legionnaires, and Centralia townsfolk, as well as prosecutors Abel & Cunningham, defense attorney Vanderveer, and Judge Wilson!

STAY POSTED!

PS. Mr. Haller, in reference to your comment above - this WAS a class conflict between the IWW and the general populace of Centralia.... Please consider the time at which this occured, the impacts of World War I and "patriotic sentiment", and how the IWW built support by bringing homeless and itinerant laborers. In many ways, it is comparable to what we see today against hispanic immigrants, the homeless, and good old fashioned NIMBY.

In 1914-1919, the view of the average Centralia citizen WAS very biased against "anti-patriotic" organized labor, and, as a result, this really was a "war" pitting these two groups against each other. I'll have to find my references, but I believe upwards of 95% of Centralia town hall meeting attendees during the time of these events were fervently anti-IWW... and back then, they didn't have apathetic voter base we see today (I'm not going to touch women's suffrage with a 10 foot pole on this one!) Yes, the IWW did have support from some Centralia residents such as Elmer Smith. However, they were very few and very far between.

Since no one on either side of this dispute will ever be happy (even today), I think the article in it's current form is doing a decent job of presenting both sides of the argument.

PPS. If any of you would like copies of the scanned clippings, please post to this board and I will do my best to forward you the images. Phi Alpha Theta buff 07:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Centralia massacre (Washington). 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/20110605065146/http://www.iww.org/PDF/Centralia.pdf to http://www.iww.org/PDF/Centralia.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Concerns about accuracy

I came to the talk page, having read this: "Legionnaire McElfresh, standing nearby, was next. Hit in the brain by a .22 caliber bullet allegedly fired from Seminary Hill over 500 yards away, he was killed instantly." As someone who has shot .22s for 50+ years, this jumped out at me as extremely suspect, because .22s don't have that kind of range. The shooter would have to have aimed at a point several feet above his target's head, and then hit the guy in the eye, because the bullet wouldn't have enough momentum left to go through a human skull. It sounded as if someone were playing with the facts to fit a certain narrative.

Then I come here, and find that it's been 10 years since a guy who wrote a book on the subject pointed out this, and many other inaccuracies in the article. I don't have the time to edit much right now, but I hope this can get cleaned up at some point. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Centralia Massacre Mural The Resurrection of Wesley Everest.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Addition local sourcing for those wishing to tackle the citation issues

Hey everyone!

Recent articles from Centralia's Daily Chronicle that might be of use to help source the article a bit so we can get that citation template box at the header removed...

A recap of the massacre itself.

Recent announcement of IWW plaque with some details.

I'd do it but this article isn't really my forte and I think it best a more experienced editor in this type of subject handle the work.

Happy editing!

Shortiefourten (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Shortiefourten (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)