Talk:List of worker deaths in United States labor disputes

Agitprop/POV text rv

Stories about violence on both sides must be added. Quis separabit? 12:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that I've ever seen a more one-sided Wikipedia article than this. It is clearly biased in wording and the selection of facts included. Plazak (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, just caught it. Undoubtedly funded by some George Soros-related group (LOL). Quis separabit? 12:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

DISCUSSION OPENED HEREIN TO DISCUSS ARTICLE AS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN

1. My objection to the article as written (see diff), which somehow nobody caught until now, is that it is blatant agitprop, and the antithesis of the mission of Wikipedia to be an online encyclopaedia. At minimum, it violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR, although it does considerably more than that. In accordance with BOLD, I revert these objectionable elements.although it seems the original author is gearing up for an edit war. As this shows there are too many individual items to be listed one by one but an examination of the diff will show exactly what the problem is/problems are. Quis separabit? 13:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

How do I suggest the Hanapepe Massacre? Hanapepe massacre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.228.9.143 (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 21 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus to move to this title. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Violent labor disputes in the United States → Murder of workers in labor disputes in the United States – Someone changed the name of this article without discussion. The article is not directly about violent labor disputes (they already have their own articles). It is a list of workers that were murdered in labor disputes, along with pertinent notes about each incident. Jeff in CA (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: To have a murder you need a murder conviction or murder convictions. This key element is largely or entirely lacking.@Jeff in CA is using Wikipedia to push his particular POV/agenda. I acknowledged already that Violent labor disputes in the United States is not an ideal name and I hope after discussion we can find a better one, but no article with that name did exist, belying @Jeff in CA's claim that (they already have their own articles), which is why I was able to effect the move, which was both necessary and permissible under BOLD given the enormity of the contentious text, just as this discussion is required under BRD.

Also, just to point out -- I did not remove any of @Jeff in CA's impressive compilation of incidents, although I did tweak as needed. Whatever is factual is fine; whatever is or borders on POV, OR, hagiography, is not. That is one of the primary principles of Wikipedia's MOS. The only problem is that people of good faith disagree on how to interpret this. If Jeff in CA is editing in good faith then we simply have a disagreement which consensus should straighten out. If not, then he is pushing a POV, which is not acceptable, especially of this length and magnitude. Quis separabit? 13:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no agitprop going on. This article is a list of workers who were killed in labor disputes by those in authority (almost all occurred between 1870 and 1940). To the extent that names are known (many are unknown), it is intended to list them. There are already articles about violent labor disputes at anti-union violence and union violence, plus each individual dispute. This present list is not meant to duplicate those. Jeff in CA (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, no. The incidents in so far as they are factually recounted are OK, but need to be researched to see what has been left out. The adding of known names, few of whom have their own articles but which already exist in "articles about violent labor disputes at anti-union violence and union violence", is either redundant or hagiographical. As per @Plazak (above), "I don't believe that I've ever seen a more one-sided Wikipedia article than this. It is clearly biased in wording and the selection of facts included."
Nuff, said?? Quis separabit? 14:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I wrote the introduction to be NPOV. I did not believe the power wielded by wealthy 19th-century industrialists (e.g., the Rockefellers, Mellons, Fricks, and so on) over their workers to be a controversial matter. But I'd be happy to supplement with references. The description of the typical pattern of labor disputes of this era, provided by encyclopedia author Ronald Filipelli, becomes obvious the more one reads the histories — it happened over and over. I fail to see how that is OR or POV. Sources have already been extensively provided, and I was in the process of adding more of them. And I am at a loss to see how hagiography is involved. And I do not believe in edit wars, although I admit to begin aghast at some of the recent edits and flaming to be seen. Jeff in CA (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

"I wrote the introduction to be NPOV" -- if so, I am afraid you missed the mark. Quis separabit? 14:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Then please tell what is about each sentence that is objectionable, so I can either respond or fix it. Jeff in CA (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose both – Rms is right, many of the events listed did not involve murder convictions; calling them murders is inappropriate. However, I also oppose the current title as so excessively neutral that it fails to describe the content of the list. I propose Deaths of workers in labor disputes in the United States. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said twice before, I know the name is not ideal and am more than willing to compromise. @Ivanvector's suggestion is not bad. Any other ideas out there from anybody before we decide? Quis separabit? 14:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

How about Casualties incurred in labor wars in the United States? Quis separabit? 15:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I slightly prefer mine. The article is a list of deaths, and casualties doesn't necessarily mean deaths.Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I know, that would be "Fatalities", but I thought casualties as they include dead and wounded might be more inclusive. But I am willing to go with yours, if everyone else is and/or no other suggestions come in. Quis separabit? 15:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposer says, above, that the article is not meant to be NPOV, a problem in itself (though he does now say above that the lead is supposed to be) – but, in the meantime, these actions don't seem to be murder, either because they were not unprovoked killings or because there were no murder convictions. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Favor Saying that the word "murder" can only be used in the context of a murder conviction in a court of law seems to me to be an unnecessarily narrow construction. If not "murder", then the appropriate word would be one that means an intentional act of commission that directly and proximately results in the death of another person. (Also, I am not able to see where I allegedly said that the article is not meant to be NPOV.)Jeff in CA (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Whatever the outcome of the rest of the words in the article name, this article is a list and so should be named "List of foo" Hmains (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose As noted above, "murder" is usually inappropriate lacking a court finding. Also, as noted above, this is a list, so perhaps, List of worker deaths in United States labor disputes. Of course, that would also include deaths of strikebreakers, because they are workers, too. The original choice of "murder" in the title – in many cases convicted in nothing more than the kangaroo court of someone's opinion, suggests to me that the writer lacks the concept of NPOV. In list form, and because most of these topics are covered elsewhere in Wikipedia, it would be easier to pare down the lengthy and highly POV descriptions to a Wiki link and one or two sentences for most items. Plazak (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

From word.com:

Synonym Discussion

kill, slay, murder, assassinate, dispatch, execute mean to deprive of life. kill merely states the fact of death caused by an agency in any manner <killed in an accident> <frost killed the plants>. slay is a chiefly literary term implying deliberateness and violence but not necessarily motive <slew thousands of the Philistines>. murder specifically implies stealth and motive and premeditation and therefore full moral responsibility <convicted of murdering a rival>. assassinate applies to deliberate killing openly or secretly often for political motives <terrorists assassinated the Senator>. dispatch stresses quickness and directness in putting to death <dispatched the sentry with one bullet>.execute stresses putting to death as a legal penalty <executed by lethal gas>.

Below are the first three examples of usage that appear in the definition of murder at m-w.com:

She was accused of murder.

the mass murder of civilians in wartime

a string of unsolved murders

Based on the above, I suggest slaying be adopted to use in the title, because, as stated at word.com, it is "a chiefly literary term implying deliberateness and violence but not necessarily motive." That seems to fit.Jeff in CA (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Disagree -- it is a ridiculously outdated term. Maybe if this were the early 20th century it would be OK. All the synonyms you list above are inherently subjective; at least one has more than one meaning ("dispatches", as in "employer dispatches employees" doesn't/shouldn't immediately summon to mind killings or murders). Violent labor disputes in the United States seems fine as it is. What was wrong with it again? Quis separabit? 17:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – see my comments below regarding preferred title (also repeated in a bolded !vote above). I'm not sure why this needs to be two separate requested move threads since we're clearly having the same discussion above and below the fold, so to speak. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 26 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: RM closed per move by another editor Mike Cline (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Violent labor disputes in the United States → List of worker slayings in labor disputes in the United States – To more accurately title the article based on its content, and to avoid POV associated with "murder".

Synonym Discussion from word.com: kill, slay, murder, assassinate, dispatch, execute mean to deprive of life. kill merely states the fact of death caused by an agency in any manner <killed in an accident> <frost killed the plants>. slay is a chiefly literary term implying deliberateness and violence but not necessarily motive <slew thousands of the Philistines>. murder specifically implies stealth and motive and premeditation and therefore full moral responsibility <convicted of murdering a rival>. assassinate applies to deliberate killing openly or secretly often for political motives <terrorists assassinated the Senator>. dispatch stresses quickness and directness in putting to death <dispatched the sentry with one bullet>. execute stresses putting to death as a legal penalty <executed by lethal gas>.

Proposed: adopt slaying for use in the title, as "a chiefly literary term implying deliberateness and violence but not necessarily motive." Also, to use the apt phrase, "list of", in the title. Jeff in CA (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: Dragons are slain. Valyrie carry slain warriors to Valhalla. As you note, "slaying" is chiefly a literary term that fits the style of the King James Bible; as such, it sounds too stilted for the title of a Wikipedia article. It seems more suited to formal hand-to-hand combat, such as between gladiators. "Killed" or "Deaths" would be more encyclopedic. Plazak (talk) 04:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• Rename to List of worker deaths in labor disputes in the United States. Deaths seems more neutral than slaying in this context. Dimadick (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• The word death is too general, as a death or a killing can be from any manner of causative agent, such as accidents, heart attacks, strokes, freezing to death and so on. Unlike the word "murder", slaying does not imply motive, premeditation or moral responsibility. The words slaying and slain are used quite frequently in news accounts, especially newspaper headlines (literary doesn't just mean fiction or ancient writings). To me, the word does not at all conjure up dragons, warriors and gladiators. My focus is on the "deliberateness and violence but not necessarily motive" aspect of the word's meaning. This list is a list of killings that were of a deliberate and violent nature. So slaying seems appropriate here. Jeff in CA (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You are right about newspaper headlines, but news headlines are not the style we should strive for. Just looking at the front page of my paper from this morning, I see: "Domino effect of Boehner bow-out," and on another page "Nukes, prisoners on agenda-" I don't care what gets into news headlines, but terms such as "bow-out" (as a noun), "nukes", and "slayings" are generally inappropriate as titles of Wikipedia articles.Plazak (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article is still unacceptably broad, and the proposed title doesn't cover it. Besides, Wikipedia doesn't have any other "slaying of X" articles that I could find. That's evidence enough that the term is too biased. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Rename, as Nominator The current title of the article is unacceptably broad, while the content is narrowly focused on deliberate homicides. The proposed title avoids bias that is inherent in other words, such as "murder." Jeff in CA (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way, a quick search produced Slaying of the Spaniards and Slaying of gods, so Wikipedia does indeed have such articles and the purported evidence is refuted.Jeff in CA (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You are right about "Slaying of the Spaniard", which occurred in 1615. "Slaying of gods" redirects to Deicide. Although you are right on the narrow point that there is a Wiki article with "slaying" in the title, both examples illustrate the broader problem of "slaying" referring principally to events which are either mythical or occurred centuries ago. Plazak (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Please help me understand exactly why that is a problem and why that would proscribe the use of the word in titles of other articles that do not refer principally to mythical or long-ago events.Jeff in CA (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: current article title is fine as is. All the synonyms suggested by @Jeff in CA are inherently subjective. Quis separabit? 17:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• The synonym list was copied verbatim from the word.com page about "murder", to provide information that editors might wish to consider. The only one of the synonyms that I myself suggested was "slaying." The other suggestions that have been made on this talk page, besides "murder", are "deaths" and "casualties." Other editors, including Ivanvector and myself, agree with RMS when he says, "I acknowledged already that Violent labor disputes in the United States is not an ideal name and I hope after discussion we can find a better one."

Ivanvector 🍁  stated, "I also oppose the current title ["Violent ..."] as so excessively neutral that it fails to describe the content of the list." To which RMS replied, "As I said twice before, I know the name is not ideal and am more than willing to compromise." If the article was just about violent labor disputes, the size of the list would easily quintuple.

After reviewing discussions from other articles' RfD on the word "murder", it seems most of the editors in those previous discussions who objected to the word "murder" viewed the alternative substitution of the word "homicide" favorably. Jeff in CA (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• A RfC on this topic, Does "murder" presume "murderer"?, began two months ago. It ended in August and generated over 7300 words of discussion. Quoting from the conclusion,

A summary of the conclusions reached follows. Respondents to the RFC answered from two different viewpoints, the killing, and the accused. There are two conclusions that almost reach consensus, but dont, so this is closed no consensus. They are too evenly matched and the discussion was strong on both sides. AlbinoFerret 1:06 pm, 19 August 2015, Wednesday

For your thoughtful consideration, here is a sample of the responses that compared the words "murder" and "homicide":

• "Murder is not a synonym for homicide."
• "The determination that a homicide has taken place is not the same as the determination that a murder has. Just a less important distinction when the suspect is unknown or dead."
• "We have to remember that we're writing a general-readership encyclopedia here and that if the sources call something murder (or homicide) then we follow the sources unless there's reason not to do so."
• "When something is not definitely known to be a murder, but definitely known to be a homicide, we should use that word. It is not 'technical jargon'. Everyone old enough to read and competent to understand Wikipedia knows what that word means, since it's used about 100 times per week in TV shows. When it's not definitely even known to be a homicide, use 'death'."
• Ivanvector 🍁 : "If reliable sources call the event a murder, then so do we. Likewise if reliable sources call it manslaughter, homicide, death by misadventure, killed by badger, and so on. Use caution as others have said, but if reliable sources call it murder and we call it something else, we're publishing original research and that's especially problematic in WP:BLP articles." Ivanvector 🍁  (talk) 12:42 pm, 19 July 2015, Sunday (2 months, 10 days ago)
• "Autopsies and medical reports never determine whether something was murder. Only whether it was homicide."
• "'Homicide of', 'killing of', or even 'death of' would seem to be easier terms to use overall in keeping with neutral tone."
• "It seems like you might be confusing murder with homicide."

There is no need to re-do that whole discussion on "murder", as no consensus was reached then and will not be reached here. The point is that using the word "murder" is considered by quite a few editors to be different from using the word "homicide." Jeff in CA (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose "Homicide": For the same reason that "murder" is inappropriate in the title, so is "homicide". And because "murder" is deemed inappropriate by most of the commenting editors here, it is pointless to base the discussion on synonyms for "murder". Plazak (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose "slaying" is a literary term not used in the RS. "Homicide" is a legal term that requires legal proceedings that rarely happened. "murder" is agitprop POV. "death" works best Rjensen (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – still prefer "deaths", per WP:SPADE and WP:PRECISE. This is a list of labor disputes where workers died. The manner of their death varies; there is no need to overspecify the cause or manner of death in the title of the list. Some, but not all, were slain by strike-breakers or actors hired by the struck companies; some, but not all, died by accident; some, but not all, were killed in violent riots; some, but not all, died in other circumstances or the act could not be determined; and so on. "Death" is the most simple (possibly only) term which covers all of the situations listed. I also oppose "homicide" specifically for the same reasons as "murder" – they are legal terms and shouldn't be used here unless we are following reliable sources. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support "deaths" – I am good with "deaths" now.Jeff in CA (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support "deaths" – The article text deals with a wide range of deaths, some of which were prosecuted as murder, some as homicide, some not prosecuted through what some historians believe a miscarriage or obstruction of justice, some deaths cannot be determined or are not listed as to source or cause. "Deaths" seems the broadest term to use. - Tim1965 (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support "deaths" as the best term to describe the wide range of circumstances listed. Plazak (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose original RM close, and discuss: Definitely not a good title, agree with critique of "slaying." That said, there IS an argument to be made that the title is wrong for this article, as there were additional "violent" labor disputes that had not fatalities. Perhaps Labor disputes with fatalities in the United States? Montanabw^(talk) 04:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• It has been 7 days now, and it is obvious the proposal fails. However, it seems there is a consensus to use the word "deaths" in the title. Therefore, I will move the page to List of worker deaths in United States labor disputes. Jeff in CA (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The lede

There is a serious disconnect between the lede and the article. The lede basically has nothing to do with the contents of the article (or list) at all. Hammersbach (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, there used to be a lede there, but then a couple weeks ago it was deleted. Basically, it said that 19th-century industrialists gained wealth and power and used them to exercise control over their workforce. It said that many industrial workers back then often worked long hours in poor or unsafe conditions. It said that many of them lived in poverty and that these conditions helped lead to the formation of labor unions and precipitated strikes by workers. It said that strikes sometimes turned violent and that those people who held positions of authority and the means to enforce that authority sometimes caused worker deaths during these disputes. It also listed a general sequence of events advanced by one author as to how labor disputes back in the 19th and early 20th centuries often played out. Jeff in CA (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

resolving NPOV and lede

It's great that this article is here. Sincere thanks to original poster User:Jeff in CA. Laying all these incidents out in this format is a solid contribution.

That said, I have to agree that there were issues with the original lede. I went to revise and re-incorporate it, but after looking at it closely, I've removed it. Not for POV reasons, but because it's not true of every incident on the list, and is therefore misleading.

Here is what's left of the original lede. I've removed it from the article, keeping a copy here:

Author Ronald Filipelli described the typical response of the era by companies faced with labor strife in the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-centuries:

• Local law enforcement officials swear in deputies loyal to the companies, sometimes several thousand.
• As soon as a few minor disturbances mar the picket lines, the governor sends in the National Guard. The soldiers are clearly there with serious intentions and are heavily armed.
• The companies add to this gathering army by contracting with a detective agency to supply company guards. The strikebreaking agency’s main task is to recruit replacements for the strikers and protect them.
• The president of the detective agency boasts that the result will be a “triumph for law and order” and the company owners, thus providing excellent advertising for the agency.
• A “citizens' alliance” of local businessmen who share the view of the company mobilizes to drive the union out of the area.
• The companies turn to the courts for relief and secure an injunction forbidding picketing, mass demonstrations or any interference with company operations.
• Those who defy it are arrested.
• The injunction and arrests bring even more oppression to the workers.

Obviously with all respect to the source, I think he was talking about a smaller set of industrial actions. This sort of step-by-step employer-police-courts coordination and collusion did happen, and is well worth explaining, somewhere. But there wasn't a single pattern to the way these incidents rolled out. This paragraph doesn't fit the facts of the Thibodaux massacre or the Rock Springs massacre for instance, which were labor-related but were also racially motivated. It doesn't fit the facts of the streetcar strikes, where public support of the strikers was a large factor in the the length of the strike and the outcome of street battles. And it doesn't convey that these were multi-party conflicts where every party (multiple unions, multiple companies, the public, the local police, the state, the strikebreaker employers like Pearl Bergoff, the strikebreakers themselves, the press, etc.) all pursued their own agendas and alliances. It wasn't always as simple as "everybody against the worker".

Now. Are there any other POV issues? Would we be okay to remove the POV tag? What do you guys think? --Lockley (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• tag never needed; not needed now Hmains (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

With that feedback, and now that a week has gone by, I'm going to remove the POV tag. Other opinions still welcome. --Lockley (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Renaming the article and deletion of that POV introduction is a start, but the body of the article is still shot-through with POV wording. As an example, take the article's obviously slanted description of the famous Homestead Massacre:

"Homestead Massacre: Some of 300 Pinkerton Agency guards opened fire on striking Carnegie Steel mill-workers. 9 strikers were shot to death; 7 guards also died."

The poor reader might be left with the impression that the Pinkertons fired on peaceful unarmed picketers. Also left unstated is how the guards died; did they die by accident, or heart attack? An NPOV description would, of course, say that both guards and strikers were shot, and provide some minimal context:

"An attempt by 300 Pinkerton guards hired by the company to enter the Carnegie Steel plant via the river was repulsed by strikers. In the ensuing gun battle, 9 strikers and 7 Pinkerton guards were shot and killed."

This is not a lone example. Certainly, there were many vicious and unprovoked attacks on strikers. But not content with history, this article tries to force more violent labor incidents into that mold, at whatever cost to NPOV. Plazak (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Plazak. I see your point. I agree with you. It's hard to remain objective about these incidents when we summarize them (and that criticism applies to me too). There's simply a lot we don't know. Often we don't have reliable basic casualty figures. Often we're understanding what happened through the slanted view of the press at the time. It's difficult to not unconsciously choose a side, based on those historic descriptions. There was no single pattern, there were complicated multi-party conflicts, etc. etc. Objectivity is difficult to get to. Many assumptions to guard against. So if you see more examples that seem unbalanced, point them out, and let's try to fix them. --Lockley (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is Charles Poole on this list?

This article's cited sources say that Poole was murdered for wife-beating. He was an organizer for the WPA, but the WPA was not a labor union, and if the sources mention anything about Poole doing any labor-union organizing, I missed it. Can anyone clarify this? Thanks. Plazak (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

After a quick search, I can't find any source that connects Poole's death to his profession. It might exist! I just haven't found it, and the existing source does not explictly support that connection. The WPA was not a labor union per se anyway. However, while looking, I found more names that might belong on this list. Here is a 1947 Drew Pearson editorial naming Poole, a George Marchuk, and a John Bielak. All of these were Black Legion killings. Here's another source with more on Marchuk, and the detail that Bielak's killers gave him a pillow of union membership applications. A fourth name, Roy V. Picock, has only a single source. If it were me, I'd delete Poole, add Marchuk and Bielak, and keep Picock off as insufficiently sourced. --Lockley (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. And there is nothing wrong with having a single source for Picock, as long as it's reliable. Regards. Plazak (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Followup: I removed Poole. Marchuk and Bielak were already on the list, unidentified. They're now named and have exact dates. --Lockley (talk) 05:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Carterville riot in wrong section

The deaths of 5 workers at Carterville, Illinois, on 17 September 1899 is listed under "Law enforcement and company militias, armed detectives and guards." However, the men were strikebreakers shot and killed by union coal miners. For details, see: Encyclopedia of American Race Riots, volume 2, page 674. As usual, the article turns to passive voice only when unionists are doing the killing: "five deaths occurred," as if no one caused the deaths. When union members are killed, the article makes sure to assign the blame in bloody detail. To place this incident in its current category is highly misleading, as the workers were not killed by law enforcement, or company militias, or etc., etc. The incident clearly belongs under another category. However, the category of workers killed by union members is conspicuously absent from this airbrushed account. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Plazak -- you bring up a couple of points.

Carterville was one of four clashes in southern Illinois through 1898–1899, at Virden, Pana, Cambria, and Carterville, where the coal company hired black strikebreakers in the south and brought them up via train. Unions, with local popular support, attacked the incoming trains. These five murdered Carterville strikebreakers were clearly "workers", so they belong here somewhere. There was a strong racial flavor along with the labor action. So I guess they belong in the "vigilante, mob and hate group" section. I'll move them over to that section to address your valid concern. And thanks for your continued attention to this page, by the way.

This is a good example of why these incidents do NOT easily break down into classifications or into a simple "union vs. management" binary, as I mentioned above. Workers killing other workers doesn't fit that paradigm very well.

Plazak when and where you see signs of airbrushing, the use of passive voice, or the use of pungent adjectives or whatever else, please fix if you can. If you see a little bit of bias sneaking in, please remember, it's oh-so-easy to do, and that's no evidence of bad faith. All best, happy editing, --Lockley (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay! This was trickier than I thought!

• for 10/12/1898, I left Virden Illinois in the "law enforcement" subsection it was in. Guards did most of the killing.
• for 4/10/1899, Pana Illinois, I moved it to "vigilante mob hate group" subsection and revised the description, because reports describe this as at least partly racially motivated
• for 9/17/1899, Carterville Illinois I moved it to "vigilante mob hate group" subsection and revised the description, ditto
• for 10/12/02, I removed Pana Illinois. Jeff in CA please note, hi, you'll want to know about this, it's an error I've seen before. There were NOT 12 labor union fatalities in Pana in 1902. There were zero. The error stems from page 48 of Emma Goldman: Political Thinking in the Streets by Kathy E. Ferguson, in a listing of fatal labor union conflicts like this one.
• for 6/30/1899, Lauder Illinois, a train leaving Pana stopped at the station, carrying 40 black miners and families. It came under fire from coal miner union sympathizers. Twenty were wounded, and one woman named Anna Bush Karr was killed. This incident might belong on the list. --Lockley (talk) 06:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Pullman

Pullman Strike: An attempt by Eugene V. Debs to unionize the Pullman railroad car company in suburban Chicago developed into a strike on May 10, 1894. Other unions were drawn in. On June 26 a national rail strike of 125,000 workers paralyzed traffic in 27 states for weeks. By July 3rd a mob peaking at perhaps 10,000 had gathered near the shoreline in south Chicago embarking on several straight days of vandalism and violence, burning switchyards and hundreds of railroad cars. Thousands of federal troops and deputy marshals were inserted over the governor's protests and clashed with rioters. The strike dissolved by August 2. Debs biographer Ray Ginger calculated thirty people killed in Chicago alone.[15] Historian David Ray Papke, building on the work of Almont Lindsey published in 1942, estimated another 40 killed in other states. [16] Property damage exceeded $80 million.[17]

Still some concerns with this. To begin with, the focus (in this article) in Chicago was Jackson Park, where the rioters were not, as near as anyone can tell, actually strikers, and the State forces were, by all accounts, attacked while simply trying to keep order at a scene of arson and looting. This wasn't a case of "worker deaths in United States labor disputes." This was state troops, under a governor who felt, if anything, a measure of sympathy for the strikers.

Next, the sources are certainly better -although that isn't saying much, it would have been hard to find some worse than the previous ones, but they still raise issues about bias and peripherality.

Finally, the number of workers involved is arguable; 125,000 represents totals of unions and brotherhoods which supported the strike, officially or otherwise, or walked off in sympathy, at its high point. This included some groups, especially among the locomotive engineers, who observed it quite narrowly; they didn't pull trains with pullmans on the back, but otherwise sometimes continued working. There are a lot of cites for the 125,000, many of them near plagiarisms of others, even in otherwise scholarly works. That isn't a good sign. Anmccaff (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Anmccaff. The Jackson Park fire was removed for reasons similar to what you describe. Your other points I can't address without having superior sources to compare against the sources already cited. Do you have any in mind? --Lockley (talk) 04:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

If you look at Ginger, I believe you will see that his estimate of deaths includes Jackson Park, and at a high number. So, it's only partially removed. The incident isn't covered explicitly, but the casualties connected are.

I'm working from memory, and won't be near a decent library from another couple weeks at least. That said, I suspect the large number, whatever it may be, is irrelevant to this list. Anmccaff (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Scranton 1871 and 1877

To whomever is deleting my additions to the 1871 and 1877 strikes in Scranton, PA, please note:

I added the new entry on the shootings in Scranton in the 1871 strike because this article lacked that information. Under the 1871 entry I referenced a scholarly work based on historical records and oral histories: "Mine Seed" which deals with both the 1871 and 1877 strikes in Scranton; that reference was deleted, though the information I added was not. The references (including page numbers) I posted for the 1871 and 1877 deaths in strikes in Scranton are from scholarly works and historical accounts from Scranton itself, including "Mine Seed"--which is peer-reviewed and recognized as a scholarly and literary work that draws on primary sources, such as original Pinkerton notes, oral histories, historical archives, and has an appended bibliography.

"Mine Seed" is "historical fiction". It is a novel. Better still, it's a self-published novel. Anmccaff (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

That does not diminish its value in the least. It is peer reviewed by historian Howard Zinn, and archived in reference departments of libraries and universities under mining and labor and anthracite history. It is based on histories, oral histories, rare archival material of historical value and is appended with references.St o'hara (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)St o'hara

It doesn't diminish it it negates it. It's fiction. It can not be used as a source of fact.

A book-blurb is not "peer review", and if the only one "reviewing" it is Zinn, that has its own implications. Anmccaff (talk)

To the Scranton 1877 Strike entry I added references and a clarification because the following statement in that section is misleading: "When a posse member was shot in the knee, the posse responded by killing or fatally wounding four of the strikers." In fact, eyewitness accounts and historians dispute what precipitated the shooting. For the sake of accuracy and clarity I added a statement to that effect. My addition was deleted along with its supporting references. (I did not even bring up the fact that it is thought by historians more people died later of wounds but were not counted.) contribs) 02:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The "supporting reference" is still, quite literally, fiction. Anmccaff (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

"Neither page of the Marphy history supports your claim, page 390 states that a a Guard man -was- hit." (TW))

Anmcaff:

You mean Murphy, no neither page disproves my claim--I did not claim that a vigilante was not wounded. On page 353 you can read that there is a variant narrative--which is what I am saying. There are differing viewpoints as to how the vigliante was wounded and what exactly precipitated the shooting. One Scranton newspaper "espoused the cause of the strikers and denounced the killing of the three men as murder."(Murphy p. 353). My claim is that the cause of the shooting was and is debated, some viewed it as manslaughter or murder--others as justifiable killing. Both sides had their views and some said that there was no shooting at all by miners and the man hit, Henry Blair, was not struck by a bullet but a club. Both views are on display in articles in "The Scranton Republican" of August 1-11 1877. St o'hara (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)St o'hara

I also added to the 1877 section another reference (with page numbers): "The "History of Lackawanna County Pennsylvania,” published in 1928. That reference was also deleted. It’s a work of history that contains testimony from both sides involved in the 1877 Scranton riot--and incidentally is the same book used as a hidden source for the Scranton 1877 section's "Hyde Park" citation. The “Hyde Park” citation was one of only two references cited for the Scranton 1877 riot when I came across this article. The "Hyde Park" reference leads to a website called Thomas gen.web--presumably a genealogical website for a Thomas family. The only other source cited for the Scranton 1877 section was: Cutter, William, ed. (1913). “New England Families, Genealogical and Memorial: A Record of the Achievements of Her People in the Making of Commonwealths and the Founding of a Nation,” Volume 4. Lewis Historical Publishing Company. p. 1841 -- another genealogical work that, from its title, seems to have been written to memorialize certain New England families. It may have bearing on events in Scranton during labor disputes, but certainly is not the only perspective. contribs) 02:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The History of Lackawana... explicitly refutes your claim. It not only states that a person was shot by strikers or rioters, it gives a name. It does, correctly, point out that many felt that the return fire could have been avoided, but it takes as a fact that a man was shot by the strikers or by rioters first.

p390

|page 353 is not a description of the events, but of its use by a sensationalist newsie. Anmccaff (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Anmcaff: First, as for the shooting of the vigilante--citing one source, one page (390) is not sufficient to get an idea of the riot. What I said and meant is that there are disputed versions of what precipitated the shootings. P. 353 of the same "History of Lackawanna" supports that. No matter what one may think of the publication "The Scranton Times," a pro-labor paper, is described there as taking a view that shooting the miners was unjustified: "The Times boldy espoused the killing of the three men as murder." And from the same page "....in a publication entitled, 'The True Labor Advocate' issued from 'Times' office... the leaders of the Vigilants [those who shot the miners] were denounced as murderers."

As I said some people viewed the vigilante killings as murder and there was dispute about what actually precipitated the killings, and if they were justified--if the miners shot first or not, for example--and different evidence was given by different eyewitness with some saying that there was no shooting by miners at all (I also cited "Mine Seed" which gives sources for eyewitness accounts of the riot from Manuscripts and Scranton newspapers, and other material archived in Scranton. pp.158-159.)

...but a reading of the work surrounding it, say starting at page 387?, might. It describes a scene in which several of the strikers attempt to beat the mayor to death -although others, also probably strikers, defend him once he's down. Anmccaff (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

More importantly, don't misrepresent your claim; you stated that the question of who started shooting was in doubt. This source says it clearly was not, and also shows that violence started with the strikers. Anmccaff (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

If Wikipedia standards are to be upheld and improved, certainly scholarly and historical sources should not be deleted in favor of genealogical and family sources. I would not recommend, for example, deleting the “New England Families” or Thomas family gen.web genealogy references; they may have salient information about the 1877 events in Scranton. But I protest the removal of other scholarly and historical references. ````St o'hara — Preceding unsigned comment added by St o'hara (talk • contribs) 02:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

"Scholarly sources" appears to a a code-word for "self-published fiction" here. Anmccaff (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, self-published and scholarly are not mutually exclusive if the work is peer reviewed and archived in library and university and reference departments--as is "Mine Seed." St o'hara (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)St o'hara

Self-published fiction. Not "peer reviewed" but given a book-blurb. Not an acceptable source of fact. Anmccaff (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Anmccaff,

I am not here to express opinion. I was trying improve this article and add balance because the events in Scranton that resulted in the shooting of striking miners there are not clear--yet this article states as fact a sequence of events that is disputed historically (what caused the shooting exactly and who started it), and it also omits the fact that other views of the event, including views of the pro-labor side of the time, exist in the historical record. You twice reverted all my contributions on those points even though they are well-documented historically and the references I cited, despite you objections, are references containing primary and secondary historical sources documenting this history. Anyone who takes the trouble to actually read the historical record can readily see that there are varying reports and views on what precipitated the tragic shooting in 1877 Scranton. It's for the reader to try to discern the truth after reading all relevant historical information. ( A more detailed response to your edits and comments here is on your talk page.) St o'hara (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)St. o'hara

St. o'hara, I hate to see the tone of this talk page, and your contributions are appreciated. Unfortunately the primary source for your reverted edits is a historical novel and simply not useable. Anmccaff is correct about that. The basic facts of many of the incidents on this page have been disputed since they happened. In any case further discussion about the exact sequence of events at Scranton 1877 probably belongs on this page, and specifically in this section, and not on this list of brief summaries. Best to you. --Lockley (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Lockley, thanks for your respectful reply. "Mine Seed" falls in a category outside fiction alone because it is based on historical documents with references in an appended bibliography. It references primary sources, including rare manuscripts that are archived in Scranton, and so is a valuable source for anyone wanting to follow 1870s labor events in Scranton more closely. I posted page numbers for its bibliography; it's also archived in university and library reference departments under labor and anthracite history. I see it as a good reference for sources that are not found easily elsewhere and it quotes extensively from newspaper articles of the day on the events surrounding the shooting as seen from both sides. Perhaps it should be entered under a reference section for this article.

Meanwhile, my original concern about this article entry goes unanswered, which is that the sources and text supporting the current explanation of the shootings in Scranton in 1877 are one-sided and misleading. That's a far more serious problem, especially in view of the deleting and censoring of sources I added. They provided historical evidence that, if read, reveal that the precipitating events and facts surrounding the tragic shootings were disputed at the time--accounts differed depending on whether it's pro-labor or anti-labor sources reporting events. The article section I attempted to improve currently presents only the anti-labor viewpoint. The quotes I added from the pro-labor paper were deleted. This sort of one-sidedness, along with deflection, and suppression of facts disliked by certain editors--who are often not even conversant with the sources they delete (as I've seen too many times on Wikipedia over the years), is why scholars and teachers stay away from recommending Wikipedia to students. Best to you,St o'hara (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC) St o'hara

St. o'hara, if this novel is as well-documented as you describe, it should be easy to identify the non-fiction source for the facts you wish to correct. We need an appropriate source. You say a few things I have to disagree with -- the reversion of your edit doesn't really amount to 'censorship' -- but I'll disagree cheerfully and repeat my main point. Any discussion or context or details about who-shot-first in Scranton in 1877 belong over here in this article. --Lockley (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Lockley, thanks for your response. The non-fiction sources for the two viewpoints--pro and anti-labor-- are given in Mine Seed p.159: The Scranton Republican: August 1,2,3,9,11,1877. (which I already cited) and includes the the fact that a coroner's inquest and jury returned a verdict of murder in the first degree against the posse who were charged and arrested for the shootings. That is how divergent the testimony and views of shootings were at the time. About censorship, perhaps there is a better word but I believe that is close to what happened when the reference I cited from another source, a pro-labor paper of the time that called the Scranton shootings murders--that is unjustifiable killings--was deleted, but the opposing view claiming the shootings were justified, that is the miners shot first, was let stand without comment--and the reference I posted was from very same book already cited as a source for this article! Go figure. My citation only demonstrated that there was serious disagreement and opposing views of the shootings at the time--which was my whole point. The text section of the Scranton 1877 Strike entry still reflects the anti-labor account of the shootings exclusively. In the interest of historical accuracy, IMO, this should be amended to something like: "the immediate cause of the shootings is disputed." When I have time I might add this to the discussion on the 1877 RR Strike article, thanks for the suggestion--and thanks again for your input, and especially the civil discourse which I appreciate.St o'hara (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)St. o'hara

Thomas Dovery 1925

I've removed the entry for Thomas Dovery, 1925, which was marked as dubious. It is. The incident was actually 6/19/1925. A little digging reveals that Dovery was an editor of a local paper, and that he was fatally shot in the street, either because of a liquor investigation (as described here) or in a simple robbery (as asserted here). I find no evidence of a timber strike around Kelso in 1925. This is another entry sourced to the list appearing in Emma Goldman: Political Thinking in the Streets, which has at least three errors in it. --Lockley (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The IWW did try to paint Dovery's death as political; see The bloodstained trail : a history of militant labor in the United StatesEd. Delaney and M.T. Rice. (Hathitrust has full text available online [1].) This is probably where Ferguson lifted it from. The political turmoil, which was real enough, was about the development of the Port of Longview, which manages to keep in the news in similar ways since. Dovery was, BTW, a militia officer back in his home state of Wisconsin, as well as a fairly $ucce$$ful newspaper owner. Anmccaff (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Lovey has done good work researching errors sourced by the book Emma Goldman: Political Thinking in the Streets. Because the book is so wildly inaccurate on these points, we should not be trusting it as a source at all. Plazak (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I just made another correction to an item sourced by Ferguson's book (See 2 Feb. 1938, Del Prado Hotel strike). A quick Google search revealed that it was not a striker who was killed, but someone crossing the picket line. Once more, the book appears to be so unreliable that it should not be used as a source. Plazak (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Plazak: -- you mention "Lovey" correcting Goldman? Would like to know more pls... who is Lovey? Lockley (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

ob. gilligan: He starts calling himself Thurston, run. Anmccaff (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a terrible typist. I meant Lockley. Plazak (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks! That wasn't the answer I expected, or wanted. Since you (rightfully) flagged all of these entries quoting Ferguson, I thought somebody else might have cleaned up her work. No such luck, huh? thanks tho Lockley (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The source Emma Goldman: Political Thinking in the Streets (see discussion above) has long been recognized here on the Talk Page as an unreliable source; yet, by my count, there are 20 incidents on the list for which this is the only source. I presume that some effort has been made to find other, more reliable, sources. So what do we do with factoids that depend on a source known to be unreliable? Do they stay in the article, or at some point are they deleted? Thoughts, please. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Peter Cramer

More betterer, but it's still not actually clear that he died months later of the beating, or died of other causes after having been beaten up. There are a lot of sources that say the former, but that was both good propaganda, and support of the widow in her suit against Allis.

Unlike some of the other sections, I think this is one where the number of injured belongs; unlike many other strikes where violence was incidental to other plans – e.g. "these replacement workers are going in the building now, please move your picket line", "oh no, please keep your scabs over there, thank you" -Allis brought in simple headbreakers on an unprecedented scale. Anmccaff (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

With his assailant arrested on criminal charges, and the hiring company settling with the widow in a civil suit, and with the cited source explictly testifying to it multiple times in front of a congressional committee, I'm confident Cramer died as a result of the beating. If you have a contrary source please throw it in the mix. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning about the number of wounded, and violence sometimes being 'incidental'. Guessing at intent leads into a bunch of subjective judgements, and the number and (um) quality of Allis's punishers here is not unusual at all. Bergoff and Farley produced those kinds of thugs on a grand scale. --Lockley (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. With his assailant arrested for assault and battery, IMS – mighta been "aggravated assault", and a conspiracy suit based on Cramer's attack settled, and the assailant testifying to it, we have pretty good indication that the fellow got assaulted and battered, but why, with his death clearly inside the axiomatic year-and-a-day, wasn't the word murder used against the assailant? Why did the union paper ascribe his death to a 4-week illness, rather than the beating? Clearly, getting the stuffing kicked out of you isn't good for the health, but it isn't actually clear that is what killed him, even if a lot of people said so.

There's enough here to say "widely seen as caused by," but not "certainly caused by."

I think when you take out the stuff from "authorities" of Ferguson's sort, and the testimony of "historical novelists", there were a good many violent strikes in developed areas in which most of the injuries occurred in forcing or holding picket lines, and other things directly incidental to people's immediate plans. Neither side was breaking heads for the sake of it. (Mine strikes in the middle of East Nowhere were often quite different in that regard.) Anmccaff (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

San Francisco 1901

See Industrial relations in the San Francisco Bay area, 1900–1918. ... Knight, Robert Edward Lee. Two of the dead were strikebreakers (which, in this work, could also mean replacements and non-strikers.) Anmccaff (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I interpreted Knight's use of the term "strikebreakers" to mean hired gunmen, like the Pinkertons. But I did not read far afield from that account in his book. If they could have been replacement or other workers, then the deaths inflicted could be listed as "2 to 4." Jeff in CA (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Any idea when this entry was added to the list? Curious, as I had not seen it before.Jeff in CA (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

What have these to do with labor disputes?

Under Vigilantes, etc., etc., we find the following:

• October 3, 1917: "IWW member Verner Nelson was shot and killed by a man named Savichewich.[55]"
• August 2, 1919: "An IWW harvester was shot and killed by brakemen. The brakemen claimed self-defense, but witnesses asserted the worker was holding his bindle in one hand and the freight car's ladder in the other, leaving him unable to make any threatening actions.[55]"

Nothing is said tying either of these events to labor disputes. The first, for all we know, could have been a barroom quarrel. The second seems to have been a random confrontation gone bad between a hobo and a railroad employee. It appears that anything bad that ever happened to an IWW member is dumped onto this list. Unless someone can document that these deaths were caused in some way by labor actions, they should not be on the list. Thoughts? Plazak (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Nelson's death was claimed in some Wobbly publications to have been the result of a fight that began when he called his combatant a scab. It shows up as part of the background in one of Norman Maclean's books. The second also sources to IWW stuff, as interpreted by someone who didn't know savate, by the look of it.

Yes, they are probably politicized crap, IOW. Anmccaff (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

No one objected or came up with a link to labor activity, so I'll delete the items. Plazak (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

International as a reliable source?

Depending on era, no, not for anything other than current party line. A Stalinist mouthpiece's position can be predicted by things other than simple fact. Anmccaff (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

???Jeff in CA (talk) 07:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Gee whiz, @Anmccaff:, International Publishers' connections to the Communist party do not invalidate every one of its catalog titles. Speaking specifically about Horace B. Davis's "Labor and Steel" from 1933, this is a book of factual and statistical description. Should we take it uncritically? No of course not. Is it sinister, twisted, fruit of a poisoned tree, completely untrustworthy because Alexander Trachtenberg was a Communist? No of course not. Was Horace B. Davis a "Stalinist mouthpiece"? Well I suppose that's possible. Would you have any sources supporting such a colorful accusation? Lockley (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Golly, gee, @Lockley:, nobody's saying that -all- of International's stuff is biased crap. Most, sure. But the stuff they published for the Labor Research Association? Straight out of CPUSA, and widely noted as such in sometimes otherwise sympathetic reviews. User:Jeff in CA doesn't even seem to have noticed the questionable publisher, nor the questionable source. Anmccaff (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You marked Horace B. Davis's "Labor and Steel" as an unreliable source. Can you explain why? Do you have a source that questions its factual accuracy, or proves anything in it to be wrong? Even if true, the book being subsidized by the CPUSA isn't reason enough. Plenty of truth has been printed by the enemy. Lockley (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Asked and answered, @Lockley:. It's a needlessly partisan source. It's also an detail-free one, with the problems that has led to several times here; sometimes the same dead guy gets counted twice, sometimes in more than one category, and sometimes he ain't even dead. Now, clearly it's "reliable" in certain senses of the word; it's printed and published, from a known source, etc. So're the Protocals.

This was an IWW strike, and the Wubblers had a genuine genius for the mechanics of small-town journalism: they got names and handles whenever possible. Who's the dead guy? Wait, dead guys; there's a striker and a bystander killed.

Well, John Alar, who may, in some accounts, have been busy trying to shoot the fellow who shot him first. He's the striker. Shows up extensively in IWW, government, and Oliver company sources.

Do a search for the poor bastard shot a little away from the strikers and the company men, near his own house.

Damn, he, too, appears to be named John Alar. Anmccaff (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Well. Here's a 1988 monograph from the Minnesota Historical Society that makes it clear that miner (not necessarily a striker) John Alar was shot and killed in Virginia MN on June 21 1916, in front of his house, close to a picket line. And a deputized mine guard named James C. Myron and a soft-drink-salesman bystander (named Tomi Ladvalla) were both shot and killed on July 3 in Biwabik during a raid on a striker's house. This is the most detail I can find offland. All of this is completely consistent with Davis's brief description on pages 237-238 of his book. Davis got this right. Tell me again why he is an unreliable source? Lockley (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

So, where is Davis's "striker shot on the picket line" to be found in the Minnesota Historical Society piece? It's rather clear that Alar wasn't picketing at all. That's entirely inconsistent with Davis's description. Anmccaff (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Your first position was Davis is unreliable because ALL International Publishers products are 100% dubious. Your second position was some IP books are okay but Davis is unreliable because it's related to the Labor Research Association and was funded by the CPUSA. Pressed for specifics, your third position was that Davis is unreliable because he is "needlessly partisan", "detail-free", confuses two John Alars, and misreports the number of fatalities in the passing mention of a single strike. But none of that proves out. Davis gets all of that right. He provides no names at all. And you have misquoted him. He does not say "striker shot on the picket line," he says, "A miner was shot and killed on the picket line," near the top of page 238. Compare that to the Minnesota source which says "The first strike-related death was that of miner John Alar, shot in front of his home adjacent to a group of pickets demonstrating on public property." So your wholesale claim of IP books as unreliable has attenuated down to a single preposition on a single page of one single book, describing John Alar's relationship to the picket line. Is that your argument? If you can find other problems with Davis I'm always interested. But this, @Anmccaff:, weak sauce, disappoint. Lockley (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

One of the unintended consequences of earbuds and cell phones, of course, is that folks carrying on conversations with themselves, or with figments of their imaginations, are no longer quite as obviously off as they used to be, so if you want to continue this solipsistic conversation, knock yerself out. If, on the other hand, you have gotten into this series of battles with straw men by accident, take a look again at the words written above.

Point 1: International is a hideously biased source. No, not all of it is crap, any more than all of the National Enquirer is. Said that, stuck with it, still stick to it. Or did you think "nobody's saying that -all- of International's stuff is biased crap. Most, sure." was some sort of endorsement? This is a dubious publisher for unbiased reportage.

Point 2: The whole series Davis was involved in was tendentious and politicized. "the stuff they published for the Labor Research Association? Straight out of CPUSA, and widely noted as such in sometimes otherwise sympathetic reviews." (You should check some of the reviews, BTW.) This is a dubious writer for unbiased reportage.

Point 3. As you have seen, I hope, in several other recent edits -"Dovery" ring any bells?- specifics count. Davis didn't identify Alar; he didn't identify anyone. Alar may not have been involved with the picketers that day. "A miner was shot and killed on the picket line," Davis writes, but the Minnesota Historical piece describes instead a man on his own sidewalk, nearby. He might have been killed by stray rounds, for all this source tells us. When someone selects a source skimpy on specifics, as the Davis piece is, the possibility of confusion skyrockets. Alar may have been another, second, innocent bystander killed rather than a deliberate target. Davis's writing is, frankly, unfalsifiable, since it doesn't have any specific facts to check. That's a bad source.

Now, given some of the crappy little sources already loose in the article -how many more misses does Ferguson get, BTW? - you could argue that Davis ain't that bad, but I think the readers deserve better. Anmccaff (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: See what happens when you look at specifics? You notice that you've described the same incident twice, as if it were two separate occurrences. This whole article is a real piece of work, isn't it? Anmccaff (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't compile this list, so don't accuse me of listing the same incident twice. (I see Jeff just tried to fix that, and you reverted him!) I'm also the one, here, above, on this same talk page, who made it clear that Ferguson is a problem source, so that's not much of a discovery on your part. I've been advocating all along here for balance and specifics and better sources. The details on John Alar were easy to substantiate (and the 3rd bystander named Tomi Ladvalla, the Finnish soda-pop distributor, NOT also named John Alar) if somebody would only look.

The basic issue: you tagged all books published by International Publishing as an unreliable source. I asked you a few times now to substantiate that, with honest interest, not as any kind of gotcha. You have offered no evidence to support that opinion. Name calling, yes. Confusion, yes. Red-baiting, yes. Changing the subject, yes, loads. But evidence? Nope. I'll stop asking. Cheers. Lockley (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

First, generic "you" which could equally be generic "we." Next, I take as a given that a subject likely to be covered by ideas about political correctness, in the original sense, written on by a stalinist in the early '30s, should be examined very, very carefully, not assumed reliable. Third, where did I "tag" all of anything? Anmccaff (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Anaconda Road.

"Mary Murphy's engagingly written book is the first serious look at how women worked and spent their leisure time in a city dominated by men's work--mining. In bringing Butte to life, she draws on church weeklies, high school yearbooks, holiday rituals, movie plots, and news of local fashion,"

Mining Cultures: Men, Women, and Leisure in Butte, 1914–41

This is the source for "17 were shot in the back?" It doesn't seem particularly focused on that aspect of Butte. Anmccaff (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Mary Murphy's work is a serious and scholarly treatment of mining culture in Butte, published under the University of Illinois monograph. Jeff in CA (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

But, as the description from the UoI above shows, focused largely elsewhere, and covering the incident almost in passing. Anmccaff (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd be interested in your suggestion as to a remedy. Jeff in CA (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

First, "No name, no blame." If a source can't say who the dead guy is, maybe that source isn't much good. (There are obvious exceptions when ethnicity, legal status, or race create a divide.) Next, look down to the primary sources -not to use them, necessarily, uncritically, but to validate facts. For instance, there have been several examples where simple rioters were dignified as strikers, bystanders were assumed to be strikers, simple replacement workers assumed to be goons, etc. Those kinds of mistakes are harder to make reading contemporary newspapers.

Much of this article, and the pages it draws from, comes from a mindless assumption that one side is always in the right. It's impossible to build an impartial article on that kind of foundation. Anmccaff (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Remedy for deficiencies originating in linked Wikipedia articles

Many of the events in this list are linked to a main WP article, and statements appearing in the summaries here, along with cited sources, also appear in the main linked article and pre-date this list. For example, for the Everett massacre, the summary in this list includes these words: "Two deputies were killed by fellow deputies." This is based on this statement in the WP article on the Everett massacre: "The two businessman-deputies that were shot were actually shot in the back by fellow deputies; their injuries were not caused by Wobbly gunfire." The sources listed here are the same sources listed there. IMHO, a deficiency in this list's summary of another WP article probably should be addressed at the linked article first, or at least in addition to being addressed here. Jeff in CA (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The Everett Massacre listing here included a cite on Centralia that made mention of Everett, but did not support the claim that both lawmen killed had been killed by friendly fire. (That cite is already removed from this list now.) Some bahstid stole the local library's copy of Wobbly Wars, so I can't check that quickly, but, IMS it didn't state that as a fact, only as a possibility. Anmccaff (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I hope the irony of this isn't entirely lost on my fellow wikitors...

|In the San Diego free speech fight, Michael Hoy died after a police assault in jail, and Joseph Mikolash, was killed by police in the IWW headquarters in San Diego on May 7.

References

Cite 3, that is. Anmccaff (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Kohler '34

The cite now provided thanks to Lov...Lockesley opens to the previous day, not to the relevant one, and the search function on the first page does not seem to go beyond it. Is there a workable way to link directly to page 5? Anmccaff (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Milk Strikes

...despite the name,were not a labor vs. management phenomenon at all, they were a civil war among the dairy producers. Do they belong here?

I'd say not, but if they do, there's a lot more of them than show here. Anmccaff (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd also say not. Farmers are among the hardest workers there are, and I imagine almost all of the dairy farms in 1930s Wisconsin were family farms. Striking for higher prices for the literal products of one's labor is similar to workers striking for higher wages. However, I would not classify this as a labor dispute for this list. The dynamic between Capital and Labor appears to me to be different.Jeff in CA (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Jeff, I've removed that Wisconsin milk strike entry per your suggestion here, which I agree with. thanks Lockley (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Magic bullets.

deputized members of the 10th Regiment of the National Guard fired two rounds into the crowd, killing 6 strikers and fatally wounding 3. Anmccaff (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

"Branwood," West Virginia

I would bet that the name of the town in West Virginia for the 1902 item that User:Lockley recently deleted was Bluefield, not Branwood (hence, incorrectly stated by the unreliable source). There was a strike in the New River Coal Field in 1902, where Bluefield is located. According to a news account,, John Ruble, a hired mine guard, was shot and killed by a striker. Jeff in CA (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

One particular problem with mine country is that the mines often ran valley-to-valley, and a strike could be named for a place that was a mile way underground, and 10 by road. Anmccaff (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jeff in CA:, good catch -- Lockley (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of worker deaths in United States labor disputes. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unionist.com/today-in-labor-history-95
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unionist.com/today-in-labor-history-95
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unionist.com/today-in-labor-history-95
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unionist.com/today-in-labor-history-95

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Reemts

See Russell, A City in Terror: Calvin Coolidge and the 1919 Boston Police Strike p165.

Gotta disagree here, the "scare quotes" -are- needed, or [a] different description of the individuals is.

There may be a better way to write it than currently, but the folks involved were simply criminal goons.

A bigger problem about the section is that the dead guys obit, published by the union itself, did not make the claim he was murdered, nor was the attacker prosecuted as such, even though there was strong feeling about it throughout the area.

It may not be as simple as removing it, because, for just one example, Allis might have sweetened the settlement pot based on letting the whole matter drop. Anmccaff (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guidance on WP:SCAREQUOTES is there for good reasons, and I don't consider antipathy toward these people to be a legitimate reason to override this Wikipedia guidance. Scarequotes are POV, and give the article a sarcastic, amateurish quality. The quotes also suggest a mistrust of the readers' ability to interpret the article in the way you believe to be correct. If you have a better NPOV description, please put it in. "Criminal goons" is obviously unacceptable POV invective. Please let the facts speak for themselves, and trust readers draw their own conclusions. Many incidents in this list involve terrible behavior. If we start ignoring the Wikipedia guidance on this point, there are many items where we could put scarequotes around "strikers", "picketers", and "police". But the article would suffer. Thoughts, anyone? Plazak (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not a question of Wiki guidance, or of antipathy. The people in question were not detectives, nor guards, nor intelligence operatives -or, as others might prefer it, labor spies, they were were, in fact, criminal goons, hired on short-term contract to break specific heads. The "so-called" meaning of "labor detective" applies here. In this particular case, the target enjoyed a good deal of respect from all sides of the town -his funeral was attended by everybody on either side of the strike question, and some of the perpetrators testified in detail. This was a simple case of intimidation, using contracted career criminals.

Now, as I said above and before, there is real question as to whether they actually killed him, but there is none that he got Hell's damnation beaten out of him on contract. Anmccaff (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

PS: an accurate but neutral description might be "contracted employees of.." Anmccaff (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hired strikebreakers seems appropriately neutral. It is used elsewhere in the list. Do you think that the difference between strikebreakers and replacement workers is generally known? I would not want to confuse on that basis. Jeff in CA (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think single meaning exists. Some people used strikebreaker as a neutral replacement for non-participants, or as an insult for them: some for what others would call scabs/replacements; some for muscle protecting replacement workers; some for simple sluggers, and some for the rent-a-riot firms, or their employees. Anmccaff (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hazleton

Fergusson appears to have listed the Anthracite Strike deaths both individually and collectively; the only cites for Hazleton that include 14 dead and 42 wounded are for the Anthracite strike as a whole, and it appears they are for non-striking workers...i.e union violence. See the Rural New Yorker vol 61, p725 (free online). Anmccaff (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Two of the five people killed in the 1910 Chicago garment workers' strike were strikers killed by private detectives.

...and one was all but certainly murdered by strikers, no? Shouldn't that be added as well, along with the non-striking bystander? Anmccaff (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

If you're talking about the young John Donnelly described in this document, I've looked and I can't find a second source that describes that incident, so, to me, you're going on this single source, plus you're making a guess about the identity of the killers, that seems iffy. But if you feel strongly about adding that name, then yes, go ahead. --Lockley (talk) 07:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Beck Goonery

http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=7328

http://wa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19360810_0040174.wa.htm/qx

The Marinoff brewery confrontation was as much union-on-union violence as anything else. Anmccaff (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Gibbons in 1886

Hi @Anmccaff:, could you explain why you reverted my correction here, and why you marked a source as 'dubious' since you agree that it's not dubious? --Lockley (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

{{Dubious| The source describes simple self-defense against 3 attackers.|date=April 2016}}" seems a pretty full summation. Until you work that into the description, then you are being untrue to the source. (BTW, notice the section right below it? Appears to describe the deaths of two works due to union sabotage?) Anmccaff (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You just said that 'dubious' tag doesn't belong there. Please explain why you marked a source as 'dubious' when you know it's not. Looks like you've done this a number of times. Do you need help with what the tags mean? --Lockley (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know that it's not, at least for proving the point you raise here. The section is supposed to reflect workers killed, essentially, by conflicts with management. The incident describes three people attempting to rough up a forth, and one of them was killed by him in self-defense. Unless the summation makes that clear, you are misusing the source here. Anmccaff (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record your response here was to incorrectly mark yet another acceptable source as dubious. --Lockley (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Equally for the record, there isn't a problem with the source, but with the use of it. Anmccaff (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Centralia.

I think the current version is veering into POV problems. Most sources, including many sympathetic to the Legion, see the Wubblers as acting in response to real fears...i.e., some of them thought they were about to be attacked. Puts a different face on it, that does. Anmccaff (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

No takers on this? I think there are several problems with it. The majority of dead were not IWW, and there's little serious dispute that the Wubblers fired first. There's also little doubt that the shooters may have actually felt they were doing so in defense of self or others. Anmccaff (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Coal strike of 1902

The Pennsylvania coal strike of 1902 appears to be listed in two different sections. Any objection to consolidating the two? Plazak (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

If you mean the Hazleton section, that was union on non union violence. I've corrected the section to make that clear. Anmccaff (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

bayonets at Massena NY

The account that strikers were bayonneted during the Massena aluminum strike in 1915 appears to be untrue, as it is not supported by any contemporary sources I could find, for instance:

• "Bayonets quell rioting of strikers at Massena," Waterton Times, Aug. 3, 1915, p.7 c.1..
• "Militia controls Massena," New York Times, Aug. 3, 1915, p.9 c.4
• "Upstate strikers routed by militia," New York Sun, Aug. 2, 1915, p.1

In addition, Solunski is not identified as a leader of the strike in any contemporary accounts. It would appear that whoever put this item in the Wikipedia article was attracted to the most lurid and embellished version on the internet. Plazak (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Hi @Plazak: -- you're absolutely right. I've adjusted the wording on that entry and added one of your citations. --Lockley (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

By convention in this one particular table, replacement workers (1911 Illinois Central) are included in "workers killed" column.)

So, the people killed by strikers are counted as strikers killed? That sounds like a compelling reason to change the conventions of this one particular table. Anmccaff (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Workers, be they striking workers, replacement workers, or non-striking workers, are counted in this table of killings by mob, hate group, strikers or rioters. The column heading says "workers". Someone (an editor) pointed this out quite some time ago, and it seemed eminently reasonable. Not sure what you're getting at. Jeff in CA (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a separate table: "Killed by strikers or strike sympathizers"? Plazak (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not. It's fine as is. I don't know about Anmccaff. Jeff in CA (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of worker deaths in United States labor disputes. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150506202539/http://paxflood.com/paintcreek/PaintCreekAugust31st.pdf to http://paxflood.com/paintcreek/PaintCreekAugust31st.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141010160852/http://www.unionist.com/today-in-labor-history-95 to http://www.unionist.com/today-in-labor-history-95

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Labor-related?

Under the date 2 Oct. 1920, the list contains the case of IWW member Joe Bagley, shot and killed by an agent for the Great Northern Railroad. But nothing is said tying this to a labor dispute, or to union organizing. Again, someone seems to be assuming that whenever anything bad happened to an IWW member, it belongs on this list. Unless there is some information tying this to labor activity, it does not belong on the list. Thoughts? Plazak (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Jeff in CA (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

A news report from the Bismarck Tribune, October 6, 1920, page 7: "Bagley and some companions had left the IWW convention at New Rockford, and when they reached Hannaford, the group were ordered from the train, it is alleged. While they were leaving the train, it's charged, Nolan [a railroad watchman] shot Bagley without provocation, the bullet piercing his abdomen."[2] Do you think that the travel to and from the IWW convention had something to do with union organizing, considering that the Industrial Workers of the World was a union organization? Jack N. Stock (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

So, were the others with him not attending the same meeting, and, more importantly were any of those who left or went to this meeting without hopping a freight put off their trains? Anmccaff (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, the presumption seems to be that any thing bad that happens to an IWW man belongs on this list. Is there any allegation that this railroad watchman knew who Bagley was? The fact that he was travelling from an IWW meeting is not relevant. Would he belong on this list if he died in an auto accident? Plazak (talk) 06:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Ida Braiman

This incident, while certainly worth mentioning, was neither vigilante-ism, in either sense, nor as described in the list. Anmccaff (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Good. Then you agree Ida Braiman was a striking worker, killed in a garment workers' strike, killed because of the strike, by a shop owner. You seem to agree that her death belongs on this list of worker deaths in the United States labor disputes. Is that correct? --Lockley (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

...but not as "vigilanteism", and not in the POV-ridden form it was written in. Anmccaff (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

But it goes on the list somewhere. Glad we agree on that. As to POV, here is the text of the entry you reverted, in its entirety: "17-year-old Ida Braiman was killed when tailor shop owner Valentine Sauter shot into a crowd of picketing workers." I see no POV at all. That's a short, neutral, and apparently accurate sentence based on the cited sources. What is the issue? --Lockley (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Based on the sources,it should say something like "when strikers began hurling heavy objects at his non-striking workers..."

I can't see any detailed account that doesn't point out that the strikers were throwing stuff capable of killing or maiming at Sauter's workforce, that doesn't note that his permanent workers were uninterested in joining the strike, and that the strikers were not merely mobbing a workplace, but also Sauter's personal home. It's a very different picture from what was in the list. Anmccaff (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Sauter's subjective state of mind is not knowable. You are making the case for manslaughter or justifiable homicide, which is fine with me. This is a list of deaths, not murders. Shop owner Sauter still shot striker Braiman to death. Where on the list shall we put it? --Lockley (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's not just about Sauter's inner life, it's about sanitizing the striker's actions. That aside; this is obviously a significant thing (I'm kinda surprised it wasn't covered already), but look at the choice of categories for it:

1 By authorities 1.1 Law enforcement and companies' militia, armed detectives and guards 1.2 Execution by the state

2 By vigilante, strikers, mob and hate group

Don't that say "none of the above"? And doesn't it also suggest that, at its heart, this list still has a bit of a POV slant? Anmccaff (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave this open for a couple of days for input from any other interested editors. Barring objections I'll restore @Catemcc:'s entry under category #2. As to any inherent bias in the entire article? No, I don't think so, not as it stands. Seeking some kind of sensible balance on this topic is exactly why it's worth doing. --Lockley (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

So, what might very well have been, and been legally found, defense of self or others against a merderous assault, is "vigilante-ism?" Anmccaff (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

1983 Greyhound strike

In a 1983 Greyhound strike, a company bus ran over a striking worker, in Zanesville Ohio. https://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/06/us/around-the-nation-greyhound-striker-killed-by-training-bus.html I have no idea which section this would come under. SaoiDunNeachdain (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Also just read that a similar thing happened in 1990: http://www.angelfire.com/al/silverball/strikes.html SaoiDunNeachdain (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)