Talk:Iroquois Theatre fire

Aftermath section edits

The Aftermath section seems to still needs work — I don't find the current version an improvement, but a return to the awkwardness of three versions before, sorry to say. It's also sporting an extra period. (Currently: "Trying to get to any possible exit, patrons climbed over the bodies of those already dead, only to then subsequently themselves succumb to the flames, smoke, and gases..") NekoKatsun (talk · contribs) Shearonink (talk · contribs) The Huhsz (talk · contribs) Lindenfall (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

You're right, that was awful. What do you think now? --The Huhsz (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I like it better now. I was also thinking of replacing the first two sentences with "Patrons had climbed over the bodies of those already dead in their futile attempts to escape, ultimately succumbing to the flames, smoke, and gases; corpses were piled 10 high around the doors and windows." But I'm not honestly sure I like that one any better. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The existing version went from:

Corpses were piled 10 high around the doors and windows. Trying to get to any possible exit, patrons climbed over the bodies of those already dead, only to succumb to the flames, smoke, and gases.

to

Corpses were piled 10 high around the doors and windows. Trying to get out, patrons climbed over the bodies of those already dead, only to succumb to the flames, smoke, and gases.

There's no need to cast other people's contributions in a pejorative light ("that was awful", "sporting an extra period"). Just say you think something else would be better and go on with it.

Anyway, so I went back and read the cited source. Nowhere in Chicago Death Trap: The Iroquois Theatre Fire of 1903 does Nat Brandt state that the corpses were piled 10 high. The reality was much worse than the article's previous "10 high" - he states the following(in the 2006 version, so the pagination might be different from the 2003 edition):

• [Page 58] Theatergoers fleeing the gallery from the topmost entryway collided with those exiting by the middle entrance causing a gridlock effect. Bodies here were piled 10 feet high.
• [Page 69] the piles of corpses that filled every available foot of space
• [Page 54] ... people stumbled and fell on top of one another. Soon, bodies began piling up as fleeing theatergoers tried to climb over those who had already fallen and were themselves crushed or smothered. ... They found their way blocked by the locked accordion gates. Soon, as the fumes from the burning scenery spread through the theater, the people fell, choking, and died, creating another pile of corpses at each of the gates.

Also, according to the Cook County coroner's office and Brandt's other sources many of the dead were either asphyxiated in their seats or were crushed to death in the ensuing panic. The fire took 30 minutes to burn [Page 71] and within five minutes after the first spark [page 70] patrons trapped in the theater began suffocating.

So, I re-crafted the present version into:

During the mass panic the living tried climbing over the piles of bodies while attempting their own escape from the burning building. Corpses were stacked 10 feet high around some of the blocked exits. The victims were asphyxiated by the fire, smoke, and gases or were crushed to death by the onrush of other terrified theater patrons behind them.

By the way...many of the bodies weren't necessarily dead when people were trapped trying to get out of the building. Having escaped the asphyxiation that patrons succumbed to while sitting in their seats, many were trampled to death at false exits or locked doors and gates. Shearonink (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

re: "There's no need to cast other people's contributions in a pejorative light...'sporting an extra period'... Just say you think something else would be better and go on with it." While I agree with your basic sentiment, you've highlighted the mildest of rebuffs for an edit that undid the actual improvement that had preceded it, which had then laid effort to waste. Lindenfall (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Everybody has an opinion, that's what makes WP so grand. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Shearonink Regarding your last edit: I reversed your cn tag, as you are mistaken. Please look again; you will find the cemetery name stated in in the middle of the third paragraph of page 90. I did not feel that it should be overlooked, all things considered. (Find A Grave will evidence it, as well, should you look further, though I did not find that to be necessary addition, since the first Brandt source covered it.) Further to your commentary, please do abide by your own proclamation: "There's no need to cast other people's contributions in a pejorative light" — I may have mislaid a semi-colon, but not a fact. Please refrain from leaving high-handed editing notes regarding other people's contributions, perhaps working on your own command of punctuation, instead. Lindenfall (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I was working on my command of punctuation. Since I wasn't sure myself, I referred to several online grammar/punctuation texts re: the usage of semicolons plus there's always semicolon usage... but ok. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Waldheim cemetery/Page 90, Brandt book

As to my "citation needed" template - Brandt characterizes the cemetery only as "Waldheim cemetery" he does not describe it as being Jewish. Yes, I know that this cemetery is used for Jewish burials but other people might not - neither of the 2 cited sources (Brandt or FIndAGrave) state this as a fact. A source should be provided for the statement that this cemetery is a Jewish cemetery. That's all. Shearonink (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

It's proper name contained "Jewish"; many names are shortened by many writers. Lindenfall (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)