This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Lead badly contradicts entire Later Evidence and Investigations section
The lead states "critical opinion has overwhelmingly felt that the two men were convicted largely on their anarchist political beliefs and unjustly executed."
This utterly unequivocal statement is backed with precisely two references, one of which is from 1960 and doesn't even cover the new evidence and the other which is extremely equivocal and concludes either man's guilt or innocence is impossible to establish and therefore they didn't deserve to be executed.
The Later Evidence and Investigations section has 11 references, all but two strongly assert Sacco's guilt.
How is this allowed to stand? The lead is not even remotely accurate and yet it's not even tagged as controversial. Court Appointed Shrub (talk) 04:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
They mostly don't just assert Sacco's guilt, but Vanzetti's as well (on the basis that in law all participants in the robbery were guilty of murder, regardless of who fired the shots). But the statement of which you complain (which I agree is misleading and in need of amending) may well be technically correct that most expert opinion thinks the trial and conviction were flawed (which many experts as distinct from lay people might well then argue means they were technically executed unjustly and as a result of prejudice rather than proper evidence even if one accepts that later evidence strongly suggests they were guilty). This means that as a layperson I think the think badly needs amending, but I wouldn't dare amend it myself due lack of expertise. Is there anybody out there with the expertise to amend it properly? Tlhslobus (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The third paragraph in the robbery section seems out of place. It does not use proper style, it is not objective and does not even deal with the robbery and seems to contain some original work. This paragraph should either be removed or moved to a more appropriate section with improved style and references cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Whilst clearing up a category, I came across User:GPa_Hill/SandVWorkInProgress which appears to be a version of this article intended to be an update back in 2008, though has had 3 updates since. It may have some useful content for this article. Banak (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Good find, Banak. It is certainly worth a look, and may be useful towards the betterment of this article. Thanks for providing the link.--JayJasper (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
This is such a good article, kudos. When I look at the article about the 1891 mass lynching of Italians in New Orleans, I wonder why that topic hasn't been covered as thoroughly, and the info is rather oddly presented. See Talk:David Hennessy#Confusion. Rosekelleher (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Incomplete sentence in section "Motions for a new trial"
The sentence: "In response, the controversial" is obviously incomplete. Please fix. shrao (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)