Talk:Bath School disaster/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Recent reversion

I have changed this reversion back to my previous edit for the reasons I stated on the reverting editor's talk page. My comments there have been cut/pasted below so any future discussion will be all in one place.

(From my December 1 post on Mhrachel's talk page...)
Per WP:BRD, the best thing to do would be to discuss the edits I performed on the article without doing a wholesale reversion of my work (which was done without providing any edit summary). For instance,
  • Keeping in mind WP:TONE, the conversational "A couple children from Italy wrote letters to them." was changed to the more-formal "including letters from Italian schoolchildren".
  • The blockquotes were changed to inline quotations. The letters were from children who heard about it in the mass media of the day, not from survivors who had experienced the disaster directly. Inline quotations rather than blockquotes are more appropriate for these letters since elsewhere in the article survivors' statements are given more prominence and broken out from the surrounding text using blockquotes.
  • The redlinkage for Mount Hope Cemetery has been in the 'Bath School disaster' article since January 2013 - almost 2 years ago - and a Wikipedia article has not been written about it yet, I have no plans to do so and apparently no one else does. I think it is safe to say that the article gains nothing from keeping the red linkage.
I welcome further discussion about this [article] on Talk:Bath School disaster.

Before any further reversions let's discuss it on this talk page please. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Article title change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Should this article be called "Bath School disaster" or "Bath School bombings"? Shearonink (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Support 'Bath School disaster'

  1. This is the longstanding title of this Wikipedia article and was its title when it achieved Wikipedia Good Article status. It is also what this cluster of events is called in the historical sources (especially in Ellsworth's book) and what the cluster of events is called in the town of Bath itself. Shearonink (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Completely agree. This should not have been moved against previous consensus without discussion. olderwiser 16:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Exactly, the historical name of the series of events is the 'Bath School Disaster' and unless there is a clear consensus to change it to the new title, the article should be moved back to its proper name. You can't simply rename historical events. Andrew327 09:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Bath School disaster, as I did earlier Carptrash (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. per WP:COMMONNAME. The historical marker in Michigan calls it such. Reportage calls it such. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  6. "Bath school disaster" is the commonly used name of the event, as reflected in news reports available online. Also see: Google Trends. groupuscule (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Support 'Bath School bombings'

  1. "Disaster" denotes something for which no one is to blame, e.g. an "act of God". The previous term was inaccurate. "Bombings" reflects quite adequately what happened in the events described in the article. -The Gnome (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
This is what it suggests to you, but not to everyone. The "no one to blame" concept is not supported by dictionaries. A common definition of the wort disaster reads, "a sudden calamitous event bringing great damage, loss, or destruction;" That is what occurred that day. Carptrash (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The sinking of the RMS Lusitania was a disaster. September 11 attacks was a disaster. The Hyatt Regency walkway collapse was a disaster. The Gallipoli Campaign was a disaster for the Allies, not for Turkey. But rather than me creating a list of disasters please check out the Lists of disasters already compiled and see how many of them were acts of god and how many were man made. Please rethink your position and help us reach a unanimous position. Carptrash (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I have never heard or read the September 11 attacks described or denoted as anything but "attacks" or "bombings" or "a terrorist act." Would Wikipedia dare list those attacks under the title "September 11 disaster"? I doubt it. "Disaster" denotes, as you also point out, an "event" in general. The term "bombings" is specific and clearly denotes a malicious, intentional act. We should always be opting for clarity. -The Gnome (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
We should always reflect what reliable sources say, not what we would like them to say. olderwiser 12:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree. A google search for "Bath School Bombings" draws out myriads of hits, e.g. from NBC News, Huffington Post, NY Daily News, National Museum of Crime, etc, all denoting the event plainly as "Bath School Bombings". Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, only the Crime Museum link uses the "Bombing" in title case, in the NBC article, I don't even see the phrase "Bath School Bombing" anywhere in the text, although a comment specifically mentions that it is called the "Bath School Disaster". Also, compare the quality of results in a book search for "Bath school bombing" and "Bath school disaster". There is a difference between naming an event and in passing describing it as a type of event. olderwiser 13:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
So, your argument is that the word "bombings" is not in capital letters. That's actually not much of an argument. As to the text from the NBC reportage, the full reference is never on a tepid "disaster" but on "the deadliest attack ever on a school in the United States", when "38 children were killed when bombs planted by Andrew Kehoe, 55, ripped through the Bath School in Bath Township, Mich., and exploded outside as rescuers arrived at the scene." The "quality" of the two searches you offer as argument mostly reflects the obvious desire of the authorities at various levels of government to use the anodyne term "disaster" instead of what it actually was, i.e. an attack, a bombing. -The Gnome (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
so, your argument is that the word "bombings" is not in capital letters. Only in part. The point is that sources may describe the event in many ways in running text (e.g., your NBC example) without giving it any particular name. The book search shows pretty clearly that many more high quality sources use the title of "Bath School Disaster" as the name of the event. I see no reason why we should invent some other name. olderwiser 20:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
And is there some source for your claim about government sources influencing what the event is called Or is that something you imagine. olderwiser 20:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Τhank you for the discussion. I have nothing further to say. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The word "disaster" occurs 8 times in the September 11 attacks wikipedia article. None of them added by me. If it helps, my daughter, who teaches college history, agrees with you. But not enough. Carptrash (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a Wikipedia Category dedicated to "School bombings in the United States" as well as a Wikipedia Category dedicated to "Attacks on schools in the United States". There is no Wikipedia Category for "School disasters in the United States". Perhaps, an editor should start one - and move the article for the Bath School bombings there, from where it's currently listed. -The Gnome (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Can we have your daughter editing in Wikipedia any time soon? :-) -The Gnome (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless things drastically change, am posting in this thread that I plan to close this RFC on December 22 (the end of the 30-day default comment period) with the editorial consensus being that this article should be called "Bath School disaster". Even though I am obviously an involved editor, it is my belief, per the instructions posted at WP:AN/RFC which state in part "Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion.", that I can close this RFC without overstepping my editorial bounds. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be preferable to allow a third, non-involved party to close down the discussion. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent changes to lede

Should it be "violent attacks", "bombings" or "bombings and arsons" in the first sentence of the lede? Shearonink (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be violent attacks, shearonink. I'll revert the changes I made myself so you don't accidentally violate the three revert rule.Equivocasmannus (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Heh, thanks for looking out for the 3rr. I just want the article to reflect editorial consensus. Shearonink (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Terrorist or not?

Some edits over the past year have added the term "terrorist" or added Categories with "terrorist" in the title. I think Kehoe was a psychologically-disturbed individual who perpetrated a horrific crime, but it was not a crime designed to further any political aims, it was a crime designed to punish the people who were supposedly persecuting Kehoe by murdering all the children of Bath. In my opinion the Bath School Disaster should not be described as being a terrorist attack or categorized as being terrorist but I am opening discussion here on the article talk page so everyone can weigh in on the matter and we can come to an editorial consensus. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you.Carptrash (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The bombing is considered a terrorist act and is mentioned in the article Terrorism in the United States as a terror attack. Multiple outside sources also call the bombing an act of terrorism. Also, Kehoe launched his attack because of his anger over taxes and defeat in a political election, therefore fitting the terrorist profile. Gdeblois19 22:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdeblois19 (talkcontribs)

In my opinion the Bath School disaster shouldn't be included in that article either. Per OSE, just because the disaster is included in another Wikipedia article as being an act of terrorism in doesn't make it so. Kehoe had no overarching political agenda, no lasting governmental change he wanted to make, he simply wanted to punish his perceived persecutors by killing all of their children, all of the town's children, as well as a few adults like the principal. Not every mass-murder constitutes an act of terror. Shearonink (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I also feel that the Bath episode does not belong in the Terrorisn in the USA article and might wander over there and check it out. Carptrash (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I do not think the words "terrorist" or "terrorism" should be used in the article for the reasons stated above. However I'm less certain about categories, since people searching for terrorist attacks are likely to be interested in this event. Andrew327 12:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Kehoe was motivated by political defeat and anger against taxes. If this is not an act of terrorism, could we at least redirect page to "Bath School bombings"? "Disaster" seems a bit misleading, as this was not a disaster (e.g. natural disaster/ accident) but rather an attack. Gdeblois19 14:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdeblois19 (talkcontribs)

This topic was previously discussed and the consensus was to maintain the current name.Andrew327 14:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

In any case, I think this should at least be included in the category of terrorist acts. People who study terrorism might be interested in this article, as it is very similar to other acts of terrorism, even if it is not one. Gdeblois19 12:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you on this point. Andrew327 15:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

So should we include it in the category of terrorism in the United States? Or a similar category?Gdeblois19 17:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bath School disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Disaster?

Why is this called a disaster? It seems like an attack or a rampage. Toddst1 (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Because that is what the incident was called in its day, and that is what appears in many original historical documents/sources. Disasters do not necessarily mean of a natural type, there are also man-made disasters. If readers search for this incident under various wordings, there is a redirect for "Bath School bombing" plus a "Bath School" disambiguation page. Shearonink (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Shearonink is exactly right. Wikipedia generally reflects the language used by our sources. Historical accounts seem to have settled on "Bath School disaster" as the name of this terrible event. Andrew327 16:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Found a more detailed photo of Kehoe.

Ear Hustle 411, did an article that featured a more detailed photo of Andrew Kehoe. I'm not sure whether or not it's worth using it instead.

http://earhustle411.com/in-history-school-treasurer-andrew-kehoe-responsible-for-the-bath-school-massacre-what-evil-looks-like-89-years-later/

File:635991010368036498-Kehoe.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talkcontribs) 23:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Kehoe's age at stepmother's death incorrect.

Andrew Kehoe was 39 years of age not 14 as is commonly given. Frances Kehoe's death certificate gives the year of her death as 1911. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.50.186.205 (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

First suicide bombing in history...

From time to time, editors add the statement that the Bath School disaster is the world's first suicide bombing. There were known suicide bombings prior to Bath, the first of which was the suicide-bombing that killed Tsar Alexander II in 1881. The assassination of Alexander II is acknowledged as the first suicide bombing in history by multiple sources including the tabloid "The New York Daily News" in a 2016 article and Dr. Jeffrey William Lewis, PhD in Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective Magazine (jointly-published by The Ohio State University and Miami University) with his 2013 article "The Human Use of Human Beings: A Brief History of Suicide Bombing" (found here online). Shearonink (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bath School disaster. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 23:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism?

Since Kehoe was apparently motivated, at least in part, by defeat in a local election, would this warrant classification as an act of terrorism? Several other sources classify it as such.

Gdeblois19 12:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Gdeblois19: By the way, there seems to be something wrong with your signature (above). There are no "live" links to your contributions or to your talkpage. Shearonink (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Oddly enough this article is listed in 3 different Terrorism Categories including WP:WikiProject Terrorism on this talkpage but was not listed within any "article" categories. I have added 2 categories that seem pertinent.Shearonink (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

This edit did a complete restoration of content that had been reverted. Notwithstanding the error I made with the nonsensical "some type tonated" the rest of the reversion goes against the sources:

  • Kehoe did not remotely detonate the dynamite/pyrotol in the school basement - he had an alarm clock set up to go off at 8:45 in the morning after classes started, when the most people would be in the building. (The only reason the school wasn't completely leveled is that Kehoe had two alarm clocks set up in that basement and one of them didn't go off.
  • Yes, afterwards everyone can make the assumption that the unidentified man seen around the school building at night was Kehoe but this man was not clearly identified as such.
  • It was during the struggle between Superintendent Huyck and Kehoe that the car exploded - the source does not state that Kehoe set that explosion off.

Anyway, let's discuss and come to a consensus about what should stay and what should go. Shearonink (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Weapons Listed in the Infobox

In the "Weapons" section of the Infobox, is listed "Winchester Model 54 rifle." But the information in the article says that Kehoe used the "rifle to detonate dynamite inside his shrapnel-filled truck." The rifle was not used as a weapon, it was only used to detonate the explosives in his truck.

The only "weapons" used were explosives and flammable substances. Unless someone can provide a substantial contrary opinion on this, I'm going to delete the rifle from the infobox, since it was not used as a weapon. Beanyandcecil (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This needs more discussion before the rifle is deleted from the infobox. The Winchester is a major part of the Kehoe/Bath School disaster narrative regarding the timeline of how he was behaving and what his neighbors noticed. Besides, without the rifle the car-bomb wouldn't have happened and Kehoe plus 5 other people wouldn't have been killed. Shearonink (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Second deadliest school attack?

I've heard about another incident. An arson attack at a religious school. While there's be skepticism over the arson claims a pair of matches were found at the source of the fire. It's been rumored that Alan Norcutt, a serial arsonist was suspected, but there's no guarantee to this. There's little information about him though.

https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Our_Lady_of_the_Angels_School_fire#The_fire http://www.syracuse.com/kirst/index.ssf/2010/03/post_36.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v39uNJWU0u0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talkcontribs) 16:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The Our Lady of the Angels School fire is not described in reliable sources as an attack or as a mass killing/murder and has not been described by authorities or in coroners' inquests etc, as a planned attack or as a mass murder/mass killing. The various "confessions" - by Norcutt and by the 10 year old boy - are not provable and authorities did not act on them. There is simply no proof that the Our Lady of the Angels fire was a deliberate act. Besides, any issues having to do with characterizing the Our Lady fire should be dealt with on that article's talk page not here. Shearonink (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit to lead paragraph

This edit added content to the lead paragraph. I'm not sure that the content needs to be there as the lead section already covers that material...the addition seems to be somewhat redundant to me but let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The content was added to clarify statements made in the existing lead section and to eliminate some run on sentences. Looking at the manual of style it seems, to me, that the current revision would fall within the suggestions. If you disagree by all means please revert to the original version. Shinerunner (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Archived review

Shearonink I have archived the review at my talk page, since your work has well advanced and others may want to resume here on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you SandyGeorgia, appreciate all your help and insights. I think this article might be ready for FAC but haven't quite decided yet if I am up for running that gauntlet with it (or not). Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I suggest calling in a copyeditor, as that is not my strength. Perhaps Gog the Mild will oblige? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)r
@SandyGeorgia and Shearonink: If you decide to go for FAC, I would be happy to give this a copy edit, at whatever level of thoroughness you prefer. Can I also recommend that you do submit this for FAC, I suspect that you won't find the process as daunting as you fear. Rather than listen to me, can I refer you to SusunW who recently, with some gentle encouragement, took the big step and ran the wonderful Inter-Allied Women's Conference through. It should be gracing the main page on March 8 - International omen's Day. I think that she can give you a frank opinion on the pros and cons. (And likewise re my copy edit skills.)
So if you decide you want to go for it, and I hope that you do, give me a ping. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Gog the Mild, that gives me hope. Yes please a copy edit would be grand. If you don't mind I think a general overview to start and then maybe a deep dive later. I tried to get a List through FLC somewhat recently and am feeling a little burned from that experience. Thanks, looking forward to it. Shearonink (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I have started fiddling around. It looks to be in good shape. More tomorrow.
There is a certain random element in FACS, but on average they are not that bad. (I well remember the trepidation with which I approached my first ACR, two years ago. Brrr!) Gog the Mild (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Copy edit comments and queries

  • "his defeat in the spring 1926 election for township clerk" The MoS states "Avoid ambiguous references to seasons, which are different in the southern and northern hemispheres." Is the actual month of his defeat known?
That's what all the sources I've consulted so far say. I'm still digging, will update it to a date if I possibly can. Shearonink (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Finally. Found date/month/year in the "Mayday" book. Thank goodness for the Internet Archive, adding it in now. Shearonink (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It is not usual to put cites in the lead. (As all information there will be repeated in the main body, where it will be cited.)
Fixed. Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "He then detonated various incendiary devices on his homestead on the morning of the 18th at about 8:45 a.m., causing the house and other farm buildings to be destroyed by the explosives' blasts and subsequent fires" He "detonated various incendiary devices", which are not "explosives" and would not (normally) create "blasts". If he also denotated explosives you need 'He then detonated various incendiary and explosive devices on his homestead' or similar. (If it was pyrotol, then "incendiary devices" is arguably not the best description.
You use "incendiary explosive" later, which is neat, so I have gone with that.
The only change I made to your various light-touch edits was to add back the statement about the Kehoe farm's buildings & how the horses were killed (into the section of recovery and rescue). I think it speaks to the fact that Kehoe wanted to destroy and did destroy everything at the farm - buildings and animals, the only thing left standing was the farmhouse's chimney. Shearonink (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. The only reason I removed it was because it seemed to repeat "The burned remains of his two horses were found tied in their enclosures with their legs wired together to prevent their rescue during the fire" and much of the preceding paragraph from the "At the Kehoe Farm" section. Much of that, first, paragraph could perhaps do with moving from "At the Kehoe Farm" to "Day of the disaster". Just a thought.
Ok. I adjusted that horses sentence a bit. The problem with moving the entire section is that the date of Nellie Price Kehoe's death is unknown, she was probably killed before the day/date of the disaster. Kehoe was such a perfectionist/OCD/maniac that he wouldn't have risked throwing off his timetable on the day of the disaster by - frankly - possible taking too much time to kill his wife. Shearonink (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Three queries from the lead, to illustrate what a "full scale" copy edit is likely to throw up. I will "light touch" the rest, as you requested.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! This is such a sprawling article and has had many different editors over the years weigh in and edit from time to time, I've been working on it piece by piece since 2012 (and it looked like this at the time).
I've changed my mind about the full scale copy edit - I think I'd like for you to comb through it with suggestions like you did for the lead but just post about one section at a time, then maybe let me fix any refs and large-scale changes - until we work our way through the entire article, that way I'll be able to keep up and get to issues rather quickly. Would that be ok? I just started thinking that the 93rd anniversary is coming up in May (May 18th) - would perhaps be nice to possibly get it to FA before then and submit it for FA Main Page consideration. Heh when I dream I dream *big*. Thanks again, Shearonink (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Sure. Makes sense. TFA for May 18 sounds doable. I'll work on the next section tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Background

Some thoughts. Suggestions only.

  • After "Lansing" add 'Michigan, USA'. I suspect that most readers would struggle to find Lansing, or even Michigan, on a globe.
Done. Shearonink (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't doubt your sources, but 236 seems a lot of school children for a population of only 300 adults.
This was a consolidated township school - it drew pupils from a wide area from far beyond the unincorporated village. The 2017 Smithsonian Magazine article even says the school had 314 students enrolled (not sure where they got that figure from - Ellsworth says that his info is taken from census figures). The only statement I have found in Ellsworth's book that wasn't borne out by other sources was Kehoe's age when his stepmother died (Ellsworth says 14, but all the other sources state Kehoe was an adult). Shearonink (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. If it is sourced, the point about "it drew pupils from a wide area from far beyond the unincorporated village" is interesting and may be worth including.
Heh, I was thinking the school's name kind of spoke for itself... "Bath Consolidated School"?, but point taken - I've adjusted that section adding a source on how big the Township is (30 SQUARE MILES! I had no idea how big until I looked it up myself) and then let the bare facts do the work. Let me know what you think. Shearonink (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Ha! That may well be the case for speakers of USEng. As a UKEng speaker I am scratching my head even after you have told me that consolidated means coming from a wide area. And sorry, but your new version still has me reading it as the 236 pupils coming from just the unincorporated village. Umm. Is it because the "the township area" is different and larger than "the unincorporated village", and that the unincorporated village is a sub-unit of the township area? Yes - you say that in the first sentence. OK, problem solved. But that situation probably needs spelling out for the slower-witted like me. Let me think on't.
Just adjusted that section again - I think it's pretty clear now - how utterly small Bath village is and was, how geographically BIG both the Township and Clinton County are. Let me know what you think. Shearonink (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes. That seems encyclopedically clear.
  • I have done a little light copy editing. Hopefully none contentious, but query or revert if you don't understand or like anything
Looks fine to me. Shearonink (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "There is no clear indication when Kehoe conceived and planned the steps leading to his massacre of ... " Seems a little wordy to me. Maybe 'There is no clear indication of when Kehoe conceived the idea of massacring the ... '?
Agreed. Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • In the Keyes quote, maybe a Wikilink to Fall? Many readers won't understand this North American usage.
Agreed. I don't normally like putting wikilinks in a quote but yeah, this makes sense. Shearonink (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "In the days following the disaster it was reported" Suggest deleting "In the days".
Agreed. Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Investigators also recovered a gas filled container" Does this mean gas, or gasoline? If the latter, it may be better in full and linked.
Yeah, gasoline. done. Shearonink (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "He made many trips to Lansing for more explosives" seems to repeat "his purchase of small amounts of explosives at different stores and on different dates".
"Many trips to Lansing" takes place during May 1927 (the month of the disaster) but he had put aspects of his plan into effect the previous year, buying over a ton of pyrotol plus other explosives. The "small amounts" dates at least to the summer of 1926 and to November 1926 (according to the cited sources). Shearonink (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
OK. Fair enough.
  • "A neighbor allegedly saw Kehoe carrying objects" "allegedly" seems an odd word here. Is there any reason why it can't simply be deleted?
Took another look at the cited source and adjusted the content accordingly. Ida Hall saw someone who had a Ford pickup truck carry items into the building late at night. It could only have been Kehoe...but that's not proven so just left the facts speak for themselves. Shearonink (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Looks good.
  • "where it was found in a heavily charred condition after the farm explosions and fire. Piled around the cart were silverware and a metal cash box. Ashes of several bank notes could be seen through a slit in the cash box.[2] Kehoe had placed and wired homemade pyrotol firebombs in the house and throughout all the farm buildings. The burned carcasses of his horses were found with their legs hobbled together with wire, preventing their escape or rescue when the farm's buildings blew up and caught fire" I would move all of this to "Day of the disaster". It seems odd in "Background".
I adjusted it somewhat, let me know what you think. The problem with moving Nellie's death and Kehoe's morbid preparations is that no one knows when Nellie was murdered and when the chicken coop was wired to explode and burn but it almost certainly was before the actual day of the disaster. Shearonink (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Right. I see. I like the changes. How about the subtle additional change of "Nellie was discharged from Lansing's St. Lawrence Hospital on May 16, and was murdered by her husband some time between her release and the bombings two days later" → 'Nellie was discharged from Lansing's St. Lawrence Hospital on May 16, and was murdered by her husband some time before the bombings two days later'? Just a suggestion. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I adjusted the wording to be somewhat like yours but changed the subject/object in the second part to agree with the following sentence. Shearonink (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes. That's good. Thanks.

Over to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I shall try to review the next section tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, that sounds great. Looking forward to it - Shearonink (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Day of the disaster

  • "Parents within the rural community also began rushing to the school" "began rushing" → 'rushed'?
Done. Shearonink (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Various eyewitnesses and survivors were interviewed" Delete "Various"?
Done. Shearonink (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "The north wing of the school collapsed" Maybe 'had collapsed'?
Hmmm. But the tenses of this section are written to bring the actions (collapsed causing the crumbling, etc) into a timeline of sorts. The north wing of the school collapsed and the walls around it were crumbling. It was a dangerous and ongoing situation. I'll have to think about that. Shearonink (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
How it reads to me is: you have the explosion; children run out; mothers rush to the scene; parents comfort their injured offspring; then "The north wing of the school collapsed". To me this means that the wing collapsed some time after the explosion, in the middle of the search and rescue. If that is what the source says, fine. If the wall had collapsed in the more immediate aftermath of the explosion, then perhaps consider moving the phrase to earlier in the narrative; or recasting it.
Does that make sense? (You don't have to agree with me; I just want to check that I have communicated my concern.)
I went back to the source material to see what it actually stated and adjusted that sentence - see what you think. Shearonink (talk) 05:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
That looks fine to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "over a large area and even caused extensive damage to cars" Delete "even"?
Done. Also adjusted the wording there. It wasn't just that the cars were parked nearby along the street, they were parked a half-block away in each direction. Shearonink (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "their roofs catching on fire from the exploded gasoline" I am not sure that "exploded gasoline" works. Not sure what to suggest. 'burning gasoline'?
Done. Shearonink (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "The truck explosion spread debris over a large area and even caused extensive damage to cars parked along the street, with their roofs catching on fire from the exploded gasoline." This needs to go to the end of the paragraph, so it runs: fatalities; wouned; physical damage.
Done. Shearonink (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I am not sure of the point of the last extended quote in this section is. Suggest you review to see what you think it adds to the article. Maybe delete it; reduce it; or move it?
The point was that this community almost lost an entire generation of children and that one mother lost 3 of her 5 children. It humanizes the scope of the disaster. I moved it up to the north wing explosion, the statement is more about that anyway. See what you think about my changes. Shearonink (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
To my eye, and I am just one editor, that works better.
  • "During the search, rescuers found" It may help to add what was being searched for. Eg, 'During the search for victims'.
Done. Shearonink (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Aftermath

  • "The American Red Cross set up operations at the Crum drugstore" doesn't read quite right to me. Maybe 'The American Red Cross set up an operations center at the Crum drugstore'?
Done. Shearonink (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "The Lansing Red Cross headquarters"; "Red Cross Headquarters received": standardise H/h.
Done. Shearonink (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "from Washington, D.C. to Los Angeles" This reads, IMO, as not encyclopedic. Maybe 'nationwide', or 'across the country, or similar? (It also only works if one has a grasp of US geography.
Adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "People from across the world provided sympathy to the families". Consider 'expressed sympathy with'.
Both "sympathy with" and "sympathy to" seem to be acceptable usage, I changed it to "expressed sympathy to". Shearonink (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "One 5th grader wrote" Was that a 5th grader from Italy, Bath, or somewhere else?
"... including letters from some Italian schoolchildren. One 5th grade class wrote: ..." The quotes are all from letters from Italian schoolchildren. I adjusted a subsequent sentence to now read: Another Italian classroom and teacher wrote:
Does that make it clearer? As the initial statement says "People from across the world expressed sympathy to the families and the community of Bath, " the point that particular paragraph is making is that people from all over the world wrote letters to the survivors in this tiny little village in Michigan. Shearonink (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Without ceremony, she had him buried in an unmarked grave in an initially unnamed cemetery" 1. Do you mean 'She had him buried without ceremony in an unmarked grave in an initially unnamed cemetery'? 2. Do you really mean that the cemetery did not have a name? Or that its location was not initially made public?
I can't get at that ref (for the initially unnamed cemetery bit), so I recrafted the sentence. Shearonink (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Many of the victims were buried starting Friday" This doesn't, grammatically, make sense. It reads as if the burial of individual victims started on the Friday, and presumably continued on other days(!)
The burials and funerals for the individual victims started that Friday, they continued until all the dead were buried (there were so many victims to be buried it took three days). Have adjusted that sentence. Shearonink (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll let you mull over these before moving on. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I've mulled, I've mulled! Am willing and able to move on... :). Shearonink (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "The coroner arrived at the scene on the day of the disaster and swore in six community leaders to serve as a jury investigating the death of Superintendent Huyck." This reads asa if he swore in the six on the day of the disaster. Is this supported by the sources?
Yes. The coroner swore in the jury (6 local businessmen/leaders) the afternoon of the disaster. I added a source that speaks to that fact. Shearonink (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Neighbors had seen him wiring his house in early April 1927." IMO this isn't clear - that may be because it is unclear in the sources. "Wiring his house" is, in and off itself, a perfectly innocent activity; and today means something different from what I suspect you are trying to convey.
Adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Kehoe warned him and three boys to leave the farm" "the farm"> Kehoe's farm?
Yes. Howell was a neighbor and heard/saw the explosion/s at Kehoe's place so he and 3 other men/boys drove over to the farm to try to help rescue people & goods from the blae. At that time, no one knew that Kehoe had committed a deliberate act of mass murder. Have adjusted that sentence hope it's clearer now. Shearonink (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "conducted himself sanely and so concealed his operations that there was no cause to suspect any of his actions; and we further find that the school board, and Frank Smith, janitor of the school building, were not negligent in and about their duties, and were not guilty of any negligence in not discovering Kehoe's plan." is a 55 word quote. MOS:BQ suggests "Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides." That's {{quote|extended quote here}}.
Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "in fulfillment of Couzens' pledge in June of that year" This pledge has not previously been mentioned, and without elaboration here or earlier won't mean anything to a reader.
Adjusted that sentence. Shearonink (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "During the reconstruction hidden amounts of dynamite were found in the building on three separate occasions." Maybe 'During the reconstruction hidden dynamite was found in the building on three separate occasions.'?
OK. Changed. Shearonink (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Parker shouldn't be in "Further reading", as it is already used as a source.
The "Mayday"/Parker book is out of print but is available in toto at that Open Source/Internet Archive link. The individual refs are for copies of the hardback version. I suppose I could go in and add the URLs for every single page that is referenced but I'd rather not if I don't have to. The reason I put a link to the full copy is that I'd like to present to the readers as many of the sources as I can that they will have full access to themselves online, I wanted them to know they can read the entire book if they want. Shearonink (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
OK. That makes sense. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

More mulling .

Other stuff

  • "File:Bath Consolidated School.jpg" should ideally state which "historic image" it was scanned from. Ie, the source should be cited, just as for a written document.
  • "File:AndrewKehoe.jpg" similarly gives no source.
  • "File:Bath School dynamite2.jpg" Ditto.
  • "File:Kahoe House.jpg" And again.
  • "File:Kahoe House.jpg" ...
  • "File:Bath School Disaster-east.jpg"
  • "File:Kehoe car.jpg"
  • "File:Keyhoe sign.jpg" It needs a source. It must have been copied from somewhere.
The image-permissions, if what is actually there *right now*, on the File pages, if that is not enough.... they are going to take a LOT of time - ...I don't know if permissions or original sources actually exist. At all. Because the photos were published all over in American newspapers, have been published in books, on websites, etc. But I guess I'll have to try to run the possible sources down or see if they can be allowed under some fair-use image rule etc., etc. Or I will have to delete the images?... Shearonink (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not that bad, honest. I just did the first one in under 3 minutes - [1]. Also see [2], [3]. You just need to paste the website addresses against Source. Want instructions so you can look up the others? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If I have to be a purist about the images and their permissions/copyright status/etc those two sources are probably not quite right/legal/kosher/whatever. Most of these images, if not all of them, almost certainly were published in Monty Ellsworth's book, and have since been propagated freely across the internet. But Ellsworth didn't necessarily put down where he got them from (maybe some were lifted from newspapers of the day etc) - they look more like copies of copies than having any high-quality aspects as photographs being first printed in Ellsworth's book. And you're saying that the website addresses can be cut/pasted as the Source on the Commons File page...but the images did not first appear publicly at tumblr or blogspot, those sources got them from somewhere else. So, what do you suggest for all the images above except for the single one of Andrew Kehoe?
Ok, so on to the Kehoe photograph. The Commons File page for that states:
Photograph of Andrew Kehoe, perpetrator of the Bath School disaster, circa 1920, reprinted in M.J. Ellsworth, The Bath School Disaster (1928)
Source: Scanned from historic image by w:User:Jtmichcock and posted to Wikipedia at w:File:Tbsd-001.jpg on 2 February 2006.
The File use-rationale asserts public domain status. This image is also the only known available image of Kehoe and so would seem to qualify under the no free equivalent of WP:NFCCP. Is that enough to retain, can I put that in the Permissions? Shearonink (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Most of the titles of your sources are in title case. You need to be consistent, eg "Last victim of Bath School disaster receives marker".
That title is the way the title appears in the source - I tend to be a purist about retaining whatever the original forms are but I know Wikipedia wants Title Cases to Conform with Each Other So It's Been Adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • At least one cite (72) doesn't give a date when it is available (Sep 16, 2014)
I think I fixed that one. Shearonink (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
You need check all of the others, eg 66.
I'm going to take a little bit of a break, real life is interfering, but yeah continue to go through and post your mullings as you find them. I'll get to the fixing when I can - just might be a while. Shearonink (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I think all the available dates have now been adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Time to mull :) . Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

[4], third row. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh look. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

But those aren't the ultimate source of the images, they're just copies of copies of freely-shared files... Shearonink (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I wrote a reply yesterday, but it looks as if the dog ate it. Briefly, and it is entirely possible that I am wrong, my understanding that for "normal" photographs (images of, say, paintings or coins are different) you need to establish two things: 1. that their use does not infringe copyright and 2. that the image you post actually is the undoctored (bar cropping and some other remedial treatments) version. Ie, that you haven't photoshopped it. You are not expected to produce the century-old glass plates; pointing to the same photograph on a reputable(ish) non-mirror web site is usually considered to establish the latter. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I am fairly sure that the photo images' Files(sources/permissions on Commons) have all been cleaned-up. If you could look them over to make sure everything looks OK, that would be helpful. I also opened a discussion at WP:Media copyright questions at Need some help finding actual sources of images. You can see how I and the various media copyright WP experts worked through the various issues. Shearonink (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

More thoughts

I have again done a little copy editing. Revert anything you don't like or don't agree with.

I ran into some horrible edit conflicts as I was writing out some replies, so am trying to reconstruct what I did...all that work down the drain. Oh well, here goes...Shearonink (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The lead seems, to me, to be overlong and over detailed.
Adjusted. See what you think. Shearonink (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Bath Township": I assume that the new school was within the unincorporated village, but you don't actually say so. You also say "voters approved the creation of" and "When the school opened" Was the "new" school based on a pre-existing institution, or was it created, and built, from scratch?
The school was built new, from scratch in 1922. After the explosions in 1927, the basically undamaged south wing was retained and new north wing was built, etc and the renovated building was renamed the James Couzens Ag School in 1928. That isn't clear in the Rebuilding section? Shearonink (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "trying to get the valuation of his property reduced" I think that you need to overtly need to state that this would have led to his paying lower taxes/a lower proportion of the cost of the school.
Adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there anything in any source suggesting that as he was childless Kehoe particularly resented paying for something he gained no utility from?
No. Shearonink (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Any chance of putting "$300 school tax" in context in terms of earnings or spending power in 1925?
Maybe...I think there's a Wiki-template for converting past dollars to present dollars but goodness knows I couldn't find it. Kehoe was referring to the total he owed not the tax for a particular year. Shearonink (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I would not myself have a separate section for "Media representation", but that may be personal taste.
Agreed. Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Most of the above comments are made wearing my FAC reviewer's hat. My feeling is that the article is there, or there abouts, in terms of being ready for FAC. However, I am a little close to it for an objective view. I would suggest that you contact SandyGeorgia, who was kind enough to introduce me to this fascinating article, and ask their opinion. They are a very experienced judge of articles' FACability and I would recommend giving their opinion considerable weight.

Thanks for your cooperation and AGF through this process - it has made it an enjoyable process for me. Good luck with it, and give me a ping when you nominate it. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, you two have certainly been busy! Thanks for jumping in Gog the Mild. A few weeks ago there was a citation mess, irregular prose, MOS issues, too many images sandwiching text … and today you have a fine readable article. That's the good news.
On the bad news side, I am quite worried about this "James Daggy website", which is used to source a lot of the content. Who is James Daggy, and what makes this a reliable source? [5] This will need to be sorted, as it could be a non-starter at FAC, unless you can tell us that James Daggy is some sort of Bath authority. It appears to be a personal website, and linking to potential copyright could also be a problem; is it OK for him to reprint the court transcripts, and how do we know his reprints are reliable? Is it possible to get your hands on any of the original sources he cites ? If you can establish who James Daggy is, as an authority on the subject, this might fly … but could be a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Note to Website Visitors: This website is a personal endeavor, not an "official" document of the university. Although the website is hosted on Michigan State University servers (hence the msu.edu domain in your browser's "Location" bar) the content contained herein is solely the responsibility of the site creator. [6]

and from WP:SPS

Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.

can we establish that James Daggy is an established expert on the subject matter, published by other reliable sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Bernstein's book (which you cite) mentions him,[7] that helps, but ideally we should have more … could you rely more on his book instead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Also, these sources are not used: [8] [9] [10] [11] WP:WIAFA 1c requires a thorough review of the literature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
michiganradio is cited at "The gravestone was paid for by an author writing about the disaster for a book."<ref name = "Carmody"/>
lansingstatejournal is cited at "his death from myocarditis is thought to have been directly caused by an infection resulting from his injuries" <ref name ="White"/>
I seem to remember that the smithsonianmag article actually had some errors of fact in it but right now cannot recollect exactly what they are. Will take another look at the sources you mentioned above to see if they bring anything new/not mentioned elsewhere into the article. Shearonink (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Shearonink, I've spent more time now looking into the book by Arnie Bernstein, and it would need to be used more extensively in this article to meet 1c of WP:WIAFA. There are also some sources listed in the article at Further reading and External links that should be reviewed as well, to make sure there is a comprehensive review of the literature. And I think the James Daggy website probably should not be used at all. I feel remiss that I didn't realize earlier that the sourcing was inadequate; now that the citations are cleaned up, it is easier to see that the sourcing is not at FA level, and that would need to be addressed before approaching FAC. You are off to a great start here! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree that the Daggy website/resource should be thrown out.
A couple of things:
  • As you said on Page 181 Arnie Bernstein acknowledges his debt to Daggy and acknowledges Daggy's work as "James Daggy is another great Web chronicler of the tragedy and gave me great help ...", he also cites Daggy's website in his bibliography on Page 200.
  • I am fairly certain it is the only online source that is available for Monty Ellsworth's out-of-print book. (Btw, did you know that Ellsworth was a neighbor of Kehoe's? And that Ellsworth's son survived the Bath School explosion?) If readers are supposed to be able to verify information Daggy is it (unless someone wants to buy the single copy on biblio that i saw priced over $300.00...)
  • Daggy does not summarize or rephrase the newspaper articles of the day, he reproduces their content in full, along with all their author/newspaper/wire service info. He provides links and cites the information completely.
  • Daggy is the original online source for the complete Inquest that is not behind a paywall.
  • Without Daggy most of the information would probably have disappeared or gone blank behind a paywall, in my opinion without Daggy Bernstein's book might not exist (same with the freepages.rootsweb.com/~bauerle content that Bernstein also cites in his acknowledgements - and maybe in his bibliography too). I am not sure that it is possible to purge Daggy from the article as a source and, frankly, I am not really sure I want to. I'll have to think about it. Shearonink (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Re: the images I am going to put in a call to the Historical Society of Lansing - which seems to maybe run the Bath School Museum so might have some pertinent info (like about James Daggy's bonafides) and would also probably know who to contact about the image sources/copyright status for many of the photos of the Bath School, May 18, 1927 photos of the aftermath, that single photo of Andrew Kehoe, etc, Shearonink (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I understand your argument in favor of Daggy, Shearonink, but it is highly likely at FAC that if you don't rely more heavily on the highest quality scholarship (Bernstein's book), and be sure to review all of the other sources, the article will fail 1c at FAC. We don't prioritize accessibility of the source over quality of the source. Online vs. behind-paywall is not part of the equation; FAC requires highest quality scholarship, meaning, for example, Bernstein's book. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok. Because Daggy's information is only available online it's not of the highest level of scholarship. How am I supposed to give readers a complete copy of the Inquest (rather than snippets & sentence fragments & editorial opinions etc.)? And all the article's cites to Ellsworth's book? There are 13 cites to the Inquest and there are 26 cites to Ellsworth's book, I'll have to gut the article and re-write it completely if I'm supposed to remove all the cites to the Inquest and all the cites to Monty Ellsworth's book and only be able to replace them with cites to Bernstein. I can add more cites to Bernstein but I don't know if it's even possible to delete all cites to Daggy.
I have a call in to the Historical Society of Greater Lansing re: various photos sources/permissions/copyright status. I also asked Arnie Bernstein some questions and am waiting for a reply from him. Shearonink (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
We are not required to give readers online access; that is not part of WP:V. Do you have Bernstein's book? It seems to me that you should be able to cite much of the very same content, without any need to re-write, to the book. And citing the Historical Society instead of Bernstein would not solve the problem; we have to consult the highest quality sources, which as far as I can tell in this case, means Berstein. If most of the content can't be cited to Bernstein, then we've got a real problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Re: the Historical Society & Bernstein - the Bath Museum is cited as a source for many of the pics in references (& the Historical Society seems to run it so they're the experts on that). Bernstein's book's images have been cited as "courtesy of Arnie Bernstein" in articles but I want to ask him and the society/Museum directly what the sources are, I need to clear up any possible image issues.
The almighty V...yeah, I know online isn't required but, for instance, is the Inquest published in full anywhere except online? Without any need to re-write...maybe, anything's possible. I'll have to think about it and real life is interfering with my Wiki-ing right now. Will think about it and take another look when I have some time for deep-diving into the cites/references/sources. Thanks for all your work on this - Shearonink (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia I have fixed some of the Daggy/Inquest refs. Will continue to work on the other refs.
I also opened another discussion about the images on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Need some help finding actual sources of images and I think we're making progress on the copyright status of the photos.
The historical folks have not gotten back to me but Mr. Bernstein has been very helpful. Am making progress... Shearonink (talk)
Shearonink, good progress! But I have some very bad news which may prove to be a "trial by fire" for you, while giving you the opportunity for some great scholarship in creating an FA. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources

I have gotten hold of the Arnie Bernstein book, Bath Massacre, and am afraid it is Very Bad News on several counts:

  1. Bernstein thanks James Daggy for his help, but cites that website not once; this means we have no indication that Daggy (as an WP:SPS) is reliable.
  2. Bernstein cites frequently both the Ellsworth and Parker books, which this article uses. (Good.) I do see that Ellsworth is prohibitively expensive to get hold of, but a copy hopefully can be obtained from a library.
    Never mind on the library; I see that Ellsworth is available online. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Bernstein also cites two Wilkins books, which we haven't consulted, and will need to check.
  4. For the very bad news: Bernstein QUITE frequently cites the non-reliable ... ta da ... Wikipedia !!

So, Bernstein is a book that must be used with great caution, meaning the source he used must be checked, as he uses the non-reliable Wikipedia all too often. Because of this kind of scholarship, anything he says would be optimally checked relative to other sources, and we have to be sure we are not using circular reasoning, that is, citing something to Bernstein that he cited to Wikipedia. And, considering this scholarship, I would argue that we should take great care in citing Bernstein at all, unless other sources corroborate, and the article should footnote or discuss any discrepancies between sources.

For this article to advance to FAC, a careful analysis of all of the book sources, and how to use the primary sources (court documents) is going to be needed. Whenever one of these books cites the court documents, we can use that, but the article needs to take care that the primary source court documents are used correctly, and that anything taken from any of these books is good scholarship. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

GMTA. I have also finally just gotten my very own copy of Bernstein's book and subsequently became aware that Bernstein cites Wikipedia. And Daggy. And Bauerle. But any cites that I have made to his book tie directly to sources other than those three. As I work through all the refs the article's sourcing will eventually become impeccable. Trust me on that.
Re: Wilkins - Gene H. Wilkins (who passed away in 2013) was the Bath historian so, yes, if anyone is an expert, he was and is it. Wilkins' "My Scrapbook" was published in 2002 by a company named "TimberWolf Ltd" which seems to have no existence outside of publishing Wilkins' "Scrapbook". The Scrapbook is again, like Ellsworth's, in limited supply/out-of-print/rare. So far as I can tell - outside of personal copies that individuals might possess - it is only available in-person, in the stacks or in their reading rooms at a handful of libraries, as seen on WorldCat searches here and here. Soldiering on - Shearonink (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad you're on it! Soldier on, then; I'll unwatch again for now. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Nooooo, SandyGeorgia please don't go and unwatch it... I'm glad to do the work but it's been great to have someone else with expertise be around, looking in on the article and sharing ideas and stuff and advice. For some reason this article and especially the victims and survivors have become important to me over time and so I've tried to keep an eye on it. Shearonink (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Not to worry; just trying to manage my watchlist and time. Ping me when you need me; I'm working 'round the clock to prepare 14-year-old FA Tourette syndrome for mainpage in two weeks. Lots to update! It looks like you have it all under control here ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia Tiny updates...I have contacts in to individuals who have two copies of Ellsworth's book - one a 2001 printing (7th!) and the other the 1981 printing. Hopefully one or both will get back to me and send me a photo or the text of the printing/copyright page of their version so I can see what is claimed there. I have searched the various copyright volumes for books, pamphlets, and photographs for the year 1927 & 1928 and have also searched the copyright renewals volumes for books, pamphlets, and photographs for the years 1954, 1955, and 1956 and so far...nothing. I will check again as it is possible I could have missed some pertinent instances of the following terms: MJ Ellsworth, Monty J. Ellsworth, Monte J. Ellsworth, Bath School, Bath School disaster, Andrew Kehoe, madman, maniac, bombing. There is a copyright notice on the original/first 1927 printing - that I saw a snippet of while doing a search on Google Books but I'm not sure that the book was actually registered with the US Copyright Office. Shearonink (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria can help you evaluate the image issues pre-FAC. I am lost on images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Someone who had a copy of the 1981 printing shared photos of the cover etc. There is no notice in the 1981 printing that the copyright was ever renewed - at this point I can almost categorically state that Ellsworth's book and the photos in it are public domain. Am hoping to get a photo or text of what the printing notice in the 2001 printing states to confirm. Shearonink (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Good news. The owner of the 2001 printing has stated that there is only one copyright notice on the "Copyright/Printed" page and that is "Copyright 1927", the Printings are listed as: 1st printing 1927, 2nd printing 1928, 3rd printing 1981, 4th printing 1984, 5th printing 1991, 6th printing 1995, 7th printing 2001. NO renewal. The Bath Disaster and its photographs are public domain. I'm not a lawyer but that is my opinion based on my research. Shearonink (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • SandyGeorgia If you'd like to take a look at the present iteration, I've been fixing and adjusting refs and image-permissions galore. Would welcome any of your insight. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Gog the Mild Would appreciate it if you could take an overview at the article, and see if there are any remaining prose issues that might have been missed. I think Bath School disaster might be ready to submit for a WP:FAC. Shearonink (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Sure. RL is a little busy, so it may not be until the weekend. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
That's fine, sounds good. Shearonink (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Gog the Mild Whenever you get to your overview of the article, please ping me so I don't miss it. I'll be busy with some real life stuff myself over the next few days but will be checking my notifications from time to time. Thanks again for all your help - Shearonink (talk) 00:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Headbomb's amazing script (see WT:FAC) is red-lining this:
  • "School Dynamiter First Slew Wife". The New York Times(via Bauerle FreePages @ RootsWeb.com). May 20, 1927. Archived from the original on October 18, 2014. Retrieved January 15, 2013. I went back to the building and helped with the rescue work until we were ordered to stop while a search was made for dynamite.
Is that a copyvio of the New York Times? Can you source the same text in a different way? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia Have downloaded Headbomb's script - thanks for the heads-up. Shearonink (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Or paraphrase it, not quote it? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Done. I changed the ref to go straight to the New York Times archives & combined the 2 refs that used that particular NYTimes article, so subscription required, etc. Shearonink (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Copy edit/pre-FAC comments

I have made a few small changes as I read through.

  • The lead is too long. It needs trimming. Let me know if you would like me to have a first go at that. Rereading, I would recommend taking out the entire third paragraph - it adds little or nothing to the opening two in terms of summary - and adding a brief paragraph summarising the "Aftermath" section.
I appreciate the offer but I'd like to try to adjust it myself. The first paragraph is a summary of the article, but to then leave off after the 2nd... I am not sure that truncating the lead section right at the end of the 2nd paragraph makes complete sense to me. He plans and then?...the 2nd & 3rd paragraph give an overview of what happens in the article. I did edit the 3rd paragraph down a bit - is that better? Will take another look, hopefully tomorrow though. Shearonink (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
It's not something I have a strong view on, but, IMO, it is too long, it says several things twice, and it is not summary-style enough.
OK, yeah...I'll take another whack at it and then post back here when I am done. Shearonink (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Gog the Mild Took another whack at that 3rd paragraph - see what you think of its present iteration. I think it presents more of a complete timeline/more of an overview, but welcome your thoughts. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "grades 1 through 12" Are there any Wikilinks for these? As a non-American I honestly have no idea what ages these correspond to. If no links, perhaps a footnoted explanation?
Wikilinked that phrase. Shearonink (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "to avoid breaking down when transporting the explosives" How is it known that that is why he purchased the tires?
Yes. That fact is sourced at the end of the paragraph and is found on Page 92 of Mayday: "As a precautionary measure, a necessary piece of insurance, Kehoe went out on the first of May and biught himself a complete and new set of tires. His pickup was an absolute necessity to his plans he could ill afford to have it break down at that point." Shearonink (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Fine. (I am always suspicious of statements of what was happening in a person's mind not collaborated by them, but if it is solidly sourced, then fine.)
  • "(equivalent to $77,774 in 2019)" 1. Can you change this to 2020? 2. $77,774 seems spuriously precise; can you set it to 2 significant figures?
I think there's some kind of template thingy around here to give comparisons of a past money amount to a present money amount, don't know where it it lol - will update that when I find it. Shearonink (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I use it frequently - Template:Inflation. Would you like me to insert it?
Gog the Mild Thank you for asking. Yes PLEASE - you take care of that & I'll get cracking on the other leftover bits. Shearonink (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
THANK YOU. Yay for the template-finder! Shearonink (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I have a page where I store handy things I come across against future need. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I have another phrase to add to #17... [often used when making a list of people that the writer wants to impress the reader with] "not to mention" as in something like... "She knew many movie notables like Stephen Spielberg, Katherine Hepburn, Jennifer Lopez, and Renee Zellwegger, not to mention Charlie Chaplin." I see this phrase repeated incessantly ALL the time - oddly enough, especially in filmmaking bios/blurbs. WELL, if you're not mentioning the names, why mention the names?!? arrrrgh. Shearonink (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Kehoe's neighbor Sidney J. Howell testified that after the fire began at the Kehoe farm, Kehoe warned him and three boys to leave there, saying, "Boys, you are my friends, you better get out of here, you better go down to the school."" You have already used the same quote. I recommend 'Kehoe's neighbor Sidney J. Howell testified that after the fire began at the Kehoe farm, Kehoe warned him and three boys to leave there, saying, "Boys, you are my friends, you better get out of here, you better go down to the school."'
Yeah, it is repeated and needs to be adjusted somehow. Don't you think it's such a weird thing for Kehoe to have said...basically saying "leave my burning house that I set to explode, go down to the school and maybe there you'll get blown to bits." Haven't quite figured out how to fix it. I'll take another look within the next few days and figure it out. Shearonink (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Done. Shearonink (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "personal check for $75,000 (equivalent to $1,103,879 in 2019)" Similar comment to above re the level of accuracy suggested.
Same response as other dollar amount above. I think there's a comparison thingy around here somewhere... Shearonink (talk)

Bar the points above, especially the one relating to the lead, the prose in this article - ie everything other than sourcing and images - is, IMO, ready for FAC. Good luck. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gog the Mild for all your help on this. I'm going to take another look at the lead section within the next few days. Shearonink (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
FYI - still working on everything. Shearonink (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Gog the Mild How does the lead read now? Shearonink (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Good. Get it nominated. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you.Your opinion means a lot to me. Greatly appreciate all your work & time on the article. Shearonink (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Happy to be of service. Have you had a sign off on the sources? PS You may, or may not, find this interesting. PPS If I ever badly need an article assessing, I shall feel free to query your availablility. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Gog the Mild Nicely-written op-ed. Well-done! Would be glad to try to help on any future endeavours.
I posted about the images sourcing/permissions here - SusunW & Clindberg took a look there, plus I asked Nikkimaria on her talk page to weigh-in on images' sources/permissions. I am working on cleaning up all the referencing/sources as much as possible. I think I might be able to get it done before the weekend is over, I have 2 more to work through. Shearonink (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Shearonink, I do wish you well with the photographs. Carl is an expert, so I would make sure in your nomination that you reference and link your conversations with him on the images. You are in excellent hands with Gog the Mild. He's a fabulous mentor. SusunW (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

SusunW Yes! Gog the Mild & Clindberg have both been a big help. Gog, I don't know that I've received a "sign-off" on the sources but I think I've now finished fixing/adjusted/cleaning-up the most egregious ref issues. I'm sure there are probably some that I've missed but I'm fairly sure I have caught the worst of them. Shearonink (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
So what are you waiting for? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I forgot to mention: Contact every editor you know and beg, bribe or bully a review out of them. Have no shame. This FAC is your offspring, cast out into the wilds, and the wolves will pull it down if you can't recruit a trusty band of reviewers. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Gog the Mild. Am feeling a little "at sea" at the moment but will cast a wide net and hopefully get some more folks to weigh in. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Cite form

We should take the books, move them to a Bibliography section, and used harvard citations with WP:SFN. This is very clearly good practice for the Grant Parker book. Per WP:CITEVAR, I am posting this on the talk page. 7&6=thirteen () 12:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen - I appreciate your thoughts on this and thank you for discussing this issue here on the article's talk page first before possibly changing the established style. There's a reason that this article doesn't use Harvard cites (besides any possible natural evolution in the life of the article)... Almost every single time I go to an article that uses them (and because I have "User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js" installed) I almost always see badly-mangled references with lots of Harv errors & Harv warnings. Most people who edit Wikipedia - not experienced editors, they "get" it - but most people who edit Wikipedia don't understand how to construct sfn/sfnm or harvnb or harvtxt and their relatives so when they wade into an article that uses them they end up mangling refs and breaking things, then someone else has to go in and clean up the mess. Since I seem to be the main editor who keeps an eye on this article I'd rather not deal with the constant updating and fixing that any of the various forms of parenthetical referencing will almost certainly entail. This article gets spurts of heavy editing and vandalism whenever there is a similar school attack, or near its anniversary date or around the anniversaries of any of the more well-known school attacks like Columbine or the Virginia Tech massacre or the Sandy Hill school shooting. Yes, I do know how to construct Harvard cites and they are easy to use but in my opinion they're a b*tch to maintain. The present referencing on this article is easy to maintain, easy to use, and easy to fix if any issues pop up. Shearonink (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

SFNs are horrid; no citation style change is needed, helpful or required. Shearonink, see dementia with Lewy bodies for a short-form book citation method that does NOT use those dreaded SFNs. (Look at Kosaka book citations; like this article, DLB uses only one book and SFNs besides being unnecessary work that create two hops to a citation, are not helpful or needed.) Short-form citations for book numbers are much more intuitive and easier to follow. Let me know if you would like me to put that system in place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:SFN displays the citation when you hover on it. As it stands, we have a bunch of repeated long form citations. Apparently your experience with putting in WP:SFN into articles is different than mine. See what I accomplished at Smith & Wesson, compared to before for example. YMMV. I only know what can be done. You can lead a horse to water ... 7&6=thirteen () 15:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

"Worst school massacre" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Worst school massacre. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 06:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Everything that is said in this article can be said in the article on the disaster. RockstoneSend me a message! 06:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Support Most here isn't about the school, which is not notable outside of the disaster. That article can cover this. Reywas92Talk 15:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support re-direct: WARNING: DO NOT CHECK OUT or CLICK ON or RESTORE THE ELLSWORTH REFS LINKS at the other article, the "School" article. Sadly the formerly reliable daggy/Bath School disaster website was taken over by a scammy/scummy/untrustworthy/BAD faith/malware attempting/phishing attempting operator. I forgot the daggy website was DEAD and should have checked first but backed out immediately and also immediately ran a full virus scan on my system.
Anyway, back to the merge... I am not sure exactly what this merge-proposal wants to do. Possibly merge some content from School into this article? Any merge of content doesn't seem to be at all needful. After just now looking over the School article's content, I agree with the statement above, everything in the school article is already covered in this article about the disaster. I admit I don't move or merge pages much but I think a simple re-direct with a notice in the talk-page headers to preserve past contributions to the School article would probably suffice. I looked over the "sources" and the content and I see nothing in either that would bear being ported over. Shearonink (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
No merge - not needed, this is a stand alone historical event.JonathanPlaster (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry but I am confused by your wording... You're at least agreeing that the School article is redundant or unneeded, correct? That something, along the lines of a merge or a redirect should be done? Shearonink (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support redirecting the school article to the disaster article. As pointed out above, there is not enough information available about the school to make it notable, and elementary schools are generally not given articles. I do think some comparison of the information at the school article should be done before carrying out the merge/redirect, just so we don't leave out anything important. NOTE: I was asked to look at this merge request and advise. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since no one has objected in the main I am going to do a merge of some content along with a re-direct. After carefully looking over the School article the only content I found that was useful/meaningful to keep is the mediadrome column by Debra Pawlak (by the way, the original website was usurped since 2007 and now has gone dead but luckily this particular content is available in webarchive/wayback machine). So, going forward this is my plan:
I am going to put the mediadrome article in the external links section with a complete web cite and an edit summary saying something like "Material copied from Bath Consolidated School, see that article's history for attribution". I think the commentary that Pawlak wrote will be useful for readers, placing them in the time when the event happened but some of its conclusions are mistaken or in error, including the following:
  • that Kehoe was somehow a "handyman" - he did work around the School as part of his plan but he was not known to be any kind of a "handyman" (as a job or as his work, as a matter of fact neighbors made fun of how he kept his farm)
  • that Kehoe's mortgage was going to be foreclosed upon - not true
  • supposing the exact date Nellie Kehoe was murdered - it's unknown
  • stating without attribution survivors' statements
  • that Kehoe fired independently into his truck which isn't true. Superintendent Huyck struggled with Kehoe over the rifle and it went off during the struggle.
So I think it wouldn't be appropriate to place the mediadrome cite + text in the main body since it doesn't provide any citations but I think its commentary is meaningful.
Just wanted any interested editors to know my intent going forward. Much thanks to MelanieN for giving me advice and to Rockstone35 for bringing up the issue in the first place. Shearonink (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)