Talk:Colorado Labor Wars

Whether or not to split the article

The article is currently exactly 100K.

I don't think a split is necessary as is; however, it might be contemplated in the future, if the article grows above 100K. Possible projects, if necessary:

• The most obvious split would entail moving most of the coal mining info from Overview of miners' disputes in Colorado to a new article, Coal mining in Colorado. There is a need for such an article, and plenty of material. Done.

• It might also be reasonable to move some of Labor's reaction to Pinkertonism to another, new article.

Most other parts of this article are important to the overall history, in my view. I think it is OK for the article to be comprehensive, but i'm also concerned that it not grow too much larger. If anyone feels the compulsion to add anything, please consider carefully whether it is needed, and the possibility that significant new contributions may force a split. Richard Myers 09:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

updated Richard Myers 04:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is now 115k, which is just way too huge. Someone has put a lot of work into it, but it reads like a monograph, not an encyclopedia article. WP's guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size#Splitting_an_article say articles over 100k should almost certainly be split. As a reader, I can't extract any useful information from the article without reading the whole thing. It's organized chronologically as a long list of events.--75.83.64.6 (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sock puppet edits

These edits look like the edits of a sock puppet, following articles that i've edited.

The important issue here is that the edits are undoing faithful representations of sources. For example, the first edit removes the word "class" from a resource, "Colorado's War On Militant Unionism," by George G. Suggs, Jr.. Well, Suggs used the word "class" in the original text. Specifically,

"Peabody viewed the union as a threat to the dominant position of his class." (Page 45)

The sock puppet removed the word class from the article, which makes the passage less than faithful to the original source.

These Wikipedia edits are an attempt to neutralize language and history, when the historical account clearly was not neutral, and the resource observed that the history was not neutral. The original author not only believed there were social classes, the original author wrote from that perspective.

"...he pledged in his inaugural address to make the state safe for investments..." (Page 45)

The sock puppet changed the word "investments" to "capitalism."

These edits are an attempt to portray the source inaccurately. These edits are changes made from an ideological point of view that falsifies the account from the sources. I will examine each, and fix them as necessary. Richard Myers (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Overview of miners disputes in Colorado

"In 1880, miners represented 14 percent of Colorado's working population in 1900", read that statement Richard Myers. So which is it the reference comes from, 1880 or 1900? This is worded incorrectly, is ambiguous and contradictory in it's language. That is a paste directly from your page. It needs to be corrected on your part, as you have edited all of my edits.

I've placed edits on your page to note discrepancies for the reader and you so you would correct them, but, you remove them instead of fixing your mistakes. In your overview of miners disputes, you don't even say why the disputes occurred, you just notify the reader of the two sides against the mine owners association. Notifying the reader of the antagonists and protagonists are important information. However, the players on each side should be moved to a different paragraph and the content for the disputes should be discussed in said paragraph.

You seem like a very smart person and I thank you for the information provided. All I'm trying to do is get you to elaborate more and correct your mistakes. (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)]] (talk)

The correct way to tag the text is to use this: and this: Feel free to copy these over to the article. Regards. Plazak (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Contesting Neutrality

While Mr. Myers certainly seems to know a lot about the subject matter and certainly covers it in depth, there is a definable bias in the writing. While the labour movement has had an incredible impact on America, Wikipedia's purpose is to tell all sides of the matter, not just the sides that writers represent. Please see Mr. Myers Labour affiliations on his profile. Fingolfin07 (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is open to editing by anyone who follows the rules. Please consider acquiring some sources and help to achieve an improved balance in articles such as this one. Richard Myers (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

We are encouraged to identify our positions and affiliations on our profiles; it is rather perverse to use that clearly-stated disclosure of affiliation against an editor, rather than approaching his/her edits directly for their conformance to our standards. "Neutral point of view" does not mean that we cannot call a crime a crime, a thief a thief, etc., when properly sourced to reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Perverse? Hardly. It is actually a great indicator that a person's point of view should be verified because that person has a reason to see only one side of the matter in or, worse, corrupt the truth. Judges abjure themselves in such situations in the courtroom. Perhaps Wikipedia should institute a similar policy. On another note, you were right; it was improper of me to cite his affiliations. Please allow me to correct myself and to cite both his affiliations and pervasive use of Labour publications as source material. Fingolfin07 (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Labor historians are not inherently pro-laborer; but if you feel that there are other reliables sources on these incidents that have been inappropriately neglected, please let us know what those might be, so that they can be properly incorporated. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC) (union activist; historian; member of the Wisconsin Labor History Society)

Professionality

This seemed like a very casually written, not very professional article. Can we try to clean this up a little? Utahwriter14 (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It is very unencyclopedic in places. If you have to time, please go at it. Plazak (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Disorganized rant

If there is any organization to this article, it is not apparent. The text jumps around in time and place like a Faulkner novel. No attention is given to the time sequence of events, and separate strikes, such as at Telluride and Idaho Springs, are thrown in at random. The purpose of the article seems to be an excuse for meandering rants against various personalities of the era, rather than a narrative description of what happened. For instance, I would never know from the text that there were two separate strikes at the Colorado City mills - the text conflates the two. If no one objects, I'd like to try organizing this article in more of a time sequence. Plazak (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

One of the problems with the article is overuse of quotes, sometime very lengthy quotes. Occasional quotes are needed, but they are used here to an excessive extent, perhaps bordering on copyright violation. I will be trying to reduce these quotes by replacing them with briefer summaries of their factual content. Plazak (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)