![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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:
"open hostility" is PoV, his rulings and failure to maintain decorum should be cited.
Classifying jury selection as "extraordinarily difficult" is PoV.
Needs citation.
Needs citation, possibly more explanation. Assuming they weren't peremptory challenges, why were the potential jurors dismissed?
Needs citation and further explanation.
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)
"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.
/info/en/?search=May_Day#Origins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciophobiaranger ( talk • contribs) 16:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
"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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Haymarket affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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:
"open hostility" is PoV, his rulings and failure to maintain decorum should be cited.
Classifying jury selection as "extraordinarily difficult" is PoV.
Needs citation.
Needs citation, possibly more explanation. Assuming they weren't peremptory challenges, why were the potential jurors dismissed?
Needs citation and further explanation.
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)
"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.
/info/en/?search=May_Day#Origins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciophobiaranger ( talk • contribs) 16:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
"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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Haymarket affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
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)