Talk:Battle of Blair Mountain

Gatling gun

The dedicated article mentions this battle as one at which the weapon was used, but the article here has no mention of it. It's worth a mention. Arminden (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you meant Gatling gun? Yeah Gatlings were used, unclear from my research today exactly where/when/who...the one source - Socialist World Wide I think? - in the Gatling article is probably not completely reliable but multiple references & sources do mention Gatlings being used in some capacity (one was apparently looted from a company store and used by miners - Mining companies had Gatlings on-site!) and also mention machine guns being used. I'll get on this within the next day or two and add additional content concerning machine guns/Gatlings. Shearonink (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article now contains this statement in the “Battle” section: “Gatling guns and machine guns were employed by both sides, along with additional firepower.[1][2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff in CA (talk • contribs) 22:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Andrews, Evan (September 1, 2018). "The Battle of Blair Mountain". A&E Networks. Retrieved November 1, 2023. ... the battle was renewed on September 1. That morning, a detachment of union men assaulted a spot called Craddock Fork with a Gatling gun looted from a coal company store. Logan forces fought back with a machine gun, but after three hours of heavy fire, their weapon jammed. The miners surged forward and briefly broke the defensive line, only to be repulsed by a fusillade of bullets from a second machine gun nest located further up the ridge.
  2. ^ "The Battle of Blair Mountain". National Park Service. Retrieved November 1, 2023. the two sides battled with gatling guns, rifles, and other firearms along the ridge of Blair Mountain.
Sorry, I meant to update this talk page - Thanks to Jeff in CA for doing so. Shearonink (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article good to be nominated as a featured article? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:A92C:DB9E:C3C2:C86D (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, No. It should probably go through the Good Article process first. Shearonink (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Savage, 1990

A large portion of the article relies on a single source - specifically Savage, 1990. At the time fo writing, citations 13-33 are almost entirely drawn from this work. This encompasses large blocks of the Background and Battle Sections

I'm uncertain about the quality of this source. It's written more like a novel that a factual historical account, using performative language and recounting specific conversations in a level of detail I find somewhat implausible. Although the introduction describes collecting the information from a number of sources (eye witnesses, local museums, folk music, etc.), the body of the work contains no specific citations. That is, it's impossible to tell where any one claim came from, and it doesn't distinguish what is established fact, what is popular consensus, and what is hearsay.

It's an entertaining read. As an individual I'm inclined to believe most of it. But that does not make it a good source. Aederon (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP25 - Sect 202 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2025 and 30 April 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rx2306 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Rx2306 (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]