This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion
The line in the entry that reads: "The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, did not offer evidence connecting any of the defendants with the bombing..." is inaccurate. The prosecution introduced much evidence linking several of the defendants to the manufacture of the bomb, the distribution of the bombs, and an alleged plot to attack the police on the evening of Tuesday, May 4. An eye-witness was put on the stand who claimed to have seen Spies light the fuse of the bomb. Police officers testified that Fielden returned their fire with his revolver. Now these witnesses and this evidence may be disputed, but it is historically wrong to claim it was not introduced. For more specific information, see http://blogs.bgsu.edu/haymarket/myth-2-no-evidence/MesserKruse (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have provided reliable sources. See my discussion of the McCormick's strike above in which I cite the primary sources for this information. By what standard are you claiming that http://blogs.bgsu.edu/haymarket/myth-2-no-evidence/ is not a "reliable source." It clearly cites primary sources in its rebutal of this myth. Perhaps its not "reliable" sources you want but ideologically comfortable ones.MesserKruse (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Please read Wikipedia's policy concerning reliable sources. Blogs are not considered reliable sources. Also, according to our policy concerning "undue weight":
articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views (emphasis in original)
You should not delete information supported by the majority of sources to replace it with a minority view. Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 17:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Fine. I see I will have to fight these battles one at a time. I will start with the most obvious. Here is a "majority" source, indeed the most often-cited source for information on Haymarket there is, Paul Avrich, The Haymarket Tragedy: from page 190: "Spies had heard that two men had been killed, apparently the correct number, but when he picked up the Daily News, the paper reported six deaths." So, it should be evident that this authoratitive source also agrees the proper number should be TWO.
As for you claim about Wikipedia's policy, your characterization of it is absurd, especially if the "majority" source that is cited can be shown to be factually wrong. Explain to me, then, how a "minority" source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong "majority" one?MesserKruse (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'll review Avrich tonight. Please have a little patience and leave the article as is until then. Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 17:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. You might also consult the citation provided in the article for the McCormick deaths, that of Green, pp. 162-171. Note that this cited source does not claim that six men were killed, only that August Spies claimed that six men were killed in his Revenge leaflet. Thus, the source cited does not actually support the fact alleged.MesserKruse (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
I checked Avrich and corrected the number of fatalities at McCormick. Thanks for bringing the error to our attention. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Interesting to see that Timothy Messer-Kruse posted here and received some unwarranted flak. Two years later he published a meticulously researched, peer-reviewed book that I have cited in edits made to "Suspected Bombers." (FYI: I do not know Mr. Messer-Kruse.) AECwriter 06:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
This incident, the discussion here on this Wikipedia Talk Page was reported on in The Chronicle of Higher Education today. As Wikipedia really needs scholars to participate to improve its authority and quality, it would be a good idea to make it a little easier for them to contribute. Maberry
This article, "The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia" details the efforts of Timothy Messer-Kruse to correct the treatment on WP of the 1886 trials related to the Haymarket riot. He ran into objections based on "verifiability vs. truth" , "majority vs. minority views", "primary vs. secondary sources", and "original research", all of which proved to be handy tools to obstruct an authoritative account on WP. Brews ohare (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I strongly support people in academia editing but I do think it is hard for them to accept that their degrees do not count on here. All that counts is their sources, which can not be a blog! I am new to Wikipedia but I do not understand why he couldn't make a separate section for his "minority" view. That way both views could be represented if properly backed up with reliable sources. Isn't that the point of Wikipedia? Semccraw (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia's own "anybody can edit" adage sometimes goes against the reality of the Wikipedia community: yes, anybody can edit, but you need to follow the rules. I'd say most scholars who have problems with Wikipedia generally don't familiarize themselves with the rules or with the social context of Wikipedia. A lone scholar wanting to make edits may not be very successful unless they extend the effort to understand the history and editing of a particular article. I've been a Wikipedia editor for 5 years and came to this talk page because of the article in the Chronicle. I also want to urge Messer-Kruse to be patient, and recognize that Wikipedia is not like a book of original research but is always a collaboration - that part of the key to a successful Wikipedia experience is convincing your fellow editors that your sourcing (not your research, but your sourcing and verifiability) is decent (and follows the Wikipedia rules which have been established over 11 years). -- kosboot (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
It doesn't seem to me that this was a terrorist attack. Other categories seem to do it more justice (e,g, "Riots and civil unrest in the United States", "Political violence in the United States"). I would like to see the article being removed from the "Terrorist incidents in the United States" category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pknkly (talk • contribs) 05:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've removed it. Truth be told, while it's understood that the meaning of this word has been much widened over the last 20 years, historians still don't know why the bomb was thrown. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Haymarket Martyrs' Monument
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
In the "Haymarket Martyrs' Monument" side bar it lists the location of that monument as being in Forest Park. That implies the events took place in Forest Park. Its confusing. There is also a landmark in Chicago where the incident took place:
I don't think the area that once was Haymarket Square is a U.S. National Landmark, but the memorial monument in Waldheim/Forest Park Cemetery is. We used to have both sets of co-ordinates, but it was somewhat confusing. Now, by default, articles about U.S. National Landmarks show the co-ordinates in the corner. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk·contribs)03:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
There must be some way to deal with this, maybe a sub/stub-article on the square itself with a straightforward disambig link? I do think this mistakenly puts many readers into a muddle. By the way, last I heard/knew, the area was still called "Haymarket Square." Gwen Gale (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Naming of Event
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
It seems to me that the name Haymarket Affair is used to diminish the scale and horror of what happened. Affair is a very vague description and it neutralises the article Too much, like trying to sanitise and downplay it. I was reading recently that in some cirlces in Japan the massacre at Nanjing is called the Nanjing Affair because those japanese circles are directly involved in trying to revise the history of the event, to try to maintain that the killings were not as widespread as most historians think, so in that way it would be in their interest to downplay the scale of the killings. And for that reason that kind of overly-beautralising language seems bias to me. Maybe Massacre is bias too, but affair is too vague. Something like haymarket unrest, would be a better compromise. What do we think? ValenShephard 06:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
I've been doing online searches and it appears that haymarket massacre and riots bring in much more results than affair.; and I've realised that haymarket unrest is not used by any party to describe it so my suggestion would not work. However that leaves us the choices of massacre, riots and affair. I think we should use one of the other two, not affair, possibly riots. But riots again seems like a bias word because it presupposes something out of control and violent about the demonstrations. They did turn violent, but started out peacefully, so it doesnt give a full image. Also I think in the order of which the events names are listed 'massacre' should be ahead of 'riots' because massacre scores many more hits online, and therefore should be higher in the hierarchy. ValenShephard 07:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
I can find more examples of whan 'affair' is used by one side in a conflict to diminish the scale of what they are describing, if more evidence is needed. I think massacre is going too far, and affair is not going far enough.
On another note, I've seen on many articles on wikipedia that riots, unrest and demostrations (even when violence is used by both sides) is described simply as 'disturbances' which makes it sound like their neighbour is playing music too loud. Again, its a very vague and open word which diminishes the full meaning and scale of events. I propose we call it instead 'demonstrations and unrest' or either. What do we think? If I change it in the near future, please dont revert it straight away and start a war over this, discuss here. ValenShephard 06:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
The article's name was chosen after considerable discussion. Please see the archives at top right. The name "riot", while widespread, is inaccurate, as a riot is "a form of civil disorder characterized by disorganized groups lashing out in a sudden and intense rash of violence against people or property". That hardly describes the incident at Haymarket Square. "Massacre" is probably more appropriate, but we felt it didn't comply with Wikipedia's policy concerning neutral point of view. We'll see what other editors think.
With respect to "demonstrations and unrest", there is a simpler word to describe that: "disturbance". What happened in Haymarket Square was a peaceful assembly of people listening to speakers—the event was so calm that the mayor and his wife stopped by for a while—until all hell broke loose when the police arrived and somebody threw a bomb. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk18:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Like I said before, disturbance doesnt convey the scale of the event. It sounds overly sanitised, what happened was violence and death on both sides, you cant call that a simple disturbance, like if I would stop poking your arm. ValenShephard 18:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
How is it inaccurate? there were peaceful demonstrations followed by unrest when violence occured on both sides. I think it sums it up well. Before reverting it, why dont you try and see if people prefer mine instead? See what people think in this discussions, its not always best to keep the status quo. ValenShephard 18:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
I also just did some searching and found that 'disturbance' is very rarely used to describe civil unrest, demonstrations, protests, public gathering, picketings etc. I'll use your tactic and find a dictionary definition: The closest to what you think it means is: "a disorderly outburst or tumult; "they were amazed by the furious disturbance they had caused" or "the act of disturbing something or someone; setting something in motion" which again doesnt specify what is being set in motion, or how the disturbance is happening. For example did they set in motion a coffee machine, or disturb the police by blowing kisses at them? ValenShephard 18:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
I'm a little late to the party, but for what it's worth, "Haymarket Affair" is suitably neutral. I also myself use the term "Haymarket bombing," which is most descriptive. It wasn't a proper "massacre" since first the bomb killed and wounded the police and then the police fired on the crowd, killing and wounding them, and then a group of leading anarchist and social revolutionary leaders were rounded up and more or less railroaded to death on a trumped up conspiracy charge... Nor is "Riot" technically correct, in that it was an isolated incident of terrorism, or political violence, if you will, followed by retaliation. Bottom line: Haymarket Affair is as good as anything. Carrite (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Why did the Weathermen destroy the statue -- twice?
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Does any one know why the Weathermen (aka Weather Underground) destroyed the statue -- twice? It would seem to someone who was never a Weatherman that the anarchist martyrs were forerunners of the Weathermen, and that the Weathermen would honor their sacrifice rather than destroying the monument to it.
If the person who took responsibility for destroying the statue was in fact a Weatherman there may be some documention out there somewhere on this question.
I know you shouldnt make a judgement of the event when naming it, but to call it a disturbance is making concessions to its scale, and is not as accurate as demonstations and unrest, which are neutral terms. To say its a simple disturbance is to be of the POV that its scale was not so big, just as riot is on the other scale of this. I agree that riot is not a very good way of terming it, thats why I favour demonstrations because it shows planning, not spontaneous outbursts. ValenShephard 18:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
The Weathermen destroyed the Haymarket police memorial, the memorial to the police casualties, not the one commemorating the anarchists who were sentenced to death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.124.201 (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Bias Editor
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Recently someone tried to revert some of the edits of the intro, saying they were unhelpful which is also very vague language. What he removed was actually very helpful in that it gave the true number of police that were killed, 7 not 8, and revealed that though 4 men were executed, they were not actually proven as the bomb thrower, which is very useful to note because to just say they were tried for murder and sentenced, creates the presumption that they were guilty of murder directly. I would like some support for this against this rouge editor, please discuss. ValenShephard 18:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
Please read my comments above. Also, the lede is supposed to summarize the article, which says eight—not seven—police officers were killed. Please read the sources. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk18:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I found a couple of sources that said 7, one was encyclopedia britannica, which I sourced, but its not a big issue. I thought it would be better to be accuarate with the number killed ValenShephard 18:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
Body count
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The number of police killed was either 7 or 8, depending on how you count the last victim, Timothy Sullivan, who died June 13, 1888 (i.e. two years after the event) "The illness from which he died was the direct result of a bullet wound just above the left knee." (Schaack, pg. 151.) A complete list of police officers killed is provided in Michael J. Schaack, Anarchy and Anarchists. Chicago: F.J. Schulte & Co., 1889; pp. 150-151. This is an outstanding example of how a published primary source trumps contradictory secondary sources... It also answers the mystery of why some sources cite 7 police officers killed and others 8 — most news accounts of the day are going to give the lower figure owing to the delay between wound and death for Sullivan. I'll leave this matter to you all to suss out. —Tim Davenport, Early American Marxism website, Corvallis, OR Carrite (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Interestingly enough, the US Department of Labor published a pamphlet on labor history in 1978 that states "one policeman was killed and several others were wounded," and that "the meeting in Haymarket Square had been called as a peaceful protest against the killing of four strikers and wounding of others." So, are your anarchists making up information or was the government hiding it? 72.205.238.27 (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
The people arrested were socialists
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The eight people arrested at the Haymarket strike were socialists, not anarchists. They have been labeled as anarchists on this page and on their own pages. I find it very offensive that they have been incorrectly described, especially seeing as they were either killed or given long prison sentences because of this event. Please correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.187.225 (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Be aware, there are (and have been) many kinds of anarchists, it's a very broad label which in itself does not have to do with economic outlook. Most of the people brought to trial indeed self-described as anarchists and my understanding is that most, if not all of them, were German collectivists, revolutionary socialists. They were not at all what today are called libertarian or individualist anarchists. This can be startling to someone who comes fresh to this topic over a century later. Moreover, even the label liberal doesn't have the same meaning as back then. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
> Moreover, even the label liberal doesn't have the same
meaning as back then.
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I would like to see the recent images of the vandalized monuments (graffiti, etc.) replaced with images of the monuments in pristine/cleaned/repaired condition. The modern vandalism and political agendas of those who committed it have nothing to do with the original incidents which are the subject of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.80.63 (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Oppose - There is sufficient independent, substantial, published third party biographical material extant to support biographies of all the so-called "Haymarket Martyrs." Actually, there are vast possible sources to tap. I'll get to this one eventually, I'm working on August Spies at the moment. Carrite (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Coordinates
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The coordinates in the GeoHack link at the top of the article point to the original location of Haymarket Square (which makes sense), but the same coordinates appear inside the infobox relating to the monument, which is in Forest Park, some 10 miles west. It would be good to get both coordinates into the article, but I'm not sure where within the cemetery the monument sits. --Theodore Kloba (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
File:Haymarket Monument by Mary Brogger 1.jpg Nominated for Deletion
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion
Given [1] I think it would be best if as yet uninvolved editors took a fresh look at the question of whether the evidence presented at the trial substantively connected the anarchists to the bombing. 85.230.127.113 (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for linking to that. Flawed secondary sources often do skew the content of articles on en.WP, as happens with most tertiary sources like it, moreover in humanities topics. However, WP:UNDUE does not mean that so-called "minority" outlooks from reliable and verifiable sources can't be carried. Indeed, if such sources clash, the reader is only helped if an article echoes that. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Understood. At this point I am sure that the existence of a secondary source from a professional academic historian publishing under editorial supervision with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy has got to outweigh everything else, for no other reason than that he's apparently been the only one in more than the greater part of a century to look at the primary source transcripts and recorders' primary sources from the trial. The best outcome possible here would be for you to delete the offending clause, and I'm sure you know that. 85.230.127.113 (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I strongly suggest that others review [2] Although a sentence in that source could be construed to support the statement in question in the literal sense, the context makes it abundantly clear that it was based on absurdly flimsy first-person accounts compared to the metallurgy and other physical evidence related in [3]. Furthermore, have a look at Paul Avrich's life's work. How could his predispositions towards anarchists not have biased him in these matters? Messer-Kruse's body of work has no such bias, and it is abundantly clear that editors here owe him an apology. Moreover, statements later in that same chapter plainly contradict the summary which has been unjustly defended in this article:
"The case thus constructed against the defendants had an undeniable plausibility. Engel and Fischer were indeed extremists. Lingg did make and distribute bombs. All three were armed and believed in physical force. Everything they and their comrades had allegedly done or said was fitted by the prosecution into a coherent and seemingly malevolent pattern." (p. 273)
I think it's important to note that Messer-Kruse did not provide citations for his changes in 2009, contrary to what he says in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Viz. [4][5]. —Tim Pierce (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
That's somewhat disingenuous - because if you check his editing history he posted reasoning with sources on the talk page (what he calls the "editing log" in the article) and *then* made the changes. So the only thing he was really guilty of was not understanding the citation process and that blogs aren't good sources (though I haven't seen the blog post he referenced). --Errant(chat!)15:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
When I checked Messer-Kruse's User contributions page, and tried to follow his sources, the blogs turned out to require a password, which is another reason why they're not WP:RS.
He only made a dozen edits in 2009. A lot of his complaints in the Chronicle article reflect his lack of experience with the admittedly-complicated Wikipedia editing process.
I think you're probably missing some IP edits, at least one of which maps back to his University and added the same information. I'm not sure how many other geographically close IPs are him or just coincidence. His talk page has some correspondence about that dating back to 2009 too. It makes looking through the user account's history less than the full picture though. Shadowjams (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it's frustrating. But it's also frustrating to have to explain things simply to an undergraduate who's having a hard time getting it. Or writing a computer program that doesn't seem to work. It comes with the territory. --Nbauman (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Anyone who finds it "frustrating" to explain things to an undergraduate, is in the wrong line of work. There's a certain amount of passion required, I would go so far as to call it love. Look at Richard Feynman. He was so enamored by physics that he appeared, from his own description, to go into an altered state of consciousness when he talked about it. We actually can learn to see things in a new way from people who don't get it, so it's also a learning opportunity for experts and novices alike. At the end of the day, we're here to help—not just to help write articles and expand the boundaries of knowledge, but to help people. I'm getting the sense that this is a foreign concept to most of the Wikimedia community. Viriditas (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
"The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia" complaint
Latest comment: 12 years ago16 comments9 people in discussion
Thanks Gwen, and I did "see above". But you dodge the question, and I am not satisfied that the Wiki has come out unblemished here. This has come to my personal attention as a major embarrassment. SO - Has it been dealt with? By whom? Can we inform Jimbo that there is no problem here? Has the editor in question been provided proper coaching and mentoring, and is now satisfied that his edits are being looked at fairly and in accordance with policy? Has consensus been reached and this is just old news from Feb 12? Or is he still being beaten down on someone's personal interpretation of policy and procedure? Thanks again! --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
This article was the best exemplification of how Wikipedia might go wrong. I have to reevaluate my opinion on it. Unfortunately, if majority opinion is more important than serious investigation, we'll have to accept mediocre content as the ideal here. When Einstein proved in an experiment his theory was right, the scientific community reversed their positions even though he was in numerical inferiority. Why should Wikipedia be based on Colbert's standard of truthiness instead? Remember the elephants fiasco?79.115.182.137 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC).Reply
You're missing the point. When the scientific community accepted Einstein's work, Einstein was no longer "in numerical inferiority", was he? —Designate (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I think it is far more constructive if we focus on brainstorming solutions to the problem rather than attacking or criticizing individual editors. Viriditas (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
There's a discussion about this over at Reddit http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/pqqly/the_undue_weight_of_truth_on_wikipedia_the/. While I haven't examined the sources exactly, what seems to have happened is that a lot of sources, for a long period of time, did not actually look at the primary research support for their statements but instead copied secondary sources. Greater weight should be placed on sources which provide primary support for their statements. Wikipedia should try not to use high-level sources which don't cite their sources, such as the average popular press biography, history textbooks or encyclopedias - these are tertiary sources. Nor should it be using secondary sources which cite tertiary or other secondary sources. I'm not sure that this is the fault of WP:UNDUE or whether it is just a slippery slope from people trying to apply WP:RELIABLE and WP:PSTS in ways that are not good. By the way, Gwen, as a 'wiki-gateeker', could use some lessons in being an effective wiki-gatekeeper. If someone raises a factual concern in one's pet article, one would think that the wiki-gatekeeper would be interested in investigating and fixing it, rather than just providing brusque comments. User:Malik Shabazz did that, but didn't take a close look at the other part. II | (t - c) 18:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks to everyone for clarifying the current status of the dispute. As a totally uninvolved veteran editor asked to look in on it, I am only interested in whether the issues are being taken seriously by those that are involved, and that something is being done to "fix it" if something went wrong here. This is not the sort of publicity that the Wikipedia really needs, unless something actually good comes from it. Lots of folks already have unfavorable impressions of what the Wikipedia is all about - the mission of the Project and how things work, etc. We've had to deal with numerous editors over the years that had bad experiences (and/or bad editing habits), so chances are there is nothing new to see here. As long as it is being dealt with in a kind and civil manner, we are doing our jobs, right? And if needed, perhaps a reply can be developed and provided back to The Chronicle for possible publication. Thanks again for the responses. Play on! --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I agree with everything user II said. It's one thing to be brusque when editors make weird changes with no support—revert it, point to WP:V and forget it. But when a user is obviously coming from a position of good faith and is providing some supporting material, they need to be treated as reasonable adults and not misbehaving children. Smacking them down with policy links is the wrong response. —Designate (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I would ask that people do not blame Gwen Gale for this, as she merely responded as any other admin or editor might respond. As I've said below, the problem is not a single editor or admin, but the entire culture of Wikipedia. If we want to fix this, then we need to encourage people like Gwen Gale to participate in the solution, since she's on the front lines every day and understands what needs to be done. Viriditas (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. Gwen's response seemed terse, not condescending; and brevity is necessary when sorting through large volumes of information. If the contributor educated himself on WP's editing policies, as he would have had to do to modify a more "physical" encyclopedia such as Britannica, there would be no controversy. Circ (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Messer-Kruse controversy
Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments10 people in discussion
Timothy Messer-Kruse raises serious questions that go to the heart of Wikipedia's credibility. As a small donor, I would hope that Wikipedia will see fit to take his constructive criticism seriously, and respond with the kind of care that he displayed in his well-researched article in The Chronicle Review dated February 17, 2012. A response that only points to a general policy is less than satisfying.
192.195.154.9 (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Fred ChavezReply
I might also add: "Woe be to anyone that places the Wikipedia in a position that results in Jimbo being forced to make a public apology" over the matter. Just sayin'... --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 19:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely agreed on Fred's point. That Wikipedia would risk pushing away legitimate historians like this is disappointing at best. Stack (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Public apology? Come on people lets just look at what happened here. Messer-Kruse started a discussion about some reasonable points, a discussion that ended quickly. He made some mistakes in citation. Editors appear to have seen the link containing clarification was a blog and (somewhat legitimately) dismissed it. It's my understanding that Messer-Kruse intended the blog post as a way of presenting his argument. I'm sure if the discussion had continued that would have worked out.. Messer-Kruse decided he couldn't be bothered, fine. His approach is, frankly, even better because it neatly removes the problem of avoiding interpreting primary sources - even if it is a slower approach.
The world is richer for that book, regardless of what we say on the matter.
This made "news" on a few places today, but if you read through the discussions people tend to agree - Wikipedia content policies are decent, interactions with new editors can sometimes go a bit wrong (unintentionally) and that publishing a book just underlines the issue. As I read Messer-Kruse's article my takeaway is that we are being offered ideas here about approaching situations like this, it is not a slamming. --Errant(chat!)19:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I am sympathetic to MesserKruse's Chronicle account, because I've been through similar experiences myself on Wikipedia. However, I reviewed his User contributions page. (He may have made changes before he signed in with a user name.)
I got the impression from the Chronicle that he had a long, frustrating exchange with somebody who just didn't get it. Actually, he simply made a few changes without explanation in the talk box (and discussed them in the user talk pages, rather than the article talk pages). I understand how confusing the Wikipedia system is at first, but it's a clear Wikipedia rule that changes without explanation can be reverted.
When I reviewed his explanation in Talk to defend his changes, I saw that he was citing a blog -- which is also not acceptable as a WP:RS. Even worse, when I tried to follow his link to the blog, it was a subscription-only link -- which is another violation of WP:RS. It's as if he turned in a paper without using the MLA style sheet.
Then, in 2011, he came back and finaly got the procedures right [6] The final version of the article removes the claim that police officers were killed by friendly fire, and now it says that according to a newspaper report, an anonymous police official said that police officers were wounded. Is it true? I don't know. I'm not a historian. In the epistimology of Wikipedia, all we have to go on is primary sources, filtered through the work of scholars and historians published by academic presses.
MesserKruse seems to be saying that he doesn't accept Avrich's reliance on an anonymous source in a Chicago newspaper that the police wounded each other in friendly fire. That's a reasonable point. He's a historian and his evaluation of that source stands against Avrich's. I would be interested to know whether any other historians had addressed that point, and how they lined up, especially in the light of any new evidence. If there's a serious debate, then the article should include it under WP:NPOV.
However, if MesserKruse is the only one to have made that point, in his published work, then it is indeed a minority viewpoint. He would be pushing his own work, which would be a violation of the rules as original research and also suspect as a conflict of interest. The way to get it in would be to find somebody else who had agreed with it in a WP:RS.
Wikipedia and academia are similar but not identical. For a scholar, challenging the weak evidence for Avrich's accepted view is good. That's what advances knowledge and keeps people awake at lectures. But it's not acceptable for Wikipedia until it gets more scholarly support.
All introductory reference works, encyclopedias and textbooks have to simplify, and there isn't room for every minority opinion. And all new opinions start out as minority opinions. So there's a tension, on Wikipedia and everywhere, between being inclusive and being readable.
So all MesserKruse did was leave two dozen edits and messages. That's a pretty low frustration tolerance. He spent less time on this than he would marking an undergraduate paper. Conversely, he didn't learn the Wikipedia style of comments, citation, etc. So Wikipedia's response wasn't that ridiculous after all.
Not that I'm complaining. MesserKruse raised an important issue and improved the article.
My primary use (and contribution) for Wikipedia is in molecular medicine. Major scientific journals, like Science and Nature, have reviewed Wikipedia and found it to be surprisingly, counter-intuitively, reliable.
I agree, Nbauman. I see here a situation whereby a newbie (to us), but an expert on the subject (possibly not then, but certainly now) was bittenbya more experienced editor who should have asked more questions. (Why are you doing this?) Such things happen, and should flow off one's back. However, I've seen many an short-tempered academic had his or her buttons pushed, resulting in tirades and infighting. Don't let the drama get to you. Bearian (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
With all due respect to Bearian, you've completely missed the point. This has nothing to do with Gwen Gale or any other editor. Although the Wikimedia (not just Wikipedia) community in general has an extremely poor record when it comes to dealing with new users, and seems more interested in scaring them away (and if they are experts chasing them away) that is also not at the heart of this matter. The underlying issue has to do with what the policies and guidelines say on verifiability and reliable sources and how they are interpreted, and that is where the problem remains to this day. Most of the material this user corrected was either wrong or poorly sourced, so obviously, many editors and admins aren't applying the rules appropriately, but rather repeating the rules without applying them in an informed manner. We should not be putting roadblocks in the way of new users, nor should we be threatening users who are making Wikipedia more accurate—we should be thanking them. I personally do not blame Gwen Gale or any other editor for this continuing problem; it's endemic to the culture. However, I do blame the way the policies and guidelines are written, understood, and applied. Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I read Mr. Messer-Kruse's book and based on that book made some changes last week which may not have complied with Wikipedia protocol. I'll be sure to do so in the future. Then today, I started the below Talk section before seeing this one (it wasn't here yesterday, apologies there too). I made my article changes before finding the link to the Chronicle of Higher Ed article just now, and haven't yet read it (I anticipate a treat!).
Whatever may have happened with Mr. Messer-Kruse's own posts doesn't matter at this point. The book is out there and people like me are reading it. I would hope his book's contents and not his Chronicle article or Wikipedia history will be the topic of discussion. To dismiss his book as a "minority viewpoint" is unfair. No other contemporary scholar has examined the court record to anywhere near the same degree, and you'd be wise to instead recognize the book as a watershed in Haymarket scholarship, even if "watershed" isn't a Wikipedia term. Given the depth of his scholarship and the way he looks at multiple pieces of evidence from a variety of viewpoints, you really can't lump his book in with a garden-variety "opinion."
Regarding the friendly-fire question you mention above, Mr. Messer-Kruse does not say with certainty that anarchists fired at police first, but he makes clear it's possible, so those that breezily suggest friendly-fire was responsible for the police deaths look foolish. So it goes with much of the information he presents.
I became aware of this issue after reading the 13 February 2012 issue of The Signpost. Messer-Kruse raised at least five important factual issues, some have been accepted by Wikipedia editors, others have not. Here is a review of article issues raised by Messer-Kruse.
(22 January 2009) #"No Evidence": "The line in the entry that reads: "The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, did not offer evidence connecting any of the defendants with the bombing..." is inaccurate."—"The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, offered some evidence and witnesses connecting some of the defendants with the bombing but argued that other defendants were guilty because the person who had thrown the bomb had been encouraged to do so by the defendants, who as conspirators were therefore equally responsible." The article now says: "The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, argued that the person who had thrown the bomb was not discouraged to do so by the defendants, who as conspirators were therefore equally responsible.", no longer claiming that evidence connecting defendants with the bombing was not offered, but stops short of saying that Grinnell offered some evidence and witnesses connecting some of the defendants with the bombing.
(22 January 2009) #Body count: "The claim that six men were killed at the McCormick riot is inaccurate. This claim comes from the report written for the anarchist newspaper by August Spies. Chicago cornorer's records and all the other daily newspapers finally settled on two deaths as the correct number." The article now states: "In the end, two McCormick workers were killed (although some newspaper accounts said there were six fatalities)." (on May 3, and at least four workers were killed in the May 4 Haymarket riot)
(22 January 2009) "In this section "May Day parade" the reference to Albert and Lucy Parsons taking part in a great march of 80,000 workers should be deleted because it is a myth." The article states, "Albert Parsons was an anarchist and founder of the International Working People's Association (IWPA). Parsons, with his wife Lucy and their children, led a march of 80,000 people down Michigan Avenue." What exactly is the myth? Whether 80,000± marched, and whether the Parsons took part, should be verifiable.
(30 January 2009) Talk:August Spies#The Relative on the Jury: "The claim in the section "Trial" should be changed because it is not historically true that a relative of one of the policemen sat on the jury. According to the record of the trial, M.D. Flavin was examined and during the course of his questioning noted that Officer Flavin was a “distant relative”. The defense challenged him for cause and Judge Gary did overrule the challenge and the defense used one of their 180 peremptory challenges to remove Flavin from the jury pool. Flavin did not serve on the jury that convicted the anarchist defendants."August Spies states "The jury was selected specifically by a special bailiff; one of the jury members was a relative of one of the slain policemen."
(26 August 2011) "...claim(s) that most police officers were killed by 'friendly fire'... simply don't stand up to scrutiny." The "mostly from friendly fire" statement was removed with this edit of 01:43, 25 January 2012, which fails to mention this significant change in the edit summary.
I don't think the problem is that Messer-Kruse "let the drama get to him." He had enough evidence from the resistance to the five little edits listed above that getting the article up to his standards was going to be a long, tedious process of WP:BRD, one which he did not have time for. He attempted to expedite the process by soliciting cooperative editing, but nothing came of it. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I want to thank everyone for their very thoughtful and constructive consideration of the issues I have raised with my article "The Undue Weight of Truth," (The Chronicle Review, Feb. 12, 2012). I haven't waded into this discussion in any public forum since the publication of my piece because I didn't want to steer what has become a very rich discussion of some fundamental issues including the nature of truth and verifiability, the strengths and weaknesses of crowd-sourcing history, Wikipedia editing policies, and, not least, the conflicting cultures of academia and Wikipedia. Most of what has been posted here I find fair, though my reason for writing now is to clarify one point about the editing process in my case. When I referenced my blog page as a source I was doing so merely as a shorthand for the primary sources it contained not as a blog per se. I was attempting to highlight a number of primary sources at once, not promote my own blog site which has been such a minor part of my activities that I've long neglected it. MesserKruse (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
More court evidence was presented than previously believed
A new book about the trial includes more extensive details of the evidence presented in court, making much of the previous scholarship on the proceedings seem shallow where it is not erroneous. Timothy Messer-Kruse, the author of The Trial of the Haymarket Anarchists, took advantage of the full court transcripts digitized by the Chicago Historical Society. No other scholar has done so yet, so we should question lingering claims that there was "no evidence."
There is also a myth that the accused were convicted for their anarchist writings. Actually, this was not the prosecutor's approach. There was plenty of witness testimony that makes claims of "no evidence" suspect. We previously believed the men were convicted because the trial was rigged, but Messer-Kruse shows us that the defense was inept. Wikipedia posters should also consider that because the eight men were tried as a group, while there were various levels of involvement in the criminal conspiracy, so we really can't say for sure if they were ALL innocent. Reading the Wikipedia entry, a reader would have no idea that police found six bombs in Louis Lingg's apartment, or that chemists testified the chemical signature of the Haymarket bomb matched Lingg's bombs.
If the above is in the court testimony available online, but generations of scholars who didn't have access to this information say something else, does that mean you still give more weight to the scholars working in the dark?
It's intellectually dishonest to dismiss all witness evidence as perjured when you haven't evaluated the witness testimony. I'll leave it to the "longtime Wikipedia users" who patrol this section to read the book before I find time to challenge the thrust of this entry. So far, I only edited around the edges without deleting false claims I felt would make me a target. (You might also read Messer-Kruse's article on Wikipedia user antics in this very article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, which is linked at the top of this Talk section.) AECwriter 01:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aecwriter (talk • contribs)
Does the Chronicle article demonstrate COI?
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
I've only briefly skim read the discussion page here and I've seen a bunch of edits related to the Chronical article that's currently getting linked around but it sounds like someone quite involved, professionally, in the subject is claiming some kind of bias from editors that is actually more a reflection of his misunderstanding of the way Wikipedia operates. Putting that kind of external pressure on an article, even if he is factually correct and has sources to back up his argument, sounds like a pretty basic case of conflict of interest to me.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
You apparently did only briefly skim the rather short article because if you'd read it you'd see the author had quite a bit of interest, but probably not a whole lot of conflict (at least not of the sort coi refers to). You're grossly misunderstanding the WP:COI policy. Shadowjams (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Kai445. We really need to reign in the impetus towards bureaucracy that's destroying this site. Teach people to solve problems; don't delegate problem solving to others. The problem was that this article was inaccurate, and at least one expert showed up to fix it. He was immediately reverted because people are following process for the sake of process. Kafka couldn't be more proud. Viriditas (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Having read The Trial of the Haymarket Anachists by Timothy Messer-Kruse, I have these suggestions. It’s far from a full rewrite that incorporates all the information he presents. The changes can all be referenced, though I’m not providing them at this time as I just want to open up the discussion. Advise you read the book. You might enjoy it!
“…eight anarchists were tried for conspiracy.” True. But it’s interesting that the total number of indictments is not mentioned, as that would be nine men if you add the man who threw the bomb and left town. The alleged bomber was known to all the defendants and testimony placed him with other defendants planning a confrontation with police the night before the bombing at Greif’s Hall. The defense never denied the Greif’s Hall events, so no one can justifiably claim it’s a matter of perjured testimony by paid informants.
“All were convicted, even though the prosecution conceded none of the defendants had thrown the bomb.” The trial has long been wrongly regarded as a farce, and “even though” implies an injustice. If someone is trying to say that criminal conspiracy is unjust, they should say that, not just hint at it repeatedly. Suggested change: “All were convicted. The prosecution conceded none of the defendants had thrown the bomb and presented evidence of a criminal conspiracy.”
“The police immediately opened fire at the fleeing crowd.” Well, some were fleeing no doubt, but there is no disagreement in the record that some in the crowd fired at police too. There’s even testimony that the crowd fired guns before the police. In any case, “fleeing crowd” should be deleted.
“Some workers were armed, but accounts vary widely as to how many returned fire at the police.” Saying “returned fire” eliminates the possibility that the anarchists fired first, as several policemen testified. Just say “fired.”
“Two other individuals, William Seliger and Rudolph Schnaubelt, were indicted, but never brought to trial.” Here again, no mention that Schnaubelt was the lead suspect as bomb thrower. Omitting Schnaubelt’s possible role as the bomber from the main body of the article certainly makes the case against the anarchists completely baffling, indirectly hinting at innocence and supporting the false “no evidence” claim. (Schnaubelt is listed as a possible bomber at the top of a list of suspects below the article. Before I edited Schnaubelt’s entry last week, even this hinted at innocence, saying prosecutors “assumed” he was the man, when in fact they had witness testimony, and it did not mention he was the lead police suspect. Indeed, the article said Schnaubelt was suspected “primarily because” he was the subject of a popular fictionalized thriller! Meanwhile, other highly questionable suspects are listed with equal weight.) You can keep saying the bomber was unknown, fine, but let’s not sweep the prosecution’s every contention under the rug unless you want the reader to wrongly infer unquestioned innocence. “Schnaubelt, the alleged bomber….” Of course, you risk confusing the reader by editing in pieces. Is the bomber known or not? Maybe instead of saying the bomber is unknown, we can say “a bomber was never brought to trial” or “a bomber was never apprehended.”
“The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, argued that the person who had thrown the bomb was not discouraged to do so by the defendants, who as conspirators were therefore equally responsible.” "The person who threw the bomb," who would be Schnaubelt since we’re talking here explicitly about the prosecution’s case. Perhaps a good place to add more details about the prosecution’s case during the six week trial? Here is my boldest suggestion: New sections for both The Prosecution’s Case and The Defense Case, at least three paragraphs for each. In the latter, we might add, “Timothy Messer-Kruse has argued that the defendants were convicted not because of court misconduct, but because defense attorneys were often inept.” You could go much, much further, but we’ll leave it there.
“The police commander who ordered the dispersal was later convicted of police corruption.” Maybe worth adding the conviction was in a totally unrelated case, where he was found responsible for an underling’s misconduct? If it’s not worth adding, then the sentence should be deleted.
“The bomb thrower was never identified.” Can you say this if a witness (Gilmer) testified he saw Rudolph Schnaubelt throw the bomb? If other witnesses heard Schnaubelt plan a dynamite attack with other defendants the night before? The article raises the possibility that Pinkerton threw the bomb based on much less. A new section on Gilmer, a key witness, would allow both a presentation of his testimony and allow detractors to discredit that testimony. Meh.
On the contentious point of paid witnesses, please note that there’s at least as much evidence that the defense team tried to buy testimony as the prosecution, little of it very definitive.
AECwriter 16:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)AECwriter 23:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I've made changes that make these details clearer, but for more detailed changes, there would have to be citations from the book. --Rbreen (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
My suggestions were preliminary and only intended to get the conversation started. I'll see if I can find time to reference some info in Talk, since people seem eager to make edits immediately. PLEASE NOTE I was wrong in saying nine men were indicted. I forgot William Seliger, an anarchist who was indicted but made a plea deal in exchange for testimony. At least 10 men were indicted. AECwriter 18:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I have the Messer-Kruse book and have spent some time looking through it. Before buying it I tried, and failed, to find any reviews of the work other than those linked to booksellers. I did find through JSTOR reviews of other works by him so I am not doubting that he is a serious historian. What I don't know, and what nobody has indicated in these discussions, is whether this work is making any impact on the scholarly community? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
No brownie points
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am a long time editor, though I've been away recently as I am swamped by events in real life, but I was prompted to come here when someone pointed me to an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education. After having read it and spending over an hour reviewing the editing history on this article and talk page, I have to say I am dismayed. We clearly, as a community of encyclopedia editors, did not treat a good-faith contributor as we should have. In fact, we bit a newbie. And some of the gatekeepers most involved then, rather than apologizing, still seem to be brushing this off, even handing out a virtual brownie. Well. We as a community do not score brownie points for this, and we must do better. I plan, when I have time, to do some revision of this article. It is long enough to include broader views without that being undue weight. Jonathunder (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
OTOH, as the talk page shows, appropriate edits incorporating the changes are rapidly taking place. Wikipedia articles that are heavily monitored, like this one perhaps, are like giant tankers that take time, care, patience and many tugboats to turn around. Not excusing any rudeness, but that's just the way it is with this experiment in openness.Haberstr (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Trial length?
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Can someone add how long the trial lasted and on what date the jury returned their verdict? Thanks. Are there any digital archives online with scans of Chicago newspapers of the times? --Pmsyyz (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Best described as "socialists and anarchists," not "anarchists."
Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I came here because of the Chronicle article (of course), but was surprised that all of those tried and convicted were described in the lead simply as "anarchists." August Spies describes himself with the following: "While an anarchist in my general conceptions, I am practically and more specifically a socialist." (from his autobiography [1]). George Engel was a member of the Social Democratic Party. "Adolph Fischer was a militant revolutionary zealot and German-born socialist who immigrated to the U.S. when he was 15 years old." "[Oscar] Neebe was never considered a leader of the Socialist movement, but he remained to play an important role in organizing the movement." Albert Parsons wrote, "The working people thirst for the truths of Socialism and welcome their utterance with shouts of delight." (All of preceding from the UMKC law school website ([2]). Well, I'm sure this debate has been had before, and there's a perfectly reasonable explanation. If not, let's change "anarchists" to something appropriately general such as "anarchists and socialists," or something similar.Haberstr (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Both Avrich and Messer-Kruse (from what I've read so far) make a clear distinction between socialist and anarchist views and actions. The latter (page 13) notes that the anarchists rejected socialist solutions such as worker cooperatives, labor political parties, and trade unions. The movement from socialism to anarchism was a process of radicalization and it is not surprising that many (most?) anarchists found their roots in socialism. I think, on this issue, the article is accurate as it stands. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
The definition of anarchism is a reasonable first step, the second reasonable one is to see if your definition matches the views of the Haymarket defendants. From your (Messer-Kruse's) definition and my brief review of facts alone, 'anarchists' is misleading and doesn't cover the main political views of the defendants, while 'anarchists and socialists' does. Does anyone have evidence that most/all the defendants didn't actually and explicitly believe in socialism (or social democracy), or were not members of explicitly socialist (or social democratic) organizations, or were not working for explicitly socialist (or social democratic) newspapers that (by the way and of course) vociferously advocated workers' right to form unions?Haberstr (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
This article is not about "the main political views of the defendants." Rather, it is about the events described as the Haymarket Affair. Anarchists pursued a very specific revolutionary goal that they felt would likely lead to violence at some point (but not necessarily at Haymarket) -- I don't think this is in dispute. Are you aware of reliable sources that contest the approach used by Avrich and Messer-Kruse to focus on the anarchist nature of the events? I also do not believe it is in dispute that the defendants specific actions and goals were different from the larger movement involved in the May Day demonstrations.
Labeling them as "socialists and anarchists" would be very misleading, especially since the defendants' total political views are not explored in any depth in the article. It suggests an inappropriate POV that there is no real difference between anarchists and socialists. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Of course the article is not about the "main political views of the defendants." This comment, however, is about something that is in the first sentence of the article's second paragraph, a one word label for the defendants' political views. The defendants were all socialists or social democrats. Some, but not all, also described themselves as anarchists (but not, in the case of Spies, in the sense you have described and which is restated in the following sentence). It is precisely what is in dispute whether all, some, or one of the defendants believed that acts of violence such as setting off a bomb at a crowded public event would lead to chaos and eventually positive political change. Nonetheless, all the defendants are confidently labeled 'anarchists' at the beginning of the entry. As for the notion that "socialists and anarchists" suggests "an inappropriate POV that there is no real difference between anarchists and socialists," does labeling Ghandi a 'vegetarian and socialist' suggest POV that there is no difference between vegeterians and socialists?Haberstr (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
The Haymarket rally was an anarchist rally. It was organized by anarchists and attended by anarchists. Spies, to quote Messer-Kruse, was "one of the leaders of a 'Revolutionary Congress' held in Pittsburg that formally launched the International Working People's Association, the organizational center of the revolutionary anarchist movement in America." Messer-Kruse differentiates between socialists and anarchists -- he treats them as having similar views on many issues but correctly, IMO, explains why anarchists were a separate group. The events at Haymarket occurred because of their anarchism -- not because of their socialism, their vegetarianism, or, in the case of Albert Parsons, because he was a former Confederate soldier turned Radical Republican.
When we properly emphasize anarchism in our article, we are following the sources. It seems ironic that you are here because of the Chronicle article and are now second guessing Messer-Kruse's emphasis on anarchism. The second sentence of his book refers to the meeting and the fact that it was organized by "self-proclaimed anarchists". On page 3 he refers to "these eight anarchist leaders". He keeps this emphasis throughout the work
Messer-Kruse's treatment is consistent with Paul Avrich's, still the definitive work on the subject. Avrich in the first two sentences of his preface mentions "anarchist" in each and keeps up the emphasis throughout.
Why should wikipedia take a different approach? Probably in the body of the article we should explain, as Avrich and Messer-Kruse do, more fully the relationship of the Haymarket meeting to the overall labor situation, differentiating between the anarchist position and the general position of the majority of the folks involved in the overall demonstrations.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Controversial and under-researched
Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
I removed the following from the article lead:
The incident remains controversial and under-researched; the full court transcripts were only made widely available to scholars and the public by the Chicago Historical Society in 2001.[3][4]
First of all, I don't think it is appropriate for the lead. There is no discussion in he body of the article concerning either the alleged controversy or the state of research on the subject. What is the controversy and who is involved in it. Maybe when this is fleshed out in the body of the article it will be appropriate to add material back into the lead.
Second, this is opinion based on a single work. The material probably would be relevant in the body of the article (possibly a section on the historiography of the subject), but it has to be attributed in the text as the opinion of Messer-Kruse. The material that has been digitalized has been available in its original form for a long time and scholars have had access to it -- Messer-Kruse makes a case that it hasn't been properly used, but this belongs, first, in the body of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Tom (North Shoreman), I hate to contradict, but Messer-Kruse is not an opinion, he's a source. In fact, he's (I mean the book of course) a reliable source, by Wiki-guidelines. This source is apparently the most recent available, and certainly belongs in the article. PiCo (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
A) That was my edit ("under-reserched") that he deleted. Agreed it does not belong in the lede. (I made the edit as a gentle way of introducing the new material, before this became a hot topic of discussion. At this point there's enough attention on the matter. B) As for "The incident remains controversial," that had been there for a long time. I agree that if we say it's controversial, any controversy should be discussed, which it was not. C) Regarding how we should view the new book by Messer-Kruse, can it be controversial if no one has refuted it? To my knowledge, no scholars have questioned anything he wrote, and the book has been out for a year. That include James Green, whose 2006 book repeats many of longstanding myths about the Haymarket affair. AECwriter 05:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aecwriter (talk • contribs)
1) The article explains why the incident remains controversial. There was a memorial statue that was destroyed repeatedly over a century until the police department moved it indoors. There is the question of who the bomber was. etc.
Until last week, the article said "The incident remains controversial." I don't know whether the book is controversial because I haven't seen any evidence that it's been reviewed in the scholarly or popular press.
Because wikipedia's editorial guidelines have degenerated into groupthink, I will not be donating $100 next year as I have donated in the past. I count on wikipedia to be a repository of the truth, no matter how inconvenient or embarassing. Read the professor's account (http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704), then stop to reflect on one of the responses to the professor's account: "I think you're right that if Wikipedia was the dominant meta-information source at the time of, say Galileo, the sheer amount of sources citing Biblical entries -- or rather more likely, citing Aristotle's Physics -- would have drowned his own claims out."
Indicted for murder
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The lede currently says incorrectly that the defendants were convicted of conspiracy. Ten men were indicted and convicted for the murder of Officer Matthias J. Degan. The word conspire or conspiracy does not appear in the indictment, found here http://www.chicagohistory.org/hadc/transcript/volume1/000-050/1003B-022.htm. It says the ten indicted "unlawfully, wilfully, feloniously and of their malice aforethought, did make an assault" that murdered Degan. Nowhere does the word "conspire" or "conspiracy" appear in the indictment.AECwriter 05:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aecwriter (talk • contribs)
You are correct, but conspiracy was the foundation of the prosecution's case and this needs to be brought out in the article lead. Perhaps the sentence in question could be changed to, "In the internationally publicized legal proceedings that followed, eight anarchists were convicted of murder under a prosecution theory that the defendants had conspired with the unknown person who actually threw the bomb." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
That may be the way to phrase it. Not sure. Here's what I find. "These eight anarchists leaders were charged as being members of a conspiracy to kill police officers that night. Under Illinois law aiding and abetting a murder carried the same legal penalty as directly performing the deed." — p. 3, The Trial of the Haymarket Anarchists, Messer-Kruse. "Aiding, abetting and assisting" is in the indictment. According to the indictment, the defendants "feloniously, unlawfully, wilfully and of their malice aforethought not being present aiding, abetting and assisting, had advised, encouraged, aided and abetted the said person, a further description of whom is to the said jurors unknown, in the perpetration of the crime aforesaid..."AECwriter 15:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aecwriter (talk • contribs)
History recorded by historian versus history recorded by machine
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
^Messer-Kruse, Timothy. The Trial of the Haymarket Anarchists: Terrorism and Justice in the Gilded Age. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 6–8. ISBN9780230120778.
