Talk:Los Angeles Chinese massacre of 1871

Largest lynching?

Hi there! This page mentions twice that it was the largest lynching in American history, which is also claimed by the March 14, 1891 page. That page also has a note that claims that its the largest lynching excluding massacres such as this one because the targets of that lynching were predetermined. Can someone clarify? Should a note be added to this page to clarify that? Giovanni.iaboni99 (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC) G.I.

I, too, am wondering if this was the largest lynching in US history. For example, at the Elaine race riot, between 100 to 237 black people were killed by a white mob. And at the Tulsa race riot, as many as 300 black people were killed. QuizzicalBee (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Victims' names

I realize that, most likely, the names are listed in the article the way they're reported in the source material, which is unfortunate, because "Ah" (阿) is not actually part of six of the names; it's a prefix, traditionally used in rural or southern Chinese dialects, in front of given names or kinship terms to express familiarity. See here, e.g. IceKarmaॐ 23:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

refs

hi

After reading some of the material, I wanted to check the refs for a couple of points. In particular, the claim that:

"It estimated the mob was about 500 persons, which would have constituted eight percent of the city's population of nearly 6,000 persons, including all men, women and children."

The ref I checked is locked and, as far as I can tell, only part of the first column is available without an account: <ref name="defalla">[https://www.jstor.org/stable/41169431?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Paul M. De Falla, "Lantern in the Western Sky"], ''The Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly'', 42 (March 1960), 57–88 (Part I), and 42 (June 1960), 161–185 (Part II); via JSTOR; accessed 3 February 2018.</ref>

Can someone with JSTOR access add quotes to the ref? It is a little disconcerting to not be able to check the ref. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Spelling discrepancy

The police officer's name is spelled two different ways in this article: Jesus Bilderrain and Jesús Birderrain. Which is correct? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Format of article

Thanks for working to improve the article. The structure of this article needs work per the Manual of style. The lead is a summary of the article so the summary section needs to eventually be deleted. It was probably added due to the extensive detail and poorly formed first paragraphs in each section. Expanding the lead into a few paragraphs that summarize the entire article is probably the first step. Improving the first paragraph in each section could proceed at the same time. Tagging you @Westcork1916 - Fettlemap (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I've been hesitant to update any of the earlier posts, mostly due to the prior edit warring over the Lead. But there are currently several redundant sentences, factual inaccuracies, and sentences with repeated words. Baby steps. Westcork1916 (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

De-duplication of Summary section

The Summary section currently has three paragraph that contain redundant information. I recommend merging these ideas into one paragraph, with the eventual goal to merge the summary with the article lead.

Edit2: Adding Table

Bold Face I recommend for retention

Strike through I recommend for removal

Paragraph 1	Paragraph 2	Paragraph 3
The Los Angeles Chinese Massacre of 1871 was a violent, deadly event of unprecedented scale in Los Angeles, a town of 5,728 people per the 1870 census.
A dispute internal to the Chinese community spilled out, leading to the "death of an American bystander and the wounding of a city policeman."	The Massacre's immediate cause traces to a fight between rival tongs, the Nin Yung, and Hong Chow. The rival factions fought over the alleged abduction of Yut Ho.	The Massacre's primary basis is viewed mainly as the escalation of fights amidst the associates of two Chinese tongs over the possession of a woman called Yit Ho.
	For two days, the conflict escalated, leading to the death of Robert Thompson, a civilian, and the wounding of Jesus Bilderrain, a police officer.	The two groups' enemies ragged gunshots from 23 to October 24, 1871, which killed a civilian named Robert Thompson, and wounded a police officer from Los Angeles named Jesus Bilderrain.
This unfortunate incident sparked a frenzy of hatred and violent destruction centered in Calle de Los Negros, one of the town's oldest alleys and known for both its Chinese residences and businesses as well as its gambling dens.	Not long after the fateful events, a crowd gathered around the Coronel Adobe, the events' location.	A few minutes after dusk, a large gathering assembled everywhere in Coronel Block.
	Indiscriminate shooting and hanging ensued, violence leading to hundreds of injuries and deaths on both sides, and replicated in at least three other areas.
	The Los Angeles Star reported that a Vigilance Committee addressed crowds at the point where Los Angeles Street, Calle de los Negros, and Main Street met.
	Amid the melee, a few individuals, including a would-be District Judge, Robert M. Widney, tried to calm the situation.	According to reports, some in the crowd tried to calm the group and preclude the Chinese slayings including Robert M. Widney who would go on to become the district judge presiding over the cases of the seven murders involved in the Massacre.
		The last killing occurred at 9:30 pm, according to one news report.
All but one of the Chinese victims killed in the massacre had not been involved in the original incident leading up to the massacre.
	The police, led by Sheriff James F. Burns, were only able to arrest the situation hours later.	At the time, Sheriff James, with further community associates, had gained sufficient reinforcement; besides, it was four hours from the Massacre's commencement, scattering the crowd and guarding them throughout the night.
After the confusion had settled, at least a hundred and fifty individuals were identified and directly linked to the violence "after an exhaustive coroner's inquest and the convening of a grand jury."	After that, the criminal justice administration system began to piece together factual details to punish those responsible for the heinous acts.	The criminal justice dispensation structure, which was utterly defective in stopping the massive killing, started its investigations to seek facts to administer justice on the unprecedented inhuman act.
The jury ultimately identified seven men for trial for their direct involvement in the death of one of the massacre victims.
Judge Robert M. Widney secured convictions for lesser charges of manslaughter, ranging between two and nine years.
However, an appeal to the California Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remitted the cases back to Widney's court.
District Attorney Cameron E. Thom decided against retrying the cases and freed the accused in late spring of 1873.
This blight in the history of Los Angeles has been referenced multiple times.
Newspaper coverage and court coverage papers offer a comprehensive perspective regarding the criminal justice system's role on the backdrop of this unfortunate part of the city's history.

Proposal to refine the summary section

Below is a line by line proposal to refine the Summary section by some correct inaccuracies, simplifying ideas, and adding context that is missing from the article.  The eventual goal to to merge Summary with the lead.

Original Sentence	Proposed Sentence	Rationale
The Los Angeles Chinese Massacre of 1871 was a violent, deadly event of unprecedented scale in Los Angeles, a town of 5,728 people per the 1870 census.	The Los Angeles Chinese Massacre of 1871 was an act of mob brutality that resulted in the murder of eighteen Chinese residents.	Reduce the adjectives and puffery. Los Angeles is used twice in the same sentence.
The Massacre's immediate cause traces to a fight between rival tongs, the Nin Yung, and Hong Chow.	The Massacre's immediate cause emanates from a conflict between rival huiguan, the Nin Yung, and Hong Chow, related to the abduction of Yut Ho.	The news of that era refereed to the different factions as "companies". Scott Zesch explains that the use of the term "company" refers to huiguan, a type of benevolent society "The Chinatown war” pg. 36
The rival factions fought over the alleged abduction of Yut Ho.	On the morning of October 23 , Won Choy, the brother of Yut Ho, attempted to kill Yo Hing, on Negro Alley.	Yut Ho was abducted on March 7, and the last mention of that incident was April 20, 1871. The cause of the recent fighting was due to the assassination attempt on Yo Hing by Ah Choy who was identified as Yut Ho's brother. Supporting source Los Angeles Daily Star, Volume 3, Number 437, 24 October 1871 The steamer California on her last trip from San Francisco brought, at least so they say, Ah Choy, a brother of Yits [Yut Ho] and Yu Tak a friend anxious to recover possession of their loved and lost, And to Yu Hing the agreeable information that $1,000 reward was to be paid for his scalp by a rival company. However that may be, Yo was at the house of a Chinaman named Charley, in Negro Alley, yesterday morning, about half past 9 o'clock, when Ah Choy and Yu Tak opened fire on him with six-shooters.
For two days, the conflict escalated, leading to the death of Robert Thompson, a civilian, and the wounding of Jesus Bilderrain, a police officer.	The following day, the another skirmish occurred on Negro alley. This time, Won Choy received a fatal gunshot wound to the neck. Officer Jesus Bilderain responded to the scene and was shot in the shoulder while attempting to arrest one of the gun men. Several civilians assisted the police, including a farmer named Robert Thompson who was shot in the chest. Soon after, Sheriff James Burns arrived and deputized a group of men with instructions to guard the building and prevent any occupants from escaping.	Supporting sources Los Angeles Daily Star, Volume 3, Number 443, 31 October 1871 Yo Hing and three others of his party (Chinamen), as here related by Ah Choy, who stated that he was eating his evening meal at a back part of a house on the east side of Negro Alley and heard a fuss, went out to the front door; Yo Hing and three others were around with pistols, and one of them shot Ah Choy in the neck, of which wound he has since died. Los Angeles Daily News, Volume 3, Number 255, 27 October 1871 Augustus Cates sworn, testified that he saw the crowd collected on Los Angeles and Arcadia street; saw shooting done at the doorway of one of the tenements in the Chinese block; Sheriff Burns deputized him to keep guard, instructing him that in case anyone should attempt to escape, first, to arrest them; but afterwards said; “if they wont stop when called upon to do so, shoot them; if they open the door, and when called upon to close it, do not, shoot them." Los Angeles Daily News, Volume 3, Number 257, 29 October 1871 Sheriff Burns, sworn. My order to those whom I deputized, and to the officers, were, that they should prevent any one from going in or coming out; that if they could not make arrests to bring them down, to prevent escape;
Not long after the fateful events, a crowd gathered around the Coronel Adobe, the events' location.	Thompson was taken to an apothecary on Main street where he died two hours later. Following the news of Thompson's death, residents of Los Angeles started to congregate around the Coronel Adobe, the location where Bilderain and Thompson were shot.	Supporting sources Los Angeles Daily Star, Volume 3, Number 438, 25 October 1871 Thompson, one of our oldest residents and most quiet and respectable citizens, was one of the first to gain the porch in answer to the cries of the police, and received a mortal wound from a bullet fired through the door of a Chinese store, and which struck him in the left breast, above the heart, and probably severed the arch of the aorta. He was taken to Wollweber’s drug store, on Main street, and expired after enduring horrible agonies. P.S. Dorney, "Lynching the Chinese" (October 28, 1871) About 8 o'clock the death of Thompson was announced. The announcement was received in sullen silence; but in a moment the crowd melted away, and Main Street was deserted. In another moment, armed men were seen hastening, singly and in clusters, from every street and avenue, all heading toward Chinatown. The whole city seemed moved by one grim and tacit purpose--it streamed down from the hills and swarmed from the suburbs, while "Sonora" poured forth a horde of swarthy avengers. Businessmen closed their shops and joined the gathering clans, and in less than fifteen minutes after the announcement of "Bob" Thompson's death, the cracking of rifles, the roar of shotguns, and the rattle of small arms proclaimed the investment of Chinatown. About 9 o'clock the first Chinese was captured. He was armed with a hatchet and was taken while attempting to break through the cordon of whites that surrounded the Chinese quarter. A dozen hands clutched him, and a hundred throats hoarsely shouted: "A rope! To the hill! To the hill!"
Indiscriminate shooting and hanging ensued, violence leading to hundreds of injuries and deaths on both sides, and replicated in at least three other areas.	Members of the crowd, shot at the doors and windows of the building. At nine pm, a door was battered-down and the occupants dragged outside and towards makeshift gallows.	This sentence is a messy. There were no deaths 'on both sides' during the riot. nor hundreds of injuries. There is also no citation. Supporting source Los Angeles Daily Star, Volume 3, Number 438, 25 October 1871 At about a quarter to 9 o'clock a door in the eastern end of the building was battered down and a storming party rushed in eight Chinamen were found within, and dragged out to the infuriated crowd.
The Los Angeles Star reported that a Vigilance Committee addressed crowds at the point where Los Angeles Street, Calle de los Negros, and Main Street met.		I recommend deleting this sentence. First, Main street did not met Los Angeles or Calle De Los Negros. And second while there was a call to convene a vigilance committee, there is no record of any meeting having occurred. This is sentence is misconstrued from comment in the news: Los Angeles Daily Star, Volume 3, Number 438, 25 October 1871, Dense crowds of people assembled at the head of Los Angeles street and on Main and were addressed by parties who called attention to the fact that a vigilance committee was still In existence, and suggested that those members present repair to the headquarters of the organization.
According to reports, some in the crowd tried to calm the group and preclude the Chinese slayings including Robert M. Widney who would go on to become the district judge presiding over the cases of the seven murders involved in the Massacre.	According to reports, some in the crowd tried to calm the group and preclude the Chinese slayings including Robert M. Widney who would go on to become the district judge presiding over the massacre trials.	I recommend shortening the sentence and adding citations Los Angeles Daily Star, Volume 3, Number 440, 27 October 1871 C. E. White, sworn -- Assisted to rescue some Chinamen from the hands of a mob, on the corner of Temple and Spring streets. The three Messrs. Widney, John Lazzarovich and I think Coffman, were with me; did not recognize the parties who were with the Chinaman. Los Angeles Daily Star, Volume 3, Number 441, 28 October 1871 R. M. Widney, when we got to the corner of Temple and Spring streets, we saw two or three groups coming with Chinamen; John Lazzarovich, I and others were standing together; John said he would help, and he and I took hold of a Chinaman, and pulled to get him away; my brother came up, and I got my pistol from him; the Irishman I before alluded to was one of the parties; I took hold of and jerked him back, put my pistol to his face, and told him he couldn’t do any more hanging, that the rest of the Chinamen must go to jail; the others were threatening Lazzarovich; I stepped between them, put my pistol up, and stopped them; another crowd were then trying to take one up Temple street; it was only by leveling my pistol that we could save the Chinaman, got him off and sent him down Spring street to jail; they made two attempts to recover him, but failed; we sent up four, all we met from that time on. Burns then came up, addressed the crowd, and as the affair seemed over,
The last killing occurred at 9:30 pm, according to one news report.		I recommend removing / merging with a later sentence
All but one of the Chinese victims killed in the massacre had not been involved in the original incident leading up to the massacre.		I recommend removing. This comment is conjecture was taken from Officer Emil Harris who was not present at the initial affray. Supporting Source Los Angeles Daily News, Volume 3, Number 254, 26 October 1871 Officer Harris testified ... He identified all the dead, but stated that there was only one that participated in the fracas, the remaining he believed to be innocent.
At the time, Sheriff James, with further community associates, had gained sufficient reinforcement; besides, it was four hours from the Massacre's commencement, scattering the crowd and guarding them throughout the night.	Around 9:30 pm, the Sheriff "called for twenty-five armed volunteers on the side of law and order to preserve the peace and guard the building until this morning."	Supporting sources Los Angeles Daily Star, Volume 3, Number 440, 27 October 1871 Morris Levin : Burns got on the bank and addressed the citizens, (this was about 9 ½ o'clock,) commanded them to keep the peace as the Sheriff and in the name of the law, and called upon those who wished to preserve the peace to follow him; then went to Coronel's building, the crowd with him, and called for twenty-five volunteers, stationed them on the four sides of the block; Los Angeles Daily News, Volume 3, Number 255, 27 October 1871 Morris Levin : after taking him to jail Sheriff Burns addressed the crowd, exhorting them to keep the peace, and asked all who wished to preserve the peace to follow him; returned to Coronel building in company with Sheriff Burns, who called for 25 volunteers, and stationed them before the building; Los Angeles Daily Star, Volume 3, Number 438, 25 October 1871 At about twenty minutes past 9 o'clock, Sheriff Burns addressed the crowd, at the corner of Spring and Temple streets, commanded the peace, and called upon all good, law-abiding citizens to follow him to the Chinese quarter. Their he ascended a porch, and, after stating that he had attempted in vein to check the affair in its incipiency, called for twenty-five armed volunteers on the side of law and order to preserve the peace and guard the building until this morning.
After the confusion had settled, at least a hundred and fifty individuals were identified and directly linked to the violence "after an exhaustive coroner's inquest and the convening of a grand jury."	The Coroner's inquest resulted in forty nine indictments containing the names of one hundred and fifty individuals.	Simplifying. Supporting Source Los Angeles Daily News, Volume 3, Number 286, 3 December 1871 The Grand Jury's report - Forty-nine Indictments Found. At 5 o'clock P. M., yesterday, the Grand Jury presented itself upon the County Court ready to report the results of their investigations, concluded during a sessions of 23 days duration. Appended we give the report in full. Accompanying this report are forty nine indictments found, twenty-five of which are for the crime of murder and accessories, the remaining twenty-four being for various felonies. These indictments contain the names of our 150 different individuals, some of whom are in custody, but the majority have not been arrested.
The jury ultimately identified seven men for trial for their direct involvement in the death of one of the massacre victims.	Seven men were convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to imprisonment in the State penitentiary at San Quentin.	Jury, coroners jury, or grand jury? Ten men were prosecuted for accessory to murder, and several more were also indicted, but their outcomes are unknown. Cameon Thom's prosecurtion was for just one victim, Gene Tong. Scott Zesch stated that Thom wanted to have seventeen more chances should he fail to win a conviction. "The Chinatown War" pg. 196 Los Angeles Daily Star, Volume 4, Number 101, 28 March 1872 DECISION OF THE RIOT CASE. The long and tedious riot case was brought to a close on Tuesday night, the 26th inst., and resulted in the conviction of the following named persons of the crime of manslaughter: Louis Mendell, A. R. Johnson, Chas Austin, P. McDonald, Jesus Martinez, Refugio Botillo (sic), Estefen Alvarado. D. W. Moody and Adolph Celis were acquitted. Owing to the difficulty obtaining competent jurors —men who were not disqualified on account of having expressed an opinion, and free from knowledge of the affair and that bias which proscribed them acccording (sic) to statutory stipulations, it was thought by many that none of the parties accused would be convicted. After the trial had fully commenced, however, the positive testimony against the accused accumulated from day to day, and before the close of the trial had become exceedingly voluminous.
Judge Robert M. Widney secured convictions for lesser charges of manslaughter, ranging between two and nine years.		I recommend removing. Secured a conviction" normally refers to the prosecutor. Widney was the judge, not the prosecutor. Cameron Thom was the District Attorney
However, an appeal to the California Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remitted the cases back to Widney's court. District Attorney Cameron E. Thom decided against retrying the cases and freed the accused in late spring of 1873.	However, an appeal to the California Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remitted the cases back to Widney's court. District Attorney Cameron E. Thom decided against retrying the cases and freed the accused in late spring of 1873.	Leave unchanged but add citations Los Angeles Daily Star, Volume 7, Number 9, 11 June 1873 DISCHARGE OF THE CHINESE RIOTERS. -- The remittitur from the Supreme Court in the Chinese riot case, was called up yesterday in the District Court. The decision says that the indictment on which Lewis Mendel, A. R. Johnson, Charles Austin, P. M. McDonald, Jesus Martinez, and Estevan A. Alvarado, were tried and convicted "is fatally defective in that it fails to allege that Chee Long Tong was murdered." The defect is set forth by the Supreme Court, as follows: "It is alleged that the defendant did stand by, aid, abet, assist, advise, counsel and encourage one John Doe and Richard Row to feloniously, unlawfully, willfully, deliberately, premeditatedly, and of their malice aforethought, one Chee Long Tong to kill and murder. Admitting that the defendants did all these things, still it does not follow, by necessary legal conclusion that after all any person was actually murdered." Col. Howard asked that the prisoners, being now in the jurisdiction of the Court, be discharged and no objection being made the Court entered a decree so doing. A certified copy of the order will be sent to the Warden of the prison at San Quentin, and the men, upon that warrant, be discharged. To this "most lame and impotent conclusion" has come the great Chinese riots which at the time sounded the note of objurgation against our city in two hemispheres. The convicted parties escape full punishment for their crimes by a quibble, justice is complacent, and the eagle roosts high. Thus it goes District Court - Widney Judge TUESDAY, JUNE 10. People vs. Crenshaw et als. -- Remittitur from the Supreme Court, reversing judgment in the case of defendants (the Chinese rioters) having been received and placed on file, on motion of James Howard, Esq., the District Attorney not objecting, the Court entered a decree discharging the defendants, now in State Prison. Los Angeles Daily Star, Volume 7, Number 175, 24 December 1873 LEGAL INTELLIGENCE. District Court. People vs. L. Crenshaw et als. -- The old Chinese riot cases — Motion of District Attorney, these cases were dismissed.

Westcork1916 (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Consolidated proposal for the summary section:

The Los Angeles Chinese Massacre of 1871 was an act of mob brutality that resulted in the murder of eighteen Chinese residents. The Massacre's immediate cause emanates from a conflict between rival huiguan, the Nin Yung, and Hong Chow. The day before the massacre, Won Choy attempted to kill Yo Hing for the abduction of his sister, Yut Ho. The following day, the another skirmish occurred, this time, Won Choy received a fatal gunshot wound to the neck.

Officer Jesus Bilderain responded to the scene and was shot inside the Coronel building, while attempting to arrest one of the gunmen. Several civilians assisted the police, including a farmer named Robert Thompson who was shot in the chest. Soon after, the Sheriff arrived and deputized a group of men with instructions to guard the Coronel building and prevent any occupants from escaping. Thompson was taken to an apothecary on Main street where he died two hours later. Following the news of Thompson's death, residents of Los Angeles started to congregate around the Coronel Adobe. Members of the crowd, shot at the doors and windows of the building. At nine o'clock p.m., a door was battered-down and the occupants dragged outside and towards makeshift gallows. According to reports, some in the crowd tried to calm the group and preclude the slayings including Robert M. Widney who would go on to become the district judge presiding over the subsequent trials. The massacre ended around 9:30 pm, when the Sheriff "called for twenty-five armed volunteers on the side of law and order to preserve the peace and guard the building until this morning."

The Coroner's inquest resulted in forty-nine indictments, containing the names of one hundred and fifty individuals. Seven men were convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to imprisonment in the State penitentiary. However, an appeal to the California Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remitted the cases back to Widney's court. District Attorney Cameron E. Thom decided against retrying the cases and freed the accused in the spring of 1873. Westcork1916 (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Victim names formatted as a table

I recommend formatting the victim names in a table for better readability

Chee Long Tong (Gene Tong)	Doctor, shot through the head and hanged	Chin Wa Company
Wa Sin Qua, resident of Negro Alley	received eight shots in the abdomenand legs	Chin Wa Company
Chang Wan, resident of the Doctor Tong's house	hanged	Chin Wa Company
Leong Quai	hanged	Chin Wa Company
Joung Burrow	shot through the head and left wrist	Chin Wa Company
Ah Long, cigar maker	hanged	Nin Yung Company
Wong Chim, storekeeper	hanged	Nin Yung Company
Tong Wan, just arrived from San Francisco	shot, stabbed and hanged	Nin Yung Company
Ah Loo, just arrived from China a week before	hanged	Hap Waa Company
Wan Foo, cook	hanged	Nin Yung Company
Day Kee, came from Sidney	hanged
Ho Hing, cook from San Francisco	hanged	Sam Yep Company
Ah Waa, cook	hanged	Nin Yung Company
Ah Cut, liquor maker	shot in the abdomen and extremities	Sam Yep Company
Lo Hoy	hanged	Nin Yung Company
Ah Wan, cook	hanged	Nin Yung company
Wing Chee, cook	shot and hanged	Sam Yep Company
Ah Wing, the first victim	hanged
Fun Yu, one of the men who came from San Francisco to kill Yo Hing	died October 27th from a gunshot wound to the head sustained on the night of the massacre	Nin Yung company
Won Choy, the brother of Yut Ho	died October 27th. He was shot in the neck during the initial affray

There was one other victim named by Yo Hing in a letter to the Los Angeles Daily Star. However, Yo Hing's comments are contradictory since he states Yu Tak was killed, and then in the same letter, implies Yu Tak is in jail.

Los Angeles Daily Star, Volume 3, Number 442, 30 October 1871 Won Yu Tak killed Bob Thompson and also shot at the Sheriff seven or eight months ago, on Commercial street, when the woman was arrested, and a horse killed. He told me he shot at the Sheriff and killed the horse. He belonged to the Ning Yung Company, and was shot and hanged in the riot. He wore an armor on his body nobody could shoot through and thought no one could kill him. I think many good Chinamen will leave Los Angeles and not come back. A musician who came down on the steamer before the riot was killed. He was a very good fellow, honest, did nothing wrong. The Doctor was very good honest man.

Yu Tak's company are going to try to get him out because he fights well, and let the other fellow hang because he all the time afraid and no do anything. Westcork1916 (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I do not like the segregation of this content into a table. It is distracting to the article as a whole by placing emphasis on names and what happened. Readers eyes will be drawn to the table which then emphasizes this aspect and disrupts the flow of the article. Prose is generally preferred on Wikipedia with lists being created for specific reasons. Cheers, Fettlemap (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I'll defer to your wisdom. Westcork1916 (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to merge the Summary with the Lead

The Los Angeles Chinese Massacre of 1871 was an act of mob brutality that resulted in the murder of eighteen Chinese residents on October 24, 1871. The Massacre's immediate cause emanates from a conflict between rival huiguan, the Nin Yung, and Hong Chow.

The day before the massacre, Won Choy, attempted to kill Yo Hing, for the abduction of his sister, Yut Ho. The following day, another skirmish occurred, this time, Won Choy received a fatal gunshot wound to the neck. Officer Jesus Bilderain responded to the scene and was shot inside the Coronel building while attempting to arrest one of the gunmen. Several civilians assisted the police, including a farmer named Robert Thompson who was shot in the chest. Soon after, the Sheriff arrived and deputized a group of men with instructions to guard the Coronel building and prevent any occupants from escaping. Thompson was taken to an apothecary on Main street where he died two hours later. Following the news of Thompson's death, residents of Los Angeles started to congregate around the Coronel Adobe. Members of the crowd, shot at the doors and windows of the building. At nine o'clock p.m., a door was battered-down and the occupants dragged outside and towards makeshift gallows. According to reports, some in the crowd tried to calm the group and preclude the slayings including Robert M. Widney who would go on to become the district judge presiding over the sunsequent trials. The massacre ended around 9:30 pm, when the Sheriff "called for twenty-five armed volunteers on the side of law and order to preserve the peace and guard the building until this morning."

Eighteen Chinese men where killed that night, and another two would later die from their injuries, including Won Choy. Those killed represented over 10% of the small Chinese population of Los Angeles at the time, which numbered 172 prior to the massacre. The Coroner's inquest resulted in forty-nine indictments, containing the names of one hundred and fifty individuals. Seven men were convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to imprisonment in the State penitentiary. However, an appeal to the California Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remitted the cases back to Widney's court. District Attorney Cameron E. Thom decided against retrying the cases and freed the accused in the spring of 1873. Westcork1916 (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be a copy of the summary. It is not clear what you are proposing. A bit of the summary can be used to expand the lead but this is way too much to merge. The lead is not that bad but could be improved. See WP:LEAD. Thanks for your work. Fettlemap (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm suggesting replacing the the current lead with the above, and then eliminating the Summary. Westcork1916 (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Important elements of the lead would be eliminated. That will not work. Cheers, Fettlemap (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

What would you consider are the important elements that are not already included in the above text? Westcork1916 (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

A bit of the summary can be used to expand the lead but this is way too much to merge. The lead is not that bad but could be improved. See WP:LEAD. Thanks for your work. Fettlemap (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)