Talk:Haymarket affair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Haymarket affair has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 24, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
April 22, 2012 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

New York Herald-Tribune[edit]

"As time passed press reports and illustrations of the riot became more elaborate, even fantastic, with The New York Herald-Tribune reporting three bombs had been thrown." Although I'm not doubting this happened, The New York Herald-Tribune did not exist until 1924. Perhaps the writer meant the New York Tribune, which at this point was strongly anti-labor? --Idols of Mud (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to Henry David's book, which is the source for that sentence. Perhaps somebody who does can correct it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I am deleting the part about the NY Herald-Tribune. No sense in leaving in obviously incorrect information while we try and figure out what is really the case. Hammersbach (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, this [1] is apparently the edit that added it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

False mentioning[edit]

"The Haymarket affair is generally considered significant as the origin of international May Day observances for workers."

This is false, as May Day has been around for centuries long before the affair. International Workers' Day is the correct term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciophobiaranger (talkcontribs) 16:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Er, no. "May Day for workers" is clear -- just because there is another May Day, makes no difference. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Highly questionable source[edit]

I found this in the article: "Howard Zinn, in A People's History of the United States also pointed towards Schnaubelt, suggesting he was a provocateur, posing as an anarchist, who threw the bomb so police would have a pretext to arrest leaders of Chicago's anarchist movement."

I think it is safe to say that Howard Zinn is not a good source especially as the source for the above from his book is not clear. The original source should be used. Zedshort (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Your argument is invalid, Zedshort. Zinn, a professional historian, is a perfectly good source, and citing Avrich, another professional historian (and one whose books were all published by academic presses), who cites Zinn is also perfectly acceptable.
I don't happen to have a copy of Zinn's People's History, and the version that's accessible on Google Books isn't paginated so I can't cite it as a source in the article. But if you're interested, here is a link to the relevant page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this really reliable[edit]

With all due credit, claiming that "No single event has influenced the history of labor in . . . the world more than the Chicago Haymarket Affair." seems pretty US-centric. Does it imply that because it affected the US it thereby affected the whole world or that it somehow had profound effects everywhere? Without explanation this remains a poor claim. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

First, it's not something a Wikipedia editor made up, it's a quote from a historian. Second, you're misquoting the professor, who wrote, "No single event has influenced the history of labor in Illinois, the United States, and even the world, more than the Chicago Haymarket Affair." Third, can you suggest another single event that has been more influential in the history of labor in the world? Fourth, if you want to know its effects on the whole world, read the section on "Effects on the labor movement and May Day". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd argue that the communist revolutions in China, Russia, and Cuba had more of an effect.Esplace (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that those revolutions can be comfortably called, "a single event" Carptrash (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
you need to publish your arguments in a reliable secondary source before Wiki can use them. Rjensen (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I have my MA thesis, but whether or not Dr. Adelman was correct or not is irrelevant. Esplace (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
If you were Prof.Dr.Dr. in an appropriate field, you would still have to publish your opinion in a reliable secondary before it's relevant to Wikipedia. See WP:V and WP:RS. Kleuske (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect to the author of that quote, I think he's overstating his case. I'm not sure if that quote is appropriate in the lede. Kleuske (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I still can't think of a single event that's had more influence, but I'll do some research in the next few days to see if I can bulk up the article's section on the effects of the Haymarket affair, which the quote was intended to summarize. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)