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 organisations:


split "haymarket martyr's monument" off from "haymarket affair"[edit]

there appears to be enough for separate article of monument, with section hat. this would solve the 2 locations problem. Slowking4†@1₭ 01:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

While the fate of the monument is, in my mind, a continuation of events that peaked during "the affair", there is also a tendancey these days (that I like) of giving monuments their own articles. This will be a bit like separating Siamese twins, it needs to be done with a delicate touch. Which I don't have, but lots of others do. PS Do you mean the monument in the cemetery or the police one? Or one of the others? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I have no objection. I am not sure what is better; whether to have a section in this article (and therefore keep the infobox here but lower down and cleaned up), or a separate article. One way or another someone with a deft hand and a vision, will need to volunteer. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
shouldn't be too hard. i will cut and paste a victim memorial userspace incubator. i will revisit in 6 months. could argue for 3 articles: Haymarket Martyrs' Monument (NRHP); Haymarket Memorial policeman statue (public art); Haymarket affair events. Slowking4†@1₭ 16:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking forward to the fruits of your labors. Carptrash (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

ok, done, having trouble with civil unrest infobox, any help welcome. Slowking4†@1₭ 21:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing / POV[edit]

Reading through the article on the trial, I found a lot of statements that could be classified as PoV. Any underlying factual assertions are unsourced, and should either be removed or properly sourced:

Judge Gary displayed open hostility to the defendants, consistently ruled for the prosecution, and failed to maintain decorum.

"open hostility" is PoV, his rulings and failure to maintain decorum should be cited.

Selection of the jury was extraordinarily difficult, lasting three weeks, and nearly one thousand persons called.

Classifying jury selection as "extraordinarily difficult" is PoV.

In the end a jury of 12 was seated, most of whom confessed prejudice towards the defendants.

Needs citation.

All union members and anyone who expressed sympathy toward socialism were dismissed.

Needs citation, possibly more explanation. Assuming they weren't peremptory challenges, why were the potential jurors dismissed?

Despite their professions of prejudice Judge Gary seated those who declared that despite their prejudices they would acquit if the evidence supported it, refusing to dismiss for prejudice.

Needs citation and further explanation.

Frustrated by the hundreds of jurors who were being dismissed a bailiff was appointed who selected jurors rather than calling them at random

Needs citation.

I wanted to bring these up for potential discussion before adding [citation needed] tags and removing the PoV statements. Biccat (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be under the mistaken belief that a footnote is required after every single sentence. All of the above statements are covered by fn #58 to Avrich's "The Haymarket Tragedy" on pages 262-267. I suggest you review the cited work. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The paragraph includes citations to a number of different footnotes (57, 58, 59, 49). Therefore, it is unclear which source is cited for each of the above facts. If the trial were described by one source, then citation to that source should be sufficient. Even if the citations are correct and sufficient, it does not cure the fact that the section is almost entirely nPOV. (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
It is clear that all of the sentences are covered by fn 58 rather than some other footnote because there are no intervening footnotes between each sentence before you come to fn 58. NPOV does not mean that the material itself has to be neutral, it simply means that all POVs are presented in the same proportion as reflected in all applicable reliable sources. What reliable sources present different interpretations than the ones presented and what other POVs need to be presented? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
PS You also need to realize that a minority opinion on the overall fairness of the fairness of the trial is presented elsewhere in the article. The article says:
Moreover, Messer-Kruse argues that the trial was fair "by the standards of the age" and the jury representative. According to Messer-Kruse, "The tragic end of the story was the product not of prosecutorial eagerness to see the anarchists hang, but largely due to a combination of the incompetence of the defendant's lawyers and their willingness to use the trial to vindicate anarchism rather than to save the necks of their clients. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
NPOV means we should "Avoid stating opinions as facts" and "Prefer nonjudgmental language." Repeating editorial comments from an anarchist advocate as facts is hardly meeting with this requirement. Rather than providing contrary reliable sources, I think that the source cited is not reliable for the above "facts." The comments above are the author's opinion, not facts, and should not be presented as such.Biccat (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
"Anarchist advocate?" Please provide evidence that Paul Avrich advocates anarchism. Are you familiar with his work?
NPOV also states, "Avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion." In fact, Timothy Messer-Kruse, the one known critic of the standard explanation of events (which is the one presented by Avrich), readily admits (p. 4 of his work cited in the article), "Today, a popular and scholarly consensus concludes that the eight self- proclaimed anarchists who were convicted of the deadly bombing were innocent, the trial was a sham, and the whole episode was a prime example of the biases of the American government and the judiciary against the labor movement."
It would be wrong (and POV) to attribute to a single source material which in fact represents a consensus of scholars. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I shouldn't reopen this discussion since the original participants have moved on . . . but I am confused about why the admonition to avoid stating opinions as facts doesn't apply to some of these statements. For example, as I read the admonition, the statement that "Judge Gary displayed open hostility to the defendants" should say something along the lines of "Many scholars assert that Judge Gary displayed open hostility to the defendants" and then provide a see, e.g., cite to Avrich. This would make sure that you aren't suggesting that its a single source rather than many, but also complies with the admonition not to state opinions as fact using Wikipedia's voice. (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
As someone who was part of the original discussion, it needs to be reopened. The article repeatedly backslides into unsubstantiated claims. For example, I don't believe that "open hostility" was one of Avrich's claims of judicial bias. He pointed to other factors. And clearly you are right: a sentence that begins "many scholars believe" is a prime candidate for a citation, much more so than most sentences.
The underlying problem is that the "consensus" opinion is inaccurate, which essentially undermines Wikipedia's credibility as an accurate source of information. Maybe this is as it should be! As Messer-Kruse notes, the defense was allowed to write the abstract for the court proceedings, and it was the abstract, not the full transcripts, that Avrich and others relied upon. Messer-Kruse had access to the full court transcripts. "Consensus" opinion also includes an influential account of the affair by a contemporary anarchist, Dyer Lum.
Wikipedia is the punchline to a joke. Persistence and bureaucratic skill become truth here. (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)AECwriter
It is not required to have cites after each sentence. Sometimes a whole paragraph can be cited to one source, but you are welcome to repeat the same cite after each sentnce, if you would like, however, there is a source code for doing so. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

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)