Talk:Haymarket affair/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

PoV

The following was deleted from "street fighting" as not especially relevant there:

In Chicago, this marked the use of a bomb agathe syupi peopleinst authorites, triggering the riot. As presumably an Anarchist, or a protestor hurled a bomb that killed a Chicago police officer, and several protestors. At which point the police opened fire on the protesters killing dozens, wounding 200. While people have been arressted and found guilty of the bombing, most historian agree that those who were tried probably had nothing to do with the bombing, that Chicago justice system at the time was too badly corrupt, and the business leaders too strong to really have a fair trial.

This riot proved that Chicago's success and business models were badly flawed. It is believed alchol, social class inequalities, and difficult labor in effect made hard people. This riot touched off international protests around the world, and permanently tarnished Chicago's reputation, as being the business place for everyone. The compounded corruption by the business leaders of the time, as well as the harshness of punishment created for Chicago events that would help lead up to the St. Valentines day massacure.

People are discouraged from using or provoking the use of lethal force against police officers. As it will guarantee that the police officer will kill people right after lethal force is used against them in a protest situation. Even if the protestors may be right, the second lethal force is used, anything the protestor may have been right on, will be completely ignored. Social order will be maintained at whatever the cost, and to most people quoting a business leader of the time, "life is cheap".

I don't know how useful it is (very POV) but it shouldn't be lost in the murk. --Andrew 08:13, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

It's an accurate sentiment but inaccurate history and analysis. Wyss 07:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Who Was Michael K

The caption of one of the photos reads "Michael K at the statueless pedestal of the Policemen Monument, Chicago IL. MK took to his too early grave whatever he knew about the 1969 and 1970 bombings". This is obviously related to the 1969/1970 Weather Underground bombings mentioned in the article. The article, however, does not mention Michael K at all.

Does anyone know who Michael K was? An An 05:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Michael K was an activist who enigmatically alluded to knowledge of bombing the sthttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haymarket_affair&action=edit&section=2 Editing Talk:Haymarket affair (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaatue. Thanks Carptrash for the info.An An 02:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I guess this was unfixed. The current caption is pretty confusing.P4k (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I did a bit of wiki-sleuthing and found the discussion held between Carptrash and An An. An An never actually made any edit that specified the information given by Carptash in their private discussion. Here is the pertinent quote:

Michael [Kazura] was the son of a Pennsylvania mine worker and became an activist in the 1960s, ending up in Ann Arbor MI, home of the SDS and the Weather Underground. He subsequently became involved in union politics, notably in the Industrial Workers of the World [IWW or wobblies] and later helped organize the graduate student assistants at the University of Michigan, eventually leading them out on strike. He was killed in a car crash in the early 1990s. During our visit to Chicago for the 100th anniversary of the Haymarket Event Michael took me to the statueless pedestal and informed me that he knew what had happened to it, but that he would never tell. The picture and the enigmatic caption are a sort of tribute to Michael. Does that belong in an encyclopedia? You be the judge. If you think not, then remove it. Carptrash 21:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the caption beneath the Michael K picture to insert the appellation "Activist". It now reads : "Activist Michael K at the statueless pedestal of the Policemen Monument, Chicago IL. MK took to his too early grave whatever he knew about the 1969 and 1970 bombings". I think this adequately describes MK's reason to be in the article. He sounds like an interesting chap. I like your story that he 'would never tell' what he knew about the bombings. An An 23:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the touch-up on the Michael K angle. He was an interesting fellow for sure, as well as a major pain in the ass. He was born without a compromise or accommodation gear in his personal transmission. He also had no reverse, so he was always pushing forward. Usually a good thing, but . . . . . . ... His most compassionate side was the one he had for his mother, who still lived in Minersville PA [if i remember correctly]. He would fequently drive back to see her and on one of his trip a woman driving the other way on the expressway had an attack of some sort, crossed over the divide and met Michael head on, full speed, just like he had lived his life. Carptrash 03:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And so, we now know the information given, but we must confirm sources for this user, as none was given at the time.--Cast (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

After a bit more sleuthing, I tracked down this discussion on why the image was kept in the article after it was briefly removed:

Hello Wyss: I somehow missed your note to me that Michael K had been removed from the Haymarket article. I was going to not re-post it for several reasons but then I noticed that you are a regular worker at the article so decided to discuss it with you. The shot was taken at the 100th anneversary of the eventwith my camera[ I am next to Michael in the shot] and Michael definately suggested that he knew about the blowing up of the statue, and he was someone who could be trusted on this sort of thing. Elsewhere on wikipedia [someone else's talk page who was interested] is a picture of his widow at the IWW memorial service for him, so he can no longer be consulted. Do you think that the shot really belongs there? If so, I will try and find it again and repost it. Life is supposed to be interesting. Carptrash 00:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Carptrash, yeah, I do think it adds to the article. First, "something tells me" he was involved, which makes him absolutely relevant to the text in the article. Second, the picture gives a good idea of the desolation of Haymarket square during those years when the barren, beat up pedestal was the only public reminder and monument to the event. I remember visiting Chicago one summer when I was still in university and persuading someone to take me there (huh?! was the reply :) and the neglected, passed-by nature of the site, this was in 1994, made a big impression on me. I saw it again in 1996. Having the picture back would add insight to the text and as I said, Michael is rather obviously a part of the history referred to and the caption we had there made this clear without saying anything problematic or provocative IMO. Please re-upload it? Either way... thanks! Wyss 00:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There. Michael is back at his post. The caption is the one that User:AnnaAniston had written, based on my original one, which was not great. Because she seemed to care who Michael was, I posted this on her user page. It's of Michael's widow, Ingrid, at his memorial service, which doesn't really tell you who he was, but it is how he went out, at least from the IWW. Carptrash 02:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool :) Thanks! Wyss 17:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

So, now we also know the source: a first hand conversation with the deceased Michael K. Looks like documentation might be hard to come by.--Cast (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We're running out of time for the GA nomination, so I've edited the article with two possible captions for the image: one which specifies the claims made my Michael K, but requires a citation, and one which makes no claims and simply describes the image as it is presented. Since providing a source may never be possible, I've gone with the caption that requires no citation. If the image creator or someone else can eventually present a verifiable source, we'll switch it back and include it in the narrative.--Cast (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Current revision is openly biased.

it needs to be changed. don't proselytize. Lockeownzj00 16:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 07:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then change it.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 18:55, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

that appears to be what we're doing. Lockeownzj00 02:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see much that needs changing. If you can show me something that is proselytizing, I'll help you edit it. 17.102.46.100 19:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The article is fine as it is. Why do right-wingers always want to re-write history THEIR way?

why dont you look at the edit history to when i edited? the article rang of the "heroes..." offending sentences:

'called heroically for workers...'

'THe police opened fire on the crowd, murdering at will'

'stating what everyone knew to be the truth...'

'Activist Michael K at the statueless pedestal of the Policemen Monument, Chicago IL. MK took to his too early grave'

the fucking edit caption was: 'The Haymarket Martyrs went to their deaths for us!'

and, if you took 5 seconds to read the history, again youd realise i am an anarchist and the foremost thing we need to stop is ::skewed propaganda.

Lockeownzj00 23:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Are there still any specific POV concerns that have not been addressed or can we remove the notice now? Kaldari 15:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Take it down! I can't see a 'dispute'. If there's anything to be worked on, let's work it anarchist-style - in peace! An An 07:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's still a significant bias in the tone of this article. I think it would require a complete re-write of the article, focusing on what actually happened, people involved, etc. Unfortunately, it doesnt seem that anyone has actually been reading/discussing on the talk page. 67.11.138.6 01:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this article is biased. However, I would like to know why you say it is biased. Could you list some specific examples please? Thanks. Gwen Gale 01:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Where was the "meeting near the McCormick plant" what streets? Wegerje 19:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Was Haymarket really an anarchist driven protest?

looks like my changes were labeled vandalism

more fauxlibertarians at work it would seem. My changes were correct. Yours are wrong. What part of my changes constitute vandalism?

And what happened to my account?

Why can't I make edits?

what happened to my info about the new monument?

I added new info about the new monument in my edit, and it was REMOVED!

Look, fauxLibertarians, you can't tell ME anything about Haymarket. I have ALL the info about it already.

FYI, here is a photo of the new monument: http://photos2.flickr.com/3699231_788bb338ca.jpg?v=0

Further, in his zeal to remove my non-rightwing edit, one of my accusers pointed to the title of my edit page, pointing out that it was biased. Well, it was, but OBVIOUSLY, the title of the edit page is not relevant to the accuracy of my edits, as that title is NOT included as part of the displayed edit.

YOUR bias is showing.

NOW what happened to my account? And why can't I edit?

here is an idea, 69.154.176.141

If you establish a persona here, and a bit of a track record, and actually sign your postings, then you are likely to be taken more seriously. I, for one, am interested in getting as much sculpture as possible on wikipedia and will back you a long way. However claiming that you know ALL about Haymarket is ludicrous at best and who-knows-what-? at worst. Carptrash 17:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cleaned up

I have cleaned up this article, removing the inaccuracies (most were related to the old police statue), adding some details along with a reference to the new statue installed in 2004, and a pic of it. Anyone have a date on the MK pic? Wyss 17:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Ask Carptrash An An 00:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Not the Place for an Op-Ed

Someone put what appears to be the entire text of an op-ed piece condemning radical labor by some guy named George Frederic Parsons into the aftermath section. This is not needed and seems very pov to me. I took out the text but kept the intro. If anyone wants to put a few quotes from the piece in, be my guest.

I integrated it into the previous section. It's ok to briefly mention public opinion on both sides but truth be told, getting into quotations would quickly turn this article into a data dump of running 19th century rhetoric and since both "sides" made huge mistakes in judgement at almost every step, most of it would likely distract from the documented story of the incident itself and its aftermath. Wyss 07:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

question about numbers

A lit, fused bomb whistled over the heads of onlookers and landed near the police line, killing twelve people including a policeman, Mathias J. Degan (seven other policemen later died from their injuries). The police immediately opened fire on the crowd, injuring dozens. Many of the wounded were afraid to visit hospitals for fear of being arrested. A total of eleven people died.

12 people died from the bomb, and then the police opened fire. If eleven people died from the shooting, then it should say "A total of 23 people died that day." or something like that. I don't want to change it, because I don't know what any of the numbers are supposed to be, I just know that 11 is less than 12.

Thanks for pointing that out, I missed that someone had snuck that in sometime over the past month or two. Degan was killed more or less immediately, seven other policemen died later (the bomb landed among them) and there were three documented deaths among the civilians (lots and lots of wounded by indiscriminate police gunfire though). Horrible tragedy. Don't know why, but some of the people who edit here are not only way emotional when they arrive, but don't even bother to check if their additions mesh with the existing text, never mind with the reliable sources. Wyss 03:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica says 7 police and 60 injured.--Mujeresliebres 19:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

just wanted to point out that there were actually only 6 policeman who died later from their injuries. 7 is the figure that includes degan. also, although the number of civilians killed is unknown, i believe the injured figure was well known at the time (around 200). someone with more citing experience should check the sources to confirm, though. 99.233.147.148 (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

21st Century Standards

The second sentence in the "Strike at the McCormick reaper plant" section is blatantly West-chauvinistic. Even today—especially today—large parts of the world have labor standards that are at the level of late nineteenth century Chicago and in many cases much worse. I've made the following change:

"By 21st century standards, working conditions in the city were miserable, with most workers working ten to twelve hour days, often six days a week under sometimes dangerous conditions."

to

"By 21st century Western standards, working conditions in the city were miserable . . ." – Antelopotamus

See Also

Is there a reason the third great awakening is in the see also section?--Mujeresliebres 19:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Anarchism

Something should be mentioned that the Chicago anarchists weren't necessarily anarchists. In Chicago, in the 1870s and 1880s, anarchist meant simply a labor revolutionary, be s/he a follower of Marx or Bakunin. Certainly some, like Spies and Lingg were what most people would consider classical anarchists, but Albert Parsons was much closer to socialism. His statement on the issue was along the lines of, if the capitalists call him an anarchist, he'd wear the badge with pride.

There are still many flavours and stripes of anarchist, from hard core communists to libertarian capitalists. Anarchist is the historically supported term. Gwen Gale 05:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Figure Error?

"In the next few days they were joined nationwide by 350,000 workers who went on strike at 1,200 factories, including 70,000 in Chicago." Something is off here. If there were stikes at 1,200 factories nationwide, there couldnt have been 70,000 in Chicago alone. I suspect an order of magnitude error. Can anyone verify what the other meant and if its a mistake? CoachMcGuirk 17:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Truth be told it seems accurate. Chicago was a ginormous manufacturing centre by then, at the hub of a continental railroad network and the US labour movement more or less got its start there. Strikes in most other areas would have been small by comparison. Gwen Gale 04:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Layout

The layout of this page is a mess in Firefox, perhaps someone with more knowledge of Wikipedia layout than I have could have a look? Donnacha 12:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Today, it looks ok to me in Firefox on FreeBSD. Gwen Gale 05:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey folks. A few days ago I changed the title coordinates to the location of the site of the riot it self. Since then, the info box for the monument was added and I just changed those coordinates to the location of the monument in the cemetary.

Is it just me or is it a bit misleading to have two different sets of coordinates on the same page? I think both sites are significant, I am just wondering as to the best way to convey their difference... Thoughts?Edwardmking 21:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. The article is about the event, and the coordinates are listed to locate the site where it happened. Meanwhile, inside the cemetary monument's info box, its own coordinates are listed. Gwen Gale 21:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't figure out what you keep changing the coordinates to in the infobox. It looks like it is someone's front lawn in Berwyn, whereas what I had put before was the location of the statue and the monument inside Waldheim Cemetary.Edwardmking 21:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

haha! I'm not the origin of those coordinates! Anyway, what I suggest is... coordinates of Haymarket Square in the upper right of the article, coordinates of of the cemetary monument in the monument info box (I believe the ones in the info box at this time are correct but have a look?). Mind, there is now yet another memorial at the site. Gwen Gale 22:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Since coordinates are pretty much all I do on WP, I'm pretty anal about them. (Or is it the other way around...) The one's that I had put in the infobox were for the monument. I went there some years ago (and coincidentally helped to paint the inside of the chapel right next door.)Edwardmking 22:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I'm glad you are! Could you check them again? I do think it would be most helpful if the article's coordinates reflected the site of the incident west of the "loop" in Chicago, while the info box would carry the monument coordinates in the cemetary. Gwen Gale 22:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

haymarket square

Haven't been there in donkey's years but as I recall it's at the opening of an alley about 30 yards north of Randolph and Des Plaines. Gwen Gale 22:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If you click the coordinates, then click "Hybrid" next to google maps and zoom in, you can see the lamp post next to which the current sculpture now stands. You can't see the sculpture itself, but I was just there a couple days ago. If you do the same for the infobox, you can see the pedestal with the statue of justice. I picked that because obviously, the plaque cannot be seen from an aerial photograph.Edwardmking 22:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The wagon was roughly at 163 N. Desplaines St, Chicago... Gwen Gale 22:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it's changed since I was there... everything was overgrown with green and kind of a wasteland back then. Yep, the coordinates look ok, maybe a car length too far north haha! Oh and I can see the pedestal for the Union League Club statue is indeed wholly gone and they've put new concrete there. Gwen Gale 22:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And I thought I was picky!Edwardmking 22:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

POV of this article

I note there's been considerable discussion about POV on this talk page. I don't follow this page closely, and so cannot quickly associate comments with versions of the article.

But i would like to offer my reactions, just from reading the article. I hope that may be useful in any possible refinement.

First of all, it seems well-written. It reads well, and covers the specifics of the incident itself nicely. However, this is an extremely important topic, and i think it could be improved. Here are some impressions...

• The photo caption about "Activist Michael K" is cryptic and improperly suggestive, at least to outsiders. Is "Activist Michael K" the person on the left, or on the right? What is his connection to Haymarket, or the monuments? The caption alludes to secrets, the context of which cannot be fathomed from anywhere in the article.

My grandmother took to the grave everything that she knew about the 1969 and 1970 bombings, as well. Of course she died in 1965. So how does the reader know whether this individual in the photo is more relevant, other than by guessing?

And the high resolution image of this photo has a problematic caption too. Why does the hi-rez photo have "I think" appended to the source? (Who is "I" ??)

• Why so much focus on Haymarket, and so little on the killings at McCormick? (I suppose that could be asked of many historians, as well.)

• The article doesn't really explain why this incident is referred to as a riot, in my view. What exactly was the riot, the initial attack by the police? The throwing of the bomb? The police shootings? What happened in the aftermath of the bombing/gunfire, did people go crazy as in a riot, or did they just try to get away from the shooting? I'm not denying there was a riot, i'm just uncertain from the article why this event is called a riot.

• A bronze plaque set into the sidewalk states that, "A decade of strife between labor and industry culminated here in a confrontation..." I don't think the article expains the reasons for that strife. Even the section titled, "Strife and confrontation" doesn't explain the strife. They were striking for the eight hour day. What hours were they working, and why? What were working conditions like at the time? Aren't these relevant issues that ought to be explained within the article, at least briefly? Certainly we find some answers when (IF) we click on the Eight-hour day link. But shouldn't a couple of sentences about those awful working conditions be brought into the Haymarket article itself?

• The documentation being sent to East Germany is a tantalyzing tidbit, what does it mean? How did it happen? Was it still available? Has it been returned?

Congrats to all on a great article. And, i'm hoping it can become even better. Richard Myers 06:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael K was likely one of the individuals who bombed the statue in the late 1960s. From what I hear, the Chicago police are still sensitive about it. I think most readers of the article glark this straight off (given there are very few if any comments about the caption and I can say it never seemed cryptic to me and I didn't write it). So far as the high res caption goes, I'd assume good faith.

Accounts of what happened after the bomb whistled over people's heads and exploded vary widely, from "a police riot" in which the police fired wildly into the fleeing crowd, to the police version, which rather vaguely says the police were attacked. It's all still very controversial.

Strife and confrontation, I think, sums it up rather helpfully. Workers were getting shot, there was confrontation at the rally...

The working conditions themselves are still somewhat controversial. Any attempt at describing them tends to get tagged PoV or Euro-American centric and it doesn't help that the available documentation tends to be very PoV one way or another. About the only thing anyone can agree on is that the strikes were held to pressure employers into implementing 8 hour workdays.

One must understand that Chicago city officials and business leaders cared little about the memory of the Harmarket riot. To them it was a deeply unpleasant episode involving people (immigrant German anarchists) they cared little about. To them, it was mostly a law enforcement-civil order episode. Documentation artifacts certainly weren't showcased in city hall sponsored library displays or whatever. I mean, although the police did start marching in formation towards the speaker's wagon, someone threw a friggin bomb at them and they started shooting. Either "side" could and does claim being the victim. So, over the years, lots of original source documentation apparently trickled its way over to East Germany, a communist country where the Haymarket riot was perceived as a key event in the history of socialist revolution (lots of political groups have tried to exploit Haymarket at one time or another). Mind, Germans hanged for it. Anyway, good question, the documentation was apparently not readily available in the mid-1980s. I have no idea where it is, though I'd guess it's still scattered in Germany.

Lastly, the article focuses on Haymarket square because the topic of the article is the incident at Harmarket square, which (for the reasons outlined in the article) had an international impact and because of the trial which came in its aftermath. Four innocent people were hanged for murder (and a fifth committed suicide to avoid being hanged). There was much persecution and intimidation of the anarchist community after the riot so the anarchists are spot on about that: In the aftermath, they were the victims.

There is zero evidence of an anarchist conspiracy. So far as anyone knows, the bomb was thrown by a lone, disgruntled individual (who was spotted briefly) for reasons one can only guess at. Meanwhile IMHO he did lasting hurt to the cause of anarchy in the states. Violence tends to have that effect (and there were anarchists who said so at the time Wendy McElroy, The Boston anarchists and the Haymarket Incident, 1980). Gwen Gale 06:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

ULC statue photo

The identity of the bomber is no secret any more. At least, Paul Avrich was given the name of the bomber who fled to San Francisco. His comrades told him that if he went forward it would only be another life sacrificed to the State. unsigned comment by IP User:76.212.42.61, 19:29, 1 May 2007

True some anarchists said they knew who the bomber was but declined to name him for reasons along those lines. However the bomber has never been conclusively identified. Gwen Gale 10:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If any wants to add my photo of the Police Monument at the Police Training facility in Chicago, here is the link: http://flag.blackened.net/anarpics/haymarket/hspm5.jpg

I took the photo after visiting Haymarket Square and the police kindly let me into a locked garden area where the statue is now housed. unsigned comment by IP User:76.212.42.61, 19:29, 1 May 2007

It has been linked externally. If you would like to release it into the public domain or under a GFDL, please do and it can be put directly into the article. Thanks either way! Gwen Gale 10:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The officer who posed for the statue was later dismissed from the force thanks to a scandal and according to Avrich he died an alcoholic on Chicago's skid row. unsigned comment by IP User:76.212.42.61, 19:29, 1 May 2007

This may be a conflation of the report that the officer who ordered the rally to end was later convicted of corruption. Gwen Gale 10:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Some changes

I added a section on the identity of the bomb thrower. I also deleted the list of defendants as redundant since they are all identified earlier in the article. I want to expand this more as I get the chance, especially the events and atmosphere leading up to the Haymarket and the Haymarket legacy. This is an important (and tragic) event in our history.Ballabosh 05:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have some research somewhere I did on this event, I will look for it. IvoShandor 05:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of January 16, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The prose is good in this article, but there a few things that need to be fixed. First off, do the majority of sources usually refer to the event with the whole name in caps? If not, then riot needs to be uncapitalized in the name of the page. The lead also makes the common mistake of failing to state the obvious and clearly define the subject. The first sentence should state as plainly as possible what the Haymarket riot was, not its influences. Making points about the event's influence makes no sense without knowing what it was. The May Day section needs more context, such as with an transitional first paragraph. I'll try and write a bare bones one myself if need be, as I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the subject. It would help if the section had a less poetic-feeling title, maybe something like "Preliminary events". I'm not sure how you feel about it, but it would (in my view) be really good to talk about how Haymarket was one important event in a whole era of radical political and labor activism. I'm also going to be moving around some of the images and templates in the article: stacking things up in a line on the right is discouraged by WP:MOS#Images, and some of the templates you have in the body should go in External links (because that's what they are). Speaking of, the external links section is really huge. I think the best thing to do would be to remove the secondary "external images" section, which isn't recommended by the Manual of Style or WP:EL, to my knowledge.

2. Factually accurate?: Mostly great with providing in-line cites, and the type of references is very good. However, there are several places that require their own citations per the GA criteria.

• In the 2nd paragraph of May Day parade and strikes, you give a specific counts of demonstrators in several places. Exact numerical amounts and stats must be cited per the criteria. At minimum, one cite to cover the paragraph would be needed.
• In Rally at Haymarket Square, it says "According to many witnesses...", these are weasel words without a citation.
• The sentence "Meanwhile the press published often sensationalized accounts and opinions about the incident which polarized public reaction" means that you must provide citations that reference specific examples. That part would be a great place for some quotations from the reactionary press as well.
• As a direct quotation, the sentence "August Spies was widely quoted as..." needs an in-line cite.
• The entire Haymarket Square in the aftermath section is uncited. The sentence about the Weather Underground "reportedly" blowing up the memorial especially needs a cite. To say reportedly means "according to what some say", and that begs an in-line citation to someone that says it.

In addition to needing some further in-line citations, the content of some of the references is insufficient for proper verification. A simple titled url is not enough information to ensure the reliability of a source. Refs 7-9 and 19 in particular stand out as needing information such as retrieval dates, website titles (i.e. odmp.org etc.) and author information (if it exists).

3. Broad in coverage?: Again, see my suggestion above about placing Haymarket in better context historically. The article covers well what happened after to the memorials, but it doesn't talk about the social and political climate before the event. I also think it could more clearly state how important Haymarket is in the history of anarchism and labor activism, it doesn't talk very much about its connection to May Day.

4. Neutral point of view?: Gives fair representation to all significant points of view. Some might see this article as imbalanced in favor of the innocence of those tried, but I think that's a result of the perspective of the majority of contemporary historians on the subject, and not some personal editorial bias.

5. Article stability? Obviously.

6. Images?: All those present are accounted for with source material and appropriate licenses.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— VanTucky 03:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Notes

For readability, please place any comments or questions pertaining to the hold below rather than within the body of the review. Thank you!

I added a number of references today. I'll add more over the weekend, and I'll try to fix the poorly-formatted footnotes.

Regarding the last section of the article ("Haymarket Square in the aftermath"): Haymarket Revisited (a walking tour of the area) is rich with the history of the police statue and the Haymarket itself. I'll review it over the weekend and see what I can use. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow I'll work on getting some examples of "bad press" for the "Trial, executions and pardons" section. Could somebody look for some sources for the second half of the last section, particularly the "Labor Park"?

I'm a little skeptical of the claim that the primary sources are in Berlin and not Chicago because of the Haymarket Affair Digital Collection, which has 3,300 pages of trial transcripts, 300 pages of evidence introduced by the prosecution, etc. (see the highlights of the collection). Any sources for this would be very helpful too. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 10:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I read this years ago. I have been unable to track down where. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Philip Foner's introduction to Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs (1969) says that he could only locate 7 of the 8 autobiographies until he discovered Lingg's at the Institute of Marxism-Leninism in East Berlin, which has the world's only complete set of The Alarm (which had serialized the autobiographies). Maybe the Institute has an archive of other materials related to the Haymarket Riot. Avrich (1984) mentions the Chicago Historical Society, other archives in Illinois, the Labadie Collection, the International Institute of Social History, and a few others, but no mention of Berlin. But, as I noted, both of these sources pre-date the 1986 centennial mentioned in the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• The last section has way too many images. I would say, to maintain the readability of the text, pick two to keep. I can do it myself if you prefer. VanTucky 20:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, something should be done. I'm a bit stumped since I think all 4 imgs are very helpful to understanding the site. A gallery may be the only way out of this though. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

More on the images. I do have worries about the staggering. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images clearly says right alignmnet is preferred. I've often heard of readers with some browsers complaining that left aligned images cause text overlays and other unexpected glitches (which the editor may not see on their own browser). Moreover, resizing images can cause other unexpected layout messes on some browsers, so a simple |thumb| tag should usually be enough to deal with all the different resolutions readers use to view WP pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You're correct that right alignment is preferred generally, but not when that creates the problem of stacking images in a row on the right, as this is prohibited by the same MOS images policy. I doubt left-aligned images are a large enough problem in browsers as to cause serious worry, considering that the use of left images has never been proposed to be prohibited anywhere that I'm aware. WP:MOS#Images basically advocates that the best image alignment is based on the surrounding text. If there are no other images to crowd or stack upon, then right is best. But clumping the images together on one is a very bad idea. VanTucky 00:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

For me this comes down to mild differences in layout taste and maybe my wonky take on interoperability. If someone complains about overlayed text or whatever we can always deal with it then. Thanks for putting in the gallery. The "Activist Michael K" photo has been in the aftermath section for so long it's a bit jarring for me not to see it there is all, pangs of WP:OWN I think! Gwen Gale (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Where should the Anarchism navigational template be placed? Sitting there, in the "who threw the bomb?" section, it just seems to be in an odd position. Of course, I recognize there is precious little space for it elsewhere, and the "bomb thrower" section lacks any images or box quotes, making it – at first glance at least – an acceptable location. But that section is not the only part of this article which factors into the anarchism series, and doesn't it strike anyone else as sending an unfortunate message about Anarchism in general? Maybe it ought to be placed in an earlier section, and any images it displaces can be set in the newly created gallery?--Cast (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so crowded and I've thought before now that the who threw the bomb section was an unhelpful place to put the anarchy navbox. I'm not a big fan of these vertically aligned nav and portal boxes, the horizontal ones, which can be stacked at the bottom of an article, seem much friendlier to me. Anyway, in the meantime, I've put the anarchy navbox into the see also section. Not as if it fits there either, but at least the clutter gets spread out a bit until someone comes up with something else? Gwen Gale (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% that "Who threw the bomb?" was the wrong place for the anarchy template. In both Firefox and IE, the template is about the same height as the gallery on my PC. I'll move the navbox to the gallery section for the time being. Please leave a comment if the template re-arranges the footnotes on your PC. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Following the suggestion that horizontal templates are preferable to vertical ones in scenarios such as these, I have created a new horizontal Anarchism navigational template and placed it accordingly. Feeling that I should create it as quickly as possible so that we might move on with upgrading the article, I made few considerations in its creation, merely mirroring the vertical one. As such, it lacks any color and utilizes the same image. If there is any desire to alter this, feel free to do so, or ask me for assistance. --Cast (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's wonderful. Thanks so much for doing this. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You are definitely kidding. This article is so far not neutral at all, as it does not say anything about revolution of the workers against the businesses, how the government punished the workers brutally with police force and so on. It should clearly state that the bomb was an act of revenge against the oppression of businesses, government and police force. Conclussion: NOT GOOD ENOUGH AT ALL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.97.51.67 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The title of this article is not NPOV. Anarchists refer to this historical event as the "Haymarket Tragedy," "The Haymarket Massacre" and other titles. This entry should at least reflect that "Haymarket Riot" reflects a mainstream bias towards this event. Chuck0 (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Haymarket Riot does indeed portray the MS view of the event. I agree though, riot implies the workers rioted, but they didn't riot, someone unknown (although there is a likelihood this was George Meng) threw a bomb in front of the police, who responded by opening fire into the innocent crowd. As for Haymarket Tragedy is there a strong enough consensus among published, reliable sources for using this name? This said, if it were only up to me, I'd be utterly neutral and call the article Haymarket Square (which has long redirected here) since the topic tends to polarize even now. I'd very much like to hear the thoughts of anyone reading this thread on these and any other names they can think of. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think "Haymarket Square" implies that the article is about the geographic location, which it isn't. Look at the external links, which I renamed according to the titles used by each site. Most of the sites maintained by neutral sources use "Haymarket Affair"; pro-labor sources use "Haymarket Martyrs" or "Haymarket Massacre". Of the two comprehensive histories, David used "Haymarket Affair" and Avrich used "Haymarket Tragedy". I have no objection to keeping the current title, but it seems to me that the term used by most parties who are trying to remain neutral is "Haymarket Affair". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If most neutral documents on the subject use a particular name, I'm all for running with that. And if Haymarket Affair may seem a tad vague, that's why we keep introductions obvious. All other names (Tragedy, Massacre, Riot, Martyrs, etc)can redirect to the Affair article.--Cast (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny how naming this event thwarts me. I like Haymarket Square the most (although I do agree its drawback is the geographical place name thing) but, spot on, I agree Haymarket Affair is neutral and I do like it much more than Haymarket Riot. I've done some searching and a solid swatch of reliable sources do seem to support Haymarket Affair so I'm all for it. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made the title change, but I'm afraid I don't have time to move the talk pages. I hope this will not be a major inconvenience, but I would ask that the next capable editor to see this to make the appropriate redirects so that this talk page will be saved to the new article home. I'm afraid I do not have the time at the moment, but have rushed to move the article anyway because we are under a deadline mere hours away.--Cast (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Just as a reminder, the hold period for GA ends tommorrow. A few things, like the May Day stuff Mike mentions below in the newest thread and the caps in the title, have not been dealt with. If these aren't addressed I have to fail the article. VanTucky 00:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. Regarding the title capitalization, this is entirely in keeping with neutral source documentation, which primarily refer to the event as the "Haymarket Affair."--Cast (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You're forgetting that Wikipedia has its own naming conventions. According to WP:CAPS, "For page titles, always use lowercase after the first word, and do not capitalize second and subsequent words, unless: the title is a proper noun [emphasis in original]". Thus, affair should not be capitalized as "Haymarket Affair" is not a pronoun. It needs to be moved. VanTucky 01:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Move completed. VanTucky 01:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the capitalization throughout the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've passed the article, as it most certainly now meets the GA criteria, and you've collaborated very well in making improvements beyond what I asked for. Great work all round! VanTucky 03:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Geographical coordinates

At the top of the page, the geographical coordinates for the Haymarket are shown in decimal format (41.8849° N 87.6441° W), but in the infobox the coordinates for the Haymarket Martyrs' Memorial are shown in degrees/minutes/seconds format (41°52′11.2404″N, 87°49′11.1684″W). (I calculated that the coordinates weren't the same, but I had to use Google Maps to find what each pair pointed to.) Should we try to clarify what the two sets of coordinates are? Should we show them in the same format (both decimal or both degrees/minutes/seconds)? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The decimal coords at the top of the page are the site of the incident a few yards off Haymarket Square in the River South neighbourhood of Chicago. The degree coords in the Forest Park Memorial infobox are of the memorial in Forest Park. I don't think it matters if they're not in the same format but yes, it would be cleaner if they were. Since the memorial coords are nestled in the memorial infobox and the Crane's alley coords are at the top of the article I've never thought there was a lack of clarity but I'd be interested in what other editors have to say. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed the template at the very top of the article (Haymarket Square) to degrees/minutes/seconds for consistency with the Waldheim Cemetery infobox (which can't be changed to a decimal format). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No neutrality in this article

This article should clearly state that the policemen were all of them criminals and that all went impune for their crimes against workers. The text should be changed to justice-making, where workers got revenge upon manipulated policemen who did what the government said instead of supporting the workers. In general, this article has to proclaim the great victory of workers upon businessmen and all the struggle, instead of biasing the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.97.51.67 (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a reliable source for what you say? Just including opinions, yours or mine, is not a good way to remove bias. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 17:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it is not written it does not mean it wasn't like that. Sources are biased. Not opinion, it's all in textbooks, go ahead and find them, that is if they weren't all destroyed already.

Melodrama is unlikely to get the article changed the way you want it. If you want what you consider unbiased sources/textbooks included, you are probably going to have to come up with them yourself. Skomorokh ^incite 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:V. Please provide some published sources and we'll get them into the narrative. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

violent in the header

A bit distracted, I tried to rm the word violent from the first sentence of the article as perhaps redundant and unintentionally hinting at too much PoV to follow but... I botched it and didn't go back to a version without the word, so I rv'd myself. I'm going to leave it for now since it's not that big of a deal or anything, but thoughts from other editors would be helpful. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's POV given that the sources establish that there was violence and that it was a significant element. I'm not sure what you consider the "violent" description in the lede redundant with (article title?), but I think there's no harm in erring on the side of WP:OBVIOUS. Skomorokh ^incite 23:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

For me, Haymarket riot seems redundant to violent (kinda like what WP:OBVIOUS says about going overboard). However, I'd consider rming it only a tweak, so I'm ok either way. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling it just "an incident" is not stating the obvious well enough. What kind of incident? The trigger of the whole shebang was violence. No violence, no Haymarket. It would just be one more workers rights rally in a long history of them. The famous ensuing legal proceeding and other events are all dependent on the violence of the riot. It needs to be in there. VanTucky 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I wholly agree incident is not the most fitting, I put it there but was hoping I'd think of another. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway I tried another take on the lead... Gwen Gale (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Current version is cool with me. VanTucky 00:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Connection with May Day

I'd like to add a section after the "Trial, executions and pardons" about how May Day as international Labor Day was largely created in response to the Haymarket Riot. I think that's the last missing piece: the lede mentions it, but the article doesn't discuss it at all.

I've got a project that'll keep me away until tomorrow night. If anybody wants to start the ball rolling, please do. The best source I know is Philip Foner's May Day, which is available for limited preview at Google Books, but any good book about Haymarket may have some discussion of the subject. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, what a wonderful addition! Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Schnaubelt caption

It reads,

Rudolph Schnaubelt, shown here, was indicted but fled the country.
Some suspect he may have thrown the bomb.

Is the assertion "some suspect..." supported at all anymore? Gwen Gale (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. According to Avrich, the police insisted that Schnaubelt threw the bomb, in part because he fled the country. But Avrich says there isn't any evidence connecting Schnaubelt to the bomb, and he didn't match the description of the bomber given by the witness who claimed to have seen him. I'll try a new caption. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the new caption you came up with. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Cast. That's much better. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, pardon for not mentioning my own change, but I just wanted to be fast about it. I'm just glad everything worked out. This is the exact kind of thing the task force was created for – hats off to everyone involved, but especially to you for all of your quick research and writing, and to Gwen, who seems to have stuck with this article long before the rest of us got involved in it.--Cast (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Haymarket Square in the aftermath

Shouldn't there be at least one photo in this section? Gwen Gale (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Neosovereign

I changed the number of people killed and added the police killed 4 people, I'm not very good at this, if someone could imporve it, I would appreciate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neosovereign (talk • contribs) 14:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits. The specific number of people killed needs a rock solid source. The one you provided, but did not provide a cite for, is not adequate. Sorry. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I would add, I've never seen a reliable source for this. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Graffiti in monument picture?

Is the "now they exploit your memory" graffiti on the monument (likely photoshopped in) significant, or the work of a NPOV editor? It looks NPOV and should be corrected. Carboncopy (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not photoshopped. Most Haymarket memorials attract graffiti like this. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. Perhaps the caption should reflect that fact, so as not to confuse the reader (like me). Carboncopy (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than make the caption any longer than it is, I added a footnote indicating that the marker has been vandalized. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe I recognize the handwriting, which scares me. We shall just say that this was probably done years ago, by someone who was quite obsessed with Haymarket. Not having been there at the time of the defacing, I cannot be sure. However, I can say that this is indeed not photoshopped - it's been like that for over 10 years. --24.12.176.73 (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What does hemp have to do with anything?

The quote from the New York times is qualified with this statement: The paper also recommended "hemp, in judicious doses," to "prevent the spread of the disease". Quite frankly, this doesn't seem relevant to the article and seems to have been added purely to cast skepticism on the NYT quote. The fact that it was cited in a (very non NPOV) book about the incident doesn't make it relevant to a NPOV historical article --Jaykul (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hemp has nothing to do with the article and I have rm'd it. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

McCormick Reaper Works

I definitely think more attention needs to be given to events at McCormick. It basically precipitated the events at Haymarket. Nearly half of the strikebreakers at McCormick defected and joined the general strike. Company officials did not like this (obviously) and cracked down with extra police. The movement up to this point had been very nonviolent, uniting people across trades. When the police opened fire and killed the four demonstrators at McCormick, people saw it as the beginning of repression. The strikers responded with a rally denouncing police violence. A bomb was thrown, and the rest is history. But McCormick is fundamental to understanding Haymarket and the two sentence summary doesn't do this justice. Uwmad (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sourced historical commentary on the McCormick strike and deaths is always welcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So I've gone ahead and expanded the section. The cause of the Haymarket rally makes much more sense now, in my opinion. I've essentially distilled down about 20 pages of James Green's "Death in the Haymarket". As such the entire paragraph is referenced to these 20 pages. I could go through and page cite every sentence, but that would be quite a pain. Let me know if this poses a problem... I understand this is a Good Article, so a proof read would be appreciated. I much encourage changes to grammar, improvement of flow, etc. Uwmad (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. It needs a little Wikifying (turning some words into Wikilinks), but I'll take care of that over the weekend if nobody beats me to it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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. They were Joseph Srawek, Jr. and Mathew Black. See Coroner’s Inquest Records, Nos. 1554, 1555, (all 1886), Illinois Regional Archives Depository, Northeastern Illinois University, Chicago. MesserKruse (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Current location

I'm wondering if this sentence

...Haymarket Square (also called the Haymarket), which at the time was a bustling commercial center near the corner of Randolph Street and Des Plaines Street in what was later called Chicago's West Loop.

could be made shorter. I'm from Wisconsin, and only know a little about Chicago geography. Would it be more appropriate to cut out the "Chicago West Loop" portion or the intersection part? It just seems redundant to have both. Uwmad (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't live in Chicago, but as far as I know Randolph and Des Plaines both still exist. (They were there the last time I visited the Haymarket, about 15 years ago.) I don't think we needs to refer to the West Loop. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

1886 Eight-hour strike

I propose that a seperate page be made for the events in 1886. Haymarket was only one, very notable, incident in this larger general strike. In terms of the larger American labor movement, I think the general strike deserves its own page. What do others think? Uwmad (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Source it, do it! However, you might want to think more about the article title? Gwen Gale (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Opening line of "May Day parade and strikes"

"In October 1884, a convention held by the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions (FOTLU) of the United States and Canada unanimously set May 1, 1886, as the date by which the eight-hour work day would become standard.[7] When May 1, 1886 approached, American labor unions prepared for a general strike in support of the eight-hour day." I don't understand the logic here. It infers that Canada and the US were going to accept the eight-hour day and American labor unions went on strike because they wanted it too? If they were already going to standardize the eight-hour day what was the purpose of the strike? Again, I'm only judging from the wording, not my historical knowledge. Jeffrey ten Grotenhuis 03:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be clearer. FOTLU was the "Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions of the United States and Canada", so the abbreviation is in the wrong place. Eight-hour day doesn't mention Canada at all, and every book I've read about the eight-hour-day fight with respect to Haymarket focuses only on the US. I think it's probably best if the article just drops "of the United States and Canada" from the sentence. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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. See http://blogs.bgsu.edu/haymarket/myth-4-the-great-march-of-the-80000/ MesserKruse (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Riot Monument image

I think that the picture of the defaced monument should be removed. This article is not about the opinions of present day activists. Further, such an image can be used to editorialize the Haymarket Affair in an obtuse way. GuamIsGood (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The flier calling for a rally in the Haymarket on May 4.

I am commenting on the pic of "The flier calling for a rally in the Haymarket on May 4." When I read this article, I was under the impression that this was the ONLY flier calling for the rally, or at least the principal one. I was suspicious and did a little internet research which said that this version was revised and the line "Workingmen Arm Yourselves and Appear in Full Force!" was removed to avoid provoking violence. This actually became a disputed point during the trial itself: the prosecution was trying to use the flier to show that those organizing the rally were actually trying to incite a riot.Illinois vs. August Spies et al. trial evidence book. People's Exhibit 5

Now in the body of the article it says that "One surviving flyer printed in both German and English contains the words 'Workingmen Arm Yourselves and Appear in Full Force!'", which obviously is true. But that combined with the caption which calls it "the flier" I think is sort of misleading. I think it should be noted that even those within the movement for the eight-hour work day thought that that phrase was too violent. According to the library of congress's website "The next morning, one of those anarchists, Adolph Fischer, arranged with August Spies, manager of the Arbeiter-Zeitung, to publish broadsides advertising the meeting. Spies also agreed to speak at the meeting, on the condition that Fischer remove an inflammatory phrase from the broadside. Nevertheless, copies of the original broadside were still distributed and eventually used in the prosecution of the eight labor radicals, including Fischer and Spies, who were accused of inciting the bombing that would take place that night near Haymarket Square." - http://international.loc.gov/learn/collections/hay/file.html.

Basically, nothing in the article with regard to the flier is actually fallacious, but by including the flier in the article but not telling the rest of the story gives undue weight to this particular version of the flier. So what I did was stick this in the caption describing the pic:

"One of the fliers calling for a rally in the Haymarket on May 4. Another version with the words "Workingmen Arm Yourselves and Appear in Full Force!" removed was much more common.Illinois vs. August Spies trial transcript, ref http://international.loc.gov/learn/collections/hay/file.html ref"

RepublicanJacobite reverted my edit saying "Rv; the source provided does not say the alternate flyer was more common; it says both versions existed and were distributed; the caption is not the place for this information."

He was right then, but now I have a much better source http://www.chicagohistory.org/hadc/transcript/volumem/201-250/M250-263.htm. It involves the testimony of Johann Grueneberg, "Friend of defendant Fischer, was asked by Fischer to pick up circulars at the printers and then to take them back and have new ones printed once August Spies saw the "Workingmen, come armed..." line." He states both that about 10 times more fliers without the offensive line were printed, and those fliers with the offensive line that were printed were ordered to be retained and not distributed.

Why is the caption not the place for this information? Would it be better to place a pic of the revised version (http://www.chicagohistory.org/hadc/transcript/exhibits/Xd00-050/XD00100.htm) next to it instead? HimpThePimp (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I clearly remember reading this in a reliable source years ago. This has been in the article text in the past, it may have been taken out because of sourcing worries, I think it should go back in (the scan would be ok too). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll upload the second flier to Commons and start editing the article. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States

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)

I agree. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Haymarket Martyrs' Monument

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:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=haymarket+square&sll=41.86368,-87.695961&sspn=0.177445,0.294571&ie=UTF8&ll=41.889931,-87.644076&spn=0,359.981589&z=16&iwloc=A&layer=c&cbll=41.884892,-87.644202&panoid=pxf9nwjYEYHUJmH2ylsF6A&cbp=12,93.42666191106412,,0,6.258741258741257 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.174.2.67 (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Naming of Event

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 Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

If you can think of an alternative beside the clunky and inaccurate "demonstrations and unrest", please suggest it. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

Why did the Weathermen destroy the statue -- twice?

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'm not taking a side in this or trying to do any diggin after all these years, just curious about the ideology involved. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC))

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)

Bias Editor

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 Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

The people arrested were socialists

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)

What are your sources for this assertion? Richard Myers (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

> Moreover, even the label liberal doesn't have the same meaning as back then.

It doesn't in English speaking North America, elsewhere, it does. 82.35.49.208 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

Monument Vandalism

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)

If you're in the Chicago area, and if the monuments are graffiti-free, please take pictures and submit them. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

About some changes to the article

I'm sympathetic to a couple of the changes here, disagree with others:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haymarket_affair&action=historysubmit&diff=436514314&oldid=435546745

But these changes should cite sources rather than assertions, and should be discussed on the talk page. Richard Myers (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Coordinates

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)