Talk:Haymarket affair/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Proposed merge from Louis Lingg‎

Support as Louis is merely a WP:BLP1E. LibStar (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - There is sufficient independent, substantial, published third party biographical material extant to support biographies of all the so-called "Haymarket Martyrs." Actually, there are vast possible sources to tap. I'll get to this one eventually, I'm working on August Spies at the moment. Carrite (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Haymarket Monument by Mary Brogger 1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Haymarket Monument by Mary Brogger 1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

Given [1] I think it would be best if as yet uninvolved editors took a fresh look at the question of whether the evidence presented at the trial substantively connected the anarchists to the bombing. 85.230.127.113 (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to that. Flawed secondary sources often do skew the content of articles on en.WP, as happens with most tertiary sources like it, moreover in humanities topics. However, WP:UNDUE does not mean that so-called "minority" outlooks from reliable and verifiable sources can't be carried. Indeed, if such sources clash, the reader is only helped if an article echoes that. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Understood. At this point I am sure that the existence of a secondary source from a professional academic historian publishing under editorial supervision with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy has got to outweigh everything else, for no other reason than that he's apparently been the only one in more than the greater part of a century to look at the primary source transcripts and recorders' primary sources from the trial. The best outcome possible here would be for you to delete the offending clause, and I'm sure you know that. 85.230.127.113 (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because somebody claims to be the first person to look at the primary sources don't make it so. Rules of WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:UNDUE continue to apply. And I'm sure you know that. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that others review [2] Although a sentence in that source could be construed to support the statement in question in the literal sense, the context makes it abundantly clear that it was based on absurdly flimsy first-person accounts compared to the metallurgy and other physical evidence related in [3]. Furthermore, have a look at Paul Avrich's life's work. How could his predispositions towards anarchists not have biased him in these matters? Messer-Kruse's body of work has no such bias, and it is abundantly clear that editors here owe him an apology. Moreover, statements later in that same chapter plainly contradict the summary which has been unjustly defended in this article:

"The case thus constructed against the defendants had an undeniable plausibility. Engel and Fischer were indeed extremists. Lingg did make and distribute bombs. All three were armed and believed in physical force. Everything they and their comrades had allegedly done or said was fitted by the prosecution into a coherent and seemingly malevolent pattern." (p. 273)

Accordingly, I have revised the statement in question. 85.230.127.113 (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that Messer-Kruse did not provide citations for his changes in 2009, contrary to what he says in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Viz. [4] [5]. —Tim Pierce (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That's somewhat disingenuous - because if you check his editing history he posted reasoning with sources on the talk page (what he calls the "editing log" in the article) and *then* made the changes. So the only thing he was really guilty of was not understanding the citation process and that blogs aren't good sources (though I haven't seen the blog post he referenced). --Errant ^(chat!) 15:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

When I checked Messer-Kruse's User contributions page, and tried to follow his sources, the blogs turned out to require a password, which is another reason why they're not WP:RS.

He only made a dozen edits in 2009. A lot of his complaints in the Chronicle article reflect his lack of experience with the admittedly-complicated Wikipedia editing process.

I think you're probably missing some IP edits, at least one of which maps back to his University and added the same information. I'm not sure how many other geographically close IPs are him or just coincidence. His talk page has some correspondence about that dating back to 2009 too. It makes looking through the user account's history less than the full picture though. Shadowjams (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's frustrating. But it's also frustrating to have to explain things simply to an undergraduate who's having a hard time getting it. Or writing a computer program that doesn't seem to work. It comes with the territory. --Nbauman (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who finds it "frustrating" to explain things to an undergraduate, is in the wrong line of work. There's a certain amount of passion required, I would go so far as to call it love. Look at Richard Feynman. He was so enamored by physics that he appeared, from his own description, to go into an altered state of consciousness when he talked about it. We actually can learn to see things in a new way from people who don't get it, so it's also a learning opportunity for experts and novices alike. At the end of the day, we're here to help—not just to help write articles and expand the boundaries of knowledge, but to help people. I'm getting the sense that this is a foreign concept to most of the Wikimedia community. Viriditas (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia" complaint

Anyone care to deal with this: Chronicle.com - The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia - ? Appears to be directly related to editing of this article. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 13:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

See above. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen, and I did "see above". But you dodge the question, and I am not satisfied that the Wiki has come out unblemished here. This has come to my personal attention as a major embarrassment. SO - Has it been dealt with? By whom? Can we inform Jimbo that there is no problem here? Has the editor in question been provided proper coaching and mentoring, and is now satisfied that his edits are being looked at fairly and in accordance with policy? Has consensus been reached and this is just old news from Feb 12? Or is he still being beaten down on someone's personal interpretation of policy and procedure? Thanks again! --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 13:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a sourced edit to the article that you'd like to put forth? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This article was the best exemplification of how Wikipedia might go wrong. I have to reevaluate my opinion on it. Unfortunately, if majority opinion is more important than serious investigation, we'll have to accept mediocre content as the ideal here. When Einstein proved in an experiment his theory was right, the scientific community reversed their positions even though he was in numerical inferiority. Why should Wikipedia be based on Colbert's standard of truthiness instead? Remember the elephants fiasco?79.115.182.137 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

This issue is addressed in WP:RANDY. --Nbauman (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point. When the scientific community accepted Einstein's work, Einstein was no longer "in numerical inferiority", was he? —Designate (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone was ever condescending enough to try and lecture Einstein on civility, as Gwen did above? Parrot of Doom 17:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is far more constructive if we focus on brainstorming solutions to the problem rather than attacking or criticizing individual editors. Viriditas (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You may be prepared to turn a blind eye to bullshit, but I'm not. Parrot of Doom 10:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's do things your way. Last one to leave, please turn off the server farm. Viriditas (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• There's a discussion about this over at Reddit http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/pqqly/the_undue_weight_of_truth_on_wikipedia_the/. While I haven't examined the sources exactly, what seems to have happened is that a lot of sources, for a long period of time, did not actually look at the primary research support for their statements but instead copied secondary sources. Greater weight should be placed on sources which provide primary support for their statements. Wikipedia should try not to use high-level sources which don't cite their sources, such as the average popular press biography, history textbooks or encyclopedias - these are tertiary sources. Nor should it be using secondary sources which cite tertiary or other secondary sources. I'm not sure that this is the fault of WP:UNDUE or whether it is just a slippery slope from people trying to apply WP:RELIABLE and WP:PSTS in ways that are not good. By the way, Gwen, as a 'wiki-gateeker', could use some lessons in being an effective wiki-gatekeeper. If someone raises a factual concern in one's pet article, one would think that the wiki-gatekeeper would be interested in investigating and fixing it, rather than just providing brusque comments. User:Malik Shabazz did that, but didn't take a close look at the other part. II | (t - c) 18:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for clarifying the current status of the dispute. As a totally uninvolved veteran editor asked to look in on it, I am only interested in whether the issues are being taken seriously by those that are involved, and that something is being done to "fix it" if something went wrong here. This is not the sort of publicity that the Wikipedia really needs, unless something actually good comes from it. Lots of folks already have unfavorable impressions of what the Wikipedia is all about - the mission of the Project and how things work, etc. We've had to deal with numerous editors over the years that had bad experiences (and/or bad editing habits), so chances are there is nothing new to see here. As long as it is being dealt with in a kind and civil manner, we are doing our jobs, right? And if needed, perhaps a reply can be developed and provided back to The Chronicle for possible publication. Thanks again for the responses. Play on! --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 18:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything user II said. It's one thing to be brusque when editors make weird changes with no support—revert it, point to WP:V and forget it. But when a user is obviously coming from a position of good faith and is providing some supporting material, they need to be treated as reasonable adults and not misbehaving children. Smacking them down with policy links is the wrong response. —Designate (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I would ask that people do not blame Gwen Gale for this, as she merely responded as any other admin or editor might respond. As I've said below, the problem is not a single editor or admin, but the entire culture of Wikipedia. If we want to fix this, then we need to encourage people like Gwen Gale to participate in the solution, since she's on the front lines every day and understands what needs to be done. Viriditas (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Gwen's response seemed terse, not condescending; and brevity is necessary when sorting through large volumes of information. If the contributor educated himself on WP's editing policies, as he would have had to do to modify a more "physical" encyclopedia such as Britannica, there would be no controversy. Circ (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Gwen's response was terse, but also condescending, and that it showed the sort of thinly-veiled hostility to newcomers that has become a hallmark of Wikipedia. I'll grant that she might not have intended to convey these things, but they came across loud and clear to me, anyway. Moynihanian (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

More court evidence was presented than previously believed

A new book about the trial includes more extensive details of the evidence presented in court, making much of the previous scholarship on the proceedings seem shallow where it is not erroneous. Timothy Messer-Kruse, the author of The Trial of the Haymarket Anarchists, took advantage of the full court transcripts digitized by the Chicago Historical Society. No other scholar has done so yet, so we should question lingering claims that there was "no evidence."

There is also a myth that the accused were convicted for their anarchist writings. Actually, this was not the prosecutor's approach. There was plenty of witness testimony that makes claims of "no evidence" suspect. We previously believed the men were convicted because the trial was rigged, but Messer-Kruse shows us that the defense was inept. Wikipedia posters should also consider that because the eight men were tried as a group, while there were various levels of involvement in the criminal conspiracy, so we really can't say for sure if they were ALL innocent. Reading the Wikipedia entry, a reader would have no idea that police found six bombs in Louis Lingg's apartment, or that chemists testified the chemical signature of the Haymarket bomb matched Lingg's bombs.

If the above is in the court testimony available online, but generations of scholars who didn't have access to this information say something else, does that mean you still give more weight to the scholars working in the dark?

It's intellectually dishonest to dismiss all witness evidence as perjured when you haven't evaluated the witness testimony. I'll leave it to the "longtime Wikipedia users" who patrol this section to read the book before I find time to challenge the thrust of this entry. So far, I only edited around the edges without deleting false claims I felt would make me a target. (You might also read Messer-Kruse's article on Wikipedia user antics in this very article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, which is linked at the top of this Talk section.) AECwriter 01:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aecwriter (talk • contribs)

Does the Chronicle article demonstrate COI?

I've only briefly skim read the discussion page here and I've seen a bunch of edits related to the Chronical article that's currently getting linked around but it sounds like someone quite involved, professionally, in the subject is claiming some kind of bias from editors that is actually more a reflection of his misunderstanding of the way Wikipedia operates. Putting that kind of external pressure on an article, even if he is factually correct and has sources to back up his argument, sounds like a pretty basic case of conflict of interest to me.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Give me a break. If there's a problem, fix it. Unnecessary bureaucracy for the sake of it is unproductive. -Kai445 (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You apparently did only briefly skim the rather short article because if you'd read it you'd see the author had quite a bit of interest, but probably not a whole lot of conflict (at least not of the sort coi refers to). You're grossly misunderstanding the WP:COI policy. Shadowjams (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kai445. We really need to reign in the impetus towards bureaucracy that's destroying this site. Teach people to solve problems; don't delegate problem solving to others. The problem was that this article was inaccurate, and at least one expert showed up to fix it. He was immediately reverted because people are following process for the sake of process. Kafka couldn't be more proud. Viriditas (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The Chronicle of Higher Ed is beholden to Wikipedia COI policy? Wow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aecwriter (talk • contribs) 05:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Being intellectually interested in a subject is not the same as having a conflict of interest (eg. having a financial interest in topic of an article, editing an article about yourself, etc.). Quoting the COI policy itself:

Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion. In any case, citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work, giving proper due to the work of others as in a review article.

emphasis mine. If there actually was a policy forbidding users from editing articles they're interested in (academically, professionally or otherwise) or knowledgeable about, there would be no Wikipedia. Naŋar (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There are policies, and then there are customs. Wikipedia's custom is to treat experts badly. Messer-Kruse was, and will always remain, under a cloud at Wikipedia on account of his lifelong interest in the topic, his academic background, his recognized expertise, and his holding of opinions -- no matter how solidly grounded -- about the particulars. In its daily operations, Wikipedia is strongly anti-intellectual. Authorities on subjects have a particularly rough time here, owing to the customary (not to mention paradoxical) belief at Wikipedia that, to be interested in a topic is to be inherently unqualified to write about it here. Moynihanian (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions incorporating Messer-Kruse

Having read The Trial of the Haymarket Anachists by Timothy Messer-Kruse, I have these suggestions. It’s far from a full rewrite that incorporates all the information he presents. The changes can all be referenced, though I’m not providing them at this time as I just want to open up the discussion. Advise you read the book. You might enjoy it!

“…eight anarchists were tried for conspiracy.” True. But it’s interesting that the total number of indictments is not mentioned, as that would be nine men if you add the man who threw the bomb and left town. The alleged bomber was known to all the defendants and testimony placed him with other defendants planning a confrontation with police the night before the bombing at Greif’s Hall. The defense never denied the Greif’s Hall events, so no one can justifiably claim it’s a matter of perjured testimony by paid informants.

“All were convicted, even though the prosecution conceded none of the defendants had thrown the bomb.” The trial has long been wrongly regarded as a farce, and “even though” implies an injustice. If someone is trying to say that criminal conspiracy is unjust, they should say that, not just hint at it repeatedly. Suggested change: “All were convicted. The prosecution conceded none of the defendants had thrown the bomb and presented evidence of a criminal conspiracy.”

“The police immediately opened fire at the fleeing crowd.” Well, some were fleeing no doubt, but there is no disagreement in the record that some in the crowd fired at police too. There’s even testimony that the crowd fired guns before the police. In any case, “fleeing crowd” should be deleted.

“Some workers were armed, but accounts vary widely as to how many returned fire at the police.” Saying “returned fire” eliminates the possibility that the anarchists fired first, as several policemen testified. Just say “fired.”

“Two other individuals, William Seliger and Rudolph Schnaubelt, were indicted, but never brought to trial.” Here again, no mention that Schnaubelt was the lead suspect as bomb thrower. Omitting Schnaubelt’s possible role as the bomber from the main body of the article certainly makes the case against the anarchists completely baffling, indirectly hinting at innocence and supporting the false “no evidence” claim. (Schnaubelt is listed as a possible bomber at the top of a list of suspects below the article. Before I edited Schnaubelt’s entry last week, even this hinted at innocence, saying prosecutors “assumed” he was the man, when in fact they had witness testimony, and it did not mention he was the lead police suspect. Indeed, the article said Schnaubelt was suspected “primarily because” he was the subject of a popular fictionalized thriller! Meanwhile, other highly questionable suspects are listed with equal weight.) You can keep saying the bomber was unknown, fine, but let’s not sweep the prosecution’s every contention under the rug unless you want the reader to wrongly infer unquestioned innocence. “Schnaubelt, the alleged bomber….” Of course, you risk confusing the reader by editing in pieces. Is the bomber known or not? Maybe instead of saying the bomber is unknown, we can say “a bomber was never brought to trial” or “a bomber was never apprehended.”

“The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, argued that the person who had thrown the bomb was not discouraged to do so by the defendants, who as conspirators were therefore equally responsible.” "The person who threw the bomb," who would be Schnaubelt since we’re talking here explicitly about the prosecution’s case. Perhaps a good place to add more details about the prosecution’s case during the six week trial? Here is my boldest suggestion: New sections for both The Prosecution’s Case and The Defense Case, at least three paragraphs for each. In the latter, we might add, “Timothy Messer-Kruse has argued that the defendants were convicted not because of court misconduct, but because defense attorneys were often inept.” You could go much, much further, but we’ll leave it there.

“The police commander who ordered the dispersal was later convicted of police corruption.” Maybe worth adding the conviction was in a totally unrelated case, where he was found responsible for an underling’s misconduct? If it’s not worth adding, then the sentence should be deleted.

“The bomb thrower was never identified.” Can you say this if a witness (Gilmer) testified he saw Rudolph Schnaubelt throw the bomb? If other witnesses heard Schnaubelt plan a dynamite attack with other defendants the night before? The article raises the possibility that Pinkerton threw the bomb based on much less. A new section on Gilmer, a key witness, would allow both a presentation of his testimony and allow detractors to discredit that testimony. Meh.

On the contentious point of paid witnesses, please note that there’s at least as much evidence that the defense team tried to buy testimony as the prosecution, little of it very definitive.

AECwriter 16:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)AECwriter 23:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There are some good suggestions here - I am going to make a couple of edits to put them into effect. --Rbreen (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've made changes that make these details clearer, but for more detailed changes, there would have to be citations from the book. --Rbreen (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

My suggestions were preliminary and only intended to get the conversation started. I'll see if I can find time to reference some info in Talk, since people seem eager to make edits immediately. PLEASE NOTE I was wrong in saying nine men were indicted. I forgot William Seliger, an anarchist who was indicted but made a plea deal in exchange for testimony. At least 10 men were indicted. AECwriter 18:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed, the number indicted was ten. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/haymarket/haymarketchrono.html AECwriter 18:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have the Messer-Kruse book and have spent some time looking through it. Before buying it I tried, and failed, to find any reviews of the work other than those linked to booksellers. I did find through JSTOR reviews of other works by him so I am not doubting that he is a serious historian. What I don't know, and what nobody has indicated in these discussions, is whether this work is making any impact on the scholarly community? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Tom / North Shoreman's approach to determining the impact of a work is good (WP:HISTRS suggests doing just that). However, Messer-Kruse's book is probably a bit old for reviews, so we'll have to wait for a review-article or an introduction to yet another book on Haymarket or the period to determine the scholarly impact. History as a discipline can move slowly in some regards. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not too old to be reviewed in a journal of labor history by any means.Mballen (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I corrected it in the other location where I suggested it. I had assumed he'd edited his new book all those years ago, rather than provisional research findings. Obviously with a 2011 date on the book we should expect some reviews. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No brownie points

I am a long time editor, though I've been away recently as I am swamped by events in real life, but I was prompted to come here when someone pointed me to an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education. After having read it and spending over an hour reviewing the editing history on this article and talk page, I have to say I am dismayed. We clearly, as a community of encyclopedia editors, did not treat a good-faith contributor as we should have. In fact, we bit a newbie. And some of the gatekeepers most involved then, rather than apologizing, still seem to be brushing this off, even handing out a virtual brownie. Well. We as a community do not score brownie points for this, and we must do better. I plan, when I have time, to do some revision of this article. It is long enough to include broader views without that being undue weight. Jonathunder (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

OTOH, as the talk page shows, appropriate edits incorporating the changes are rapidly taking place. Wikipedia articles that are heavily monitored, like this one perhaps, are like giant tankers that take time, care, patience and many tugboats to turn around. Not excusing any rudeness, but that's just the way it is with this experiment in openness.Haberstr (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

We indeed bit a newbie...but luckily we've incorporated most of the good-faith and correctly sourced contributions due to this unwanted attention but still, it amazes me at the e-pride that some of the more experienced editors are showing by openly dismissing this as a case where the author just didn't want to comply with our policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.26.173.58 (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out that finally the changes are taking place seems irrelevant. The changes are taking place because the expert in question made a big enough fuss about it outside Wikipedia.

I'm reminded of Paypal abusively holding customers' money. Typically what happens is that Paypal causes some customer problems due to ridiculous policies. The customer then gets an article posted someplace like Slashdot where everyone can see how big a jerk Paypal is being. Paypal then relents and releases their money or whatever.

This is good for the particular customer, but not good for everyone else who's in a similar boat but doesn't happen to have made Slashdot. Wikipedia failed here. The fact that we fixed the problem after an embarrassing stink was made about it doesn't mean that we have really fixed the problem at all, just this one case of it. I'm pretty sure the same thing will easily happen again, and has been, over and over, only without articles in the Chronicle to force us into action. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Messer-Kruse's experience here is common. On my talk page, I wrote detailed thoughts about how to handle it. Moynihanian (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It is common that academics excited about their research findings attempt to cite a blog, despite this not being an accepted method of promulgating research findings in their own field, and show such discourtesy to a publication medium that they don't even bother to check the submission standards prior to contributing? This is definitely a problem. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

He is NOT "citing a blog"! He cites Primary sources, namely the court reporter's trial transcripts. He merely points to his blog, which cites the primary sources, out of convenience—should it really be necessary for him to transcribe those primary source citations directly onto a talk page? His expectation is merely that Wikipedia editors should verify those primary sources, and if they disprove a statement in the article, then that statement should be removed from the article, as an UNVERIFIED, untrue assertion! Check his last edit to this talk page, please. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Typing in ALL CAPS BOLD ITALIC or just Bold is a poor substitute for a logical argument based upon evidence. Next time try adding MULTIPLE EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!!!; maybe that will work.

Speaking of evidence, the editor he first interacted with wrote "When I checked Messer-Kruse's User contributions page, and tried to follow his sources, the blogs turned out to require a password, which is another reason why they're not WP:RS." --Guy Macon (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, speaking of evidence, show me an edit from Jan. 22, 2009 where either of the two responding editors, or for that matter—any Wikipedia editor—complained that they could not access his blog on Jan. 22, 2009 because it was password protected or behind a paywall, or down for any reason at all. I've seen no evidence that anyone complained they could not access his blog on Jan. 22, 2009. Now just because, some editors complained that, in Feb. 2012, they could not access the blog, tells you nothing about when password protection to the site was restored. It seems obvious to me, anyway, that once the professor saw the fuss being raised over the blog after his story was published, that he turned off password protection so we could read it again and have this debate. -Wbm1058 (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Step back and understand what's happening here. Some editors (Guy Macon, et. al.) believe that Wikipedia did nothing wrong. Others (Wmb, et. al.) think Wikipedia was in the wrong. Frankly, I don't think any amount of evidence will change these views on either side. To me, it's obvious that Messer-Kruse was treated in a shabby way here. I think this sort of thing is quite common here, and that the problems go much farther and deeper than this or that article or personality. Wikipedia needs basic, fundamental reworking, of the sort I discuss at length on my talk page. But, as I wrote there, I won't hold my breath. Corporate entities, be they for-profit or non-profit, are inherently conservative. They very rarely change their basic nature unless threatened with imminent extinction. Much more often, they react exactly as Wikipedia has done throughout its brief history: with a mixture of denial, wagon-circling defensiveness, and timid, piecemeal, surface accommodations to the squeakiest critical wheels. That's what's happening here, as it has happened a bunch of times before. Meanwhile, Wikipedia's reputation and credibility slowly and steadily sink. Moynihanian (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Controversial and under-researched

I removed the following from the article lead:

The incident remains controversial and under-researched; the full court transcripts were only made widely available to scholars and the public by the Chicago Historical Society in 2001.

First of all, I don't think it is appropriate for the lead. There is no discussion in he body of the article concerning either the alleged controversy or the state of research on the subject. What is the controversy and who is involved in it. Maybe when this is fleshed out in the body of the article it will be appropriate to add material back into the lead.

Second, this is opinion based on a single work. The material probably would be relevant in the body of the article (possibly a section on the historiography of the subject), but it has to be attributed in the text as the opinion of Messer-Kruse. The material that has been digitalized has been available in its original form for a long time and scholars have had access to it -- Messer-Kruse makes a case that it hasn't been properly used, but this belongs, first, in the body of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Tom (North Shoreman), I hate to contradict, but Messer-Kruse is not an opinion, he's a source. In fact, he's (I mean the book of course) a reliable source, by Wiki-guidelines. This source is apparently the most recent available, and certainly belongs in the article. PiCo (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

But it is his opinion that the subject is under-researched. And it doesn't belong in the lede. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

A) That was my edit ("under-reserched") that he deleted. Agreed it does not belong in the lede. (I made the edit as a gentle way of introducing the new material, before this became a hot topic of discussion. At this point there's enough attention on the matter. B) As for "The incident remains controversial," that had been there for a long time. I agree that if we say it's controversial, any controversy should be discussed, which it was not. C) Regarding how we should view the new book by Messer-Kruse, can it be controversial if no one has refuted it? To my knowledge, no scholars have questioned anything he wrote, and the book has been out for a year. That include James Green, whose 2006 book repeats many of longstanding myths about the Haymarket affair. AECwriter 05:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aecwriter (talk • contribs)

1) The article explains why the incident remains controversial. There was a memorial statue that was destroyed repeatedly over a century until the police department moved it indoors. There is the question of who the bomber was. etc.

2) You say nobody has refuted the book. Has anyone reviewed it? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a few points that aren't connected to each other:

The Haymarket affair "was a demonstration and unrest..." An unrest? I've never seen that word used that way before.

Controversy: What exactly is controversial, the Haymarket affair or this book?

Under-researched: What is it that's under-researched (or not), the affair or the question of evidence? PiCo (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Until last week, the article said "The incident remains controversial." I don't know whether the book is controversial because I haven't seen any evidence that it's been reviewed in the scholarly or popular press.

It is Messer-Kruse's contention that nobody before him properly researched the Haymarket events, especially the trial. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No one has yet reviewed the book that I can find. The sound of silence. Aecwriter (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)AECwriter 04:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The material in the book had been previously published in several peer-reviewed journals; the central issue, the extensive evidence presented at the trail can hardly be the subject of scholarly dispute given that the entire voluminous transcript is online. That we cannot use testimony, or other aspects of it directly as a source does not mean we should ignore its existence and nature. Sound editorial judgement should favor sources which make use of it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The main reason we'd want a scholarly book review, is to test to what extent Messer-Kruse's historical claims represent the current state of accepted research in the field: ie: should the weight and structure of the article be entirely rewritten out of Messer-Kruse? However, given the age of the work, it is unlikely that a new review will appear. The game then is to wait on a "review-article" in a scholarly journal, that is, a discussion of the entire field of research that evaluates competing claims and determines the current scholarly consensus. We can find equivalents to the review-article in the introductions to monographs (Messer-Kruse's discussion of the beliefs of previous works would be an example in itself). As far as major interpretations made by Messer-Kruse, they should be included, but not weighted as scholarly consensus (ie: compare and contrast to the other authors Messer-Kruse discusses); similarly for contentious facts, though politeness dictates attributing contentious facts to Messer-Kruse both to celebrate his research and indicate the fact's origins. For non-contentious facts Messer-Kruse is as excellent as any other scholar. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression Messer-Kruse's monograph was from 2008ish, obviously with a 2011 publication date we should be checking labour history journals, the AHA, etc. for their reviews of the work. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

References

Goodbye From Repeat Benefactor

Because wikipedia's editorial guidelines have degenerated into groupthink, I will not be donating $100 next year as I have donated in the past. I count on wikipedia to be a repository of the truth, no matter how inconvenient or embarassing. Read the professor's account (http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704), then stop to reflect on one of the responses to the professor's account: "I think you're right that if Wikipedia was the dominant meta-information source at the time of, say Galileo, the sheer amount of sources citing Biblical entries -- or rather more likely, citing Aristotle's Physics -- would have drowned his own claims out." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.154.3 (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

We're working on it; too bad you aren't willing to help out with our work. Not that the problems presented by this situation are easy to solve; tweaking Wikipedia policy and practice is heavy lifting. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Fred, the problem is that Wikipedia has been "working on it" for many years, yet the problems cited by Messer-Kruse continue unabated. Wikipedia needs a true shakeup, not the ongoing hand-wringing and nips and tucks. Moynihanian (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

After reading the above, I am going to increase my donation by $100 next year because I am convinced that Wikipedia (with a few minor exceptions) did the right thing and continues to do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Indicted for murder

The lede currently says incorrectly that the defendants were convicted of conspiracy. Ten men were indicted and convicted for the murder of Officer Matthias J. Degan. The word conspire or conspiracy does not appear in the indictment, found here http://www.chicagohistory.org/hadc/transcript/volume1/000-050/1003B-022.htm. It says the ten indicted "unlawfully, wilfully, feloniously and of their malice aforethought, did make an assault" that murdered Degan. Nowhere does the word "conspire" or "conspiracy" appear in the indictment.AECwriter 05:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aecwriter (talk • contribs)

You are correct, but conspiracy was the foundation of the prosecution's case and this needs to be brought out in the article lead. Perhaps the sentence in question could be changed to, "In the internationally publicized legal proceedings that followed, eight anarchists were convicted of murder under a prosecution theory that the defendants had conspired with the unknown person who actually threw the bomb." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That may be the way to phrase it. Not sure. Here's what I find. "These eight anarchists leaders were charged as being members of a conspiracy to kill police officers that night. Under Illinois law aiding and abetting a murder carried the same legal penalty as directly performing the deed." — p. 3, The Trial of the Haymarket Anarchists, Messer-Kruse. "Aiding, abetting and assisting" is in the indictment. According to the indictment, the defendants "feloniously, unlawfully, wilfully and of their malice aforethought not being present aiding, abetting and assisting, had advised, encouraged, aided and abetted the said person, a further description of whom is to the said jurors unknown, in the perpetration of the crime aforesaid..."AECwriter 15:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aecwriter (talk • contribs)

Circling back to this point I raised, I'm now OK with the word "conspiracy" being used in the article lede. While it does not appear in the indictment, it is an accurate and commonly-used term to describe "aiding and abetting." Thanks for clarifying, Tom. User:AecwriterAECwriter 04:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia

I initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia; it really doesn't go anywhere, but should. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Improving the article

It is clear to me after researching this matter that M. Messer-Kruse's recent work is not in fact a minority viewpoint, but is part of the current scholarly body of knowledge; not everything he says; but definitely as to the nature of the evidence presented at the trial. There is no scholarly criticism or opposition to his work which would create the need for presentation of both sides. Previous work done without reference to the transcript of the trial is part of the historiography, and is quite interesting if treated that way. Paul Avrich's work is scholarly, but there is no question that he writes from an anarchist point of view; an archtypical minority view point. We are somewhat handicapped as most work by Messer-Kruse is in specialized labor journals behind paywalls; and his book is a bit pricey, at least for me. However, much of the work in it should be integrated into the article, not necessarily by him, but by a skilled editor. I hope heroic efforts to beat back the barbarians will not be necessary. If they are, that is a proper subject for further policy discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#The_.27Undue_Weight.27_of_Truth_on_Wikipedia with respect to the second question I raise there, the larger question of whether use of this, and other Wikipedia guidelines, in a crude way that does not adequately reflect their meaning and purpose discourages good faith editing by knowledgeable but inexperienced editors and what might be done to remedy the situation. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, as discussed above, there appears to be no scholarly discussion of Messer-Kruse's book, one way or the other. When new ideas are published, silence from the academic community does not imply agreement. Perhaps you can direct us to reviews of the work.

It is very interesting that you have declared Messer-Kruse's opinions as the new majority. Do you have sources that make that declaration? The best source AGAINST your declaration is Messer-Kruse himself. In both the Chronicle article and the book itself (have you read it?) it is clear that Messer-Kruse is writing to challenge the existing consensus view. Can you show evidence that the consensus has changed since August 2011 when the book was published? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There is not, and will never be, academic criticism of work based on extensive research of primary sources, here primarily the transcript of the trial, on the basis that investigation of the facts is wrong. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-responsive. To repeat the most salient question, "It is very interesting that you have declared Messer-Kruse's opinions as the new majority. Do you have sources that make that declaration?"

It is simply not true that simply because an author claims to have conducted "extensive research of primary sources" that he is somehow immune to academic criticism. The issue for academic historians is the interpretation of those primary sources. At this point, nobody seems to have done a scholarly review of Messer-Kruse's work and opined on his interpretations. Have you read his book? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not just a claim; the transcript of the trial in online and has obviously been used as data in his work. If his work justified dismissal or severe criticism surely someone would step up, or will soon. He does draw some dubious conclusions such as his opinion on legal strategy, even a experienced criminal trial lawyer would hesitate to second guess decisions made in 1886 in a novel situation with clients obviously eager to use the trial as a platform. But that is not the gravamen of his complaint, which is that he was not able to introduce the most obviously and well supported elements of his work into the article despite being the leading authority on the subject. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I've read a great deal of it on Amazon. I can't access the journal articles, they are behind paywalls. I suppose I will have to buy the book, but would rather spend my money on back issues of Adbusters. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems like it would be in Messer-Kruse's best interest to provide access to as much as he can to Wikipedia editors who have been active on this page. --Guy Macon (talk)

I have access to one of his article (Messer-Kruse et al., 2005) from Labour: Studies in Working Class History of the Americas journal in pdf. If anyone wishes to take a look (for educational & non-profit purposes), send me an email. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Messer-Kruse is asking for a whole-scale adoption of his very measured theories about case. There are certain myths that he thought should be omitted, primarily that there was "no evidence." It seems a simple matter of presenting some of the evidence he presents so well in his book, which happens to be the best source of evidence of at this time (unless you want to read the 3,000-page court transcript available online). I have already taken this approach in the related Louis Lingg article, adding court evidence presented against Lingg. Feedback welcome there.

Surely we're not dismissing court evidence as a minority viewpoint, are we? User:AecwriterAECwriter 01:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC) AECwriter 01:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources for a more complete treatment. The question is using it properly. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

To your point, I think, for example, that Messer-Kruse is a reliable source for the factual claims about what Gottfried Waller (p. 59 and following) actually said in his crucial testimony concerning the May 3 meeting at Grief's Hall. It is his interpretation of what the testimony proved that is a distinct minority opinion. Avrich does not provide the details that Messer-Kruse does, but his conclusion, that the conspiracy discussed on May 3 was not directly connected to the bombing on May 4, is the consensus opinion. The issue for scholars to evaluate is whether Messer-Kruse makes the case that the connection was made, preferably beyond a reasonable doubt.

When it comes to interpreting events and examining people's motives, more is needed than simply examining the court transcripts. Messer-Kruse (p. 8) says one of his main purposes was "to understand what it was that the bomber and his or her accomplices hoped to accomplish, to get inside their heads and view the world through their eyes, to see them as actors not victims." To me, this is the most historically interesting and significant part of the Haymarket story, but I think Avrich does this much better than Messer-Kruse does. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. This is the kind of debate I was hoping for. From my reading, I don't think Messer-Kruse says he knows precisely what the connection to Greif's Hall was. His approach is less to advance his own theory than to undermine the certainty of the consensus opinion, which he characterizes as strident. I finished with the book with a few possible scenarios in my head. User:AecwriterAECwriterAECwriter 08:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree to some extent. But to complete the job M-K needed to build up a new case to support one of his other goals in the book, namely to prove "that Chicago's anarchists were part of an international terrorist network and did hatch a conspiracy to attack police with bombs and guns that May Day weekend." He only makes this case if he can show that the conspiracy to create a revolution was supposed to start on May 4. However, instead of a coordinated plan, all that happened was the isolated events at the Haymarket. Waller, in M-K's words (page 60), testified about "bombing police stations and shooting police in outlying areas" but "was clearly reluctant to talk too much about the plans for the Haymarket meeting." Late in his testimony Waller says that Schnaubelt (the alleged actual bomber who was not arrested) declared that the "revolution" should be commenced, but there is no testimony, let alone corroborating evidence (i.e. showing that there was communication to coordinate actions in other areas), to show that such a plan was adopted. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this: 'one of his other goals in the book, namely to prove "that Chicago's anarchists were part of an international terrorist network and did hatch a conspiracy to attack police with bombs and guns that May Day weekend."' in his book, or other work somewhere? User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's from page 8 of M-K's book and is part of the last two paragraphs of his introduction that summarize what he thought his book accomplished. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I found it myself, on Amazon by searching for international conspiracy. Takes your breath away... No way on earth to prove something like that. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This is actually familiar territory, one must rule out stupid mistakes before one can take allegations of an elaborate conspiracy seriously. It is not just a goal, he claims he have proven this. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the "international terrorist network" is the subject of Messer-Kruse's next book, titled The Haymarket Conspiracy: Transatlantic Anarchist Networks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hardly a federal offense but the transcript is a primary source which we can't use. Using it does involve substantial exercise of judgement. For example using the testimony of Sullivan the police spy. Yes, I think the material in his book can be used. It's a peer reviewed source. But as you can see from reading this talk page there is a headwind. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Waller says that Schnaubelt (the alleged actual bomber who was not arrested) declared that the "revolution" should be commenced, but there is no testimony, let alone corroborating evidence (i.e. showing that there was communication to coordinate actions in other areas), to show that such a plan was adopted. This is a crucial point that Tom makes. Any connection of planning to the incident is unclear, though there was talk of attacking the police under certain conditions. How exactly any plan came together (or, just as likely, fell apart) is unclear and enters the realm of speculation. (And of course there could have been varying levels of complicity among the defendants.) We cannot state a link as fact. But at the same time, we also can't paint the jury's decision as erroneous beyond doubt. We don't know. I hope for a revised article that allows readers to draw more than one conclusion. User:AecwriterAECwriter 16:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If you read all the testimony, or even that part referenced by http://blogs.bgsu.edu/haymarket/myth-2-no-evidence/ you will see that there is a wide variety of more or less credible testimony and evidence. Any plan seems to have pretty rough. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I've read the book. To be sure, there is "more or less" credible testimony about plans to attack the police.User:Aecwriter AECwriter 00:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Where has the book been peer-reviewed? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

A book which has undergone the editing process at a reputable publisher is considered a reliable source, see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Some_types_of_sources. Also note, "some scholarly material may be outdated" which is really all we are dealing with here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source is not the same as a peer-reviewed source. Since you described it as peer-reviewed, I ask again, where has it been peer-reviewed? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspect there are a few reviewers settling down with this book about now. Give it two months.User:AecwriterAECwriterAECwriter 08:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• The work is published by Palgrave-Macmillan. The commercial and academic publishers regularly send monograph scripts out to readers. If you don't understand that historical monographs count as "peer reviewed" in the scholarly community, and in fact in the US system are the primary method of disseminating scholarly knowledge in history, you really shouldn't be bandying about terms like "peer review." Fifelfoo (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, "Palgrave Macmillan is a global academic publisher serving learning and scholarship in higher education and professional markets. We publish textbooks, journals, monographs, professional and reference works in print and online. We have considerable strengths in the Humanities, Social Sciences and Business, market leading lists in Politics and Study Skills and a fast-growing journals programme." User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, you appear to be having trouble following Wikipedia's indentation standards.Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Technical and format standards says

"Thread your post: Use indentation as shown in Help:Using talk pages#Indentation (or, more specifically, Wikipedia:Indentation) to clearly indicate whom you are replying to, as with usual threaded discussions. Normally colons are used, not bullet points"

If you have any questions about how to indent your comments I will be glad to assist you, or you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Help desk. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"Normally". Please go force your "standards" on someone else. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:TALKO Lists the following under "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:"

"Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC)"

It also says to stop if there is any objection, so of course I will not refactor your comments now that you have objected, but the fact remains that fixing indentation levels and removing bullets is allowed under WP:TALKO, and any other editor may choose to refactor your formatting error.

I would like to politely request that you voluntarily fix the formatting of your comment yourself. If you decline, this will be the last I will mention it - this has already generated far more drama than fixing a minor indentation error deserves. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing polite in your offensive conduct and snide edit summaries. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have looked in Mr. Messer-Krause's book for a page reference debunking the disputed statement (namely that Parsons and his wife and children led a May Day march on Michigan Avenue) and cannot find it. Can someone help me out? Mballen (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This does not appear to be in the book. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That is peculiar. Strictly speaking there aren't really good grounds for demanding that something be removed based on something written in a blog. Nevertheless, I found the claim on his blog and added it, even though I realize it is against wikipedia policy to cite blogs as references. However, since in his case he is a bonafide historian, his blog post carries some weight. In the blog he calls the march as "a myth" (his word). More precisely he is speculating that the 80,000 person march is possibly a conflation of several marches and demonstrations because he can find no reference to it in the contemporary sources he looked at. But we do know that numerical estimates of politically charged events vary widely according to who is doing the estimating.Mballen (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm, it seems that it needs a historian to judge on the work of an historian. There is progress in historiography, and it is more than likely that someone who digs in the historical sources will seriously alter the established scholar opinion. Why is it so difficult to understand that? Ziko (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

... I know I'm a little out-of-order to mention this on the talk page here, when it's not strictly related to the article. But it seems to me that this case is working exactly as it should. Expert historian edits wikipedia without understanding of citation policy; edits are reverted pending better citations; historian uses non-WP forum to discuss the case. Everyone wins; he promotes his book, the article is improved, and passersby get to tsk tsk about how horrible Wikipedia is. In fact, I'd say this methodology is even better than WP:BRD at improving the article quickly. What should we call it? "Bold, give up, disparage"? Any volunteers to write it up at WP:BGUD? (Obviously I'm kidding about that, but I'm serious about it having worked out just fine all around.) Homunq (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

One additional fact that tends to get lost; the expert historian only had to click on a provided link to read a very well-worded page about Wikipedia's citation policy. Doing so would have been much quicker and easier that going off-wiki to disparage Wikipedia. Yes, his actions did eventually result in improving the page, but if he had simply provided citations to reliable sources when asked, his suggested changes would have been incorporated immediately. I know I am going to be criticized for saying this, but "Expert historian edits wikipedia without understanding of citation policy" should be "Expert historian repeatedly edits Wikipedia while remaining willfully ignorant of citation policy". --Guy Macon (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

A work in progress is considered exempt from peer review. So is a blog reporting on the progress of a work in progress. That doesn't mean information about a work in progress is not worthy of mention. But it is just that-- a work in progress, not a pipe-line to the TRUTH. In any case Messer-Kruse's thesis really is that the now-deceased historians of the generation immediately preceding his cannot not be relied on because they viewed things through a "romantic haze" and sometimes made factual mistakes. In his opinion, since the defendants were known not to be pacifists and to have advocated violence, it is plausible that they were indeed guilty of violent conspiracy. This is hardly as earthshaking a contention as it is being made to appear. Besides, other things are also plausible, such as that guilty or innocent, there was not enough evidence to convict them in a court of law. Be that as it may, however, I still am unclear whether or not Albert Parsons led a march down Michigan Avenue, albeit smaller than 80,000 people, as is commonly claimed. It is very common for there to be disputes about the size of marches.Mballen (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Mballen (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

.

Myths

From the Library of Congress: "no evidence emerged to tie any of the men to the bombing" "Chicago Anarchists on Trial: Evidence from the Haymarket Affair", still there despite its exposure in Timothy Messer-Kruse's blog "Haymarket Watch. This is the reference he provided which was rejected as unreliable. There are other myths listed on the blog which we need to examine. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I came across a review of one of M-K's articles (or books, can't remember which) that applauded his work but deplored his tone. Will try to find it.Mballen (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. It is obvious to me that he has a point of view himself, which he is not entitled to impose on this article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It may have been this:

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5002356239:Richard Schneirov review of The :::Yankee International: Marxism and the American Reform Tradition, 1848-1876 by

Timothy Messer-Kruse. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998. Pp. 319. Index.

Schneirov writes:

"Messer-Kruse is largely convincing in arguing for the historical importance of the Yankee radicals whose movements have been marginalized by socialist-influenced scholars. Some, however, will be put off by Messer-Kruse's polemical anti-Marxism. Labor historians may argue that his thesis relies on unsubstantiated caricatures of the labor and German socialist movements that serve as convenient foils for his Yankee radicalism. Still, those interested in the origins of American socialism and radicalism will profit from this provocative and well-researched book."

Current level of acceptance

From Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Reporting_on_the_levels_of_acceptance: "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." The so-called "majority" view, such as "no evidence was presented" comes from outdated sources who did not consult the transcript; it was not then easily accessible on-line. For that view to prevail it will have to be shown by reference to reliable sources that it is currently accepted by specialized historians of labor history. M-K's articles are what is currently being published by peer-reviewed journals. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't that simple Fred. I'd suggest you reflect on two things. Firstly, WP:HISTRS's discussion of weighting that was written by a bunch of experienced Reliable Sources editors who've dealt with fairly hearty historiographical debate on wikipedia. Secondly, labour history is a slower area of history than, for example, Nazi studies. While Messer-Kruse is currently publishing a novel interpretation of newly available sources, that doesn't mean that his version has scholarly acceptance in history. It isn't a case of "last article on the table" or even "last corpus," wait for a scholarly book review that places Messer-Kruse's novel findings in the context of past scholarship. Until somebody contextualises Messer-Kruse's work for us, we can simply just say things like, "Based on newly available archives, Messer-Kruse finds that, " "". Later when we get a review we can move on to saying, "Despite a long standing belief that X, Y." Fifelfoo (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

M-K's work is the most recent study, based on scholarly work, and I don't see why it shouldn't be treated like that. One can point out that his results differ from what was written prevously, and okay. Ziko (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

History doesn't work like that, it isn't "who published last, wins." Messer-Kruse's work needs to be contextualised within the historiography by a third party. Given that Avich is dead, I doubt Avich will be responding directly. The issue isn't "do we include Messer-Kruse?" Of course we do, he's published in the scholarly mode. The issue is, "do we reweight and rewrite the article to fit only Messer-Kruse's narrative attention and weight?" And the answer to that is, that we wait on the opinions of other historians about Messer-Kruse's importance. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

To use older sources like Avich, who seems to have failed to consult the transcript, hard to do at the time it is also necessary to demonstrate current level of acceptance by scholars in the field; it is not a given. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest consulting Messer-Kruse's introductory chapter in his 2011 book for the value and failings of Avich's works, as it would likely contain a literature review of the field up until the publication of Messer-Kruse's new findings. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a section on the historiography of the Haymarket affair. An event like that, where there are fatalities and highly polarized opinons, is apt to generate heated emotions from generation to generation; and the issues raised by it are still relevant to the contemporary world. Mr. Messer-Krause seems to be directing his wrath at two historians (who are dead and can't answer), Avich and Philip Foner, who were sympathetic to the anarchist position and saw them as victims. They in turn may have been reacting against previous perspectives on the "affair". It doesn't seem implausible to me that the trial was actually fairer than has been portrayed. At any rate, I added Foner's May Day book to the bibliography and tweaked the first paragraph a tiny bit.Mballen (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Opinion on the matter begins in 1886 with press coverage not only Chicago and NY, but also in the radical press. According to M-K there was a book published by one of the principles in the prosecution; the verdict itself being a viewpoint, yes historiography. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Most history articles that have had extensive coverage in the literature could probably do with a historiography section :) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Unbalanced

With respect to Template:Unbalanced the issue is imbalance between coverage of the event as an iconic event in labor history and the actual characteristics of the event itself. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Schnaubelt

“Two other individuals, William Seliger and Rudolph Schnaubelt, were indicted, but never brought to trial. Seliger turned state's evidence and testified for the prosecution, and Schnaubelt fled the country before he could be brought to trial.” This sentence omits Schnaubelt’s status as the lead suspect as the bomb thrower, which is significant in understanding the indictments. It now reads: “Two other men, William Seliger and Rudolph Schnaubelt, were indicted. Seliger turned state's evidence and testified for the prosecution and Schnaubelt, the police’s lead suspect as the bomb thrower, fled the country before he could be brought to trial.” AECwriter 02:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC) AecwriterAECwriter 17:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

He is covered in the section on possible bombers as the most likely. By the way, that section is quite large and detailed considering all the other details which are, properly in most cases, left out. A comprehensive treatment of the trial probably doesn't belong in this article, it should be a stand alone article, assuming it is worth having at all. Certainly more than the one or two sentences we have now, but not some short book. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware that Schnaubelt is covered in the list of the suspects at the bottom of the article. But he must be mentioned in the article when the list of indicted is presented, so why not give the reader some idea of his importance in the case before the end of the article? Remember, we are working from an article that originally asserted there was "no evidence" and still leans in that direction by means of what is presented and what is not. The article says in the opening "An unknown person threw a dynamite bomb at police" and then later that "Nobody was ever charged with throwing the bomb." OK, but the emphasis on this point gives the reader the impression that the bomber's identity was a mystery on par with Stonehenge. Among other things, the "no evidence" argument that spawned this article's approach conveniently spared everyone the intellectual effort of understanding the main points of the case. Until two weeks ago, Schnaubelt's important position in the investigation's case was not even mentioned in the list of suspects. (I was the editor who put a little lipstick on that particular pig.)

No one has asked for a comprehensive treatment of the trial, but yes, some work can be done to summarize the positions of the defense and the prosecution. Or "Trial" and "Executions" can be split in separate sections. I and others agree too that the list of suspects is far too long. Suspects with strong alibis of not being present at Haymarket should be deleted, but that's not a battle I myself am going to take on right now. AECwriter 08:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC) AecwriterAECwriter 17:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)AECwriter 19:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Truth

‘The Lifespan of a Fact,’ by John D’Agata and Jim Fingal "His duty is not to accuracy, nor to Levi. His duty is to Truth. And when an artist works in service of Truth, fidelity to fact is irrelevant." User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Number of testimonies heard

Under the heading "Trial," a sentence reads "The jury heard the testimony of 24 people, including 54 members of the Chicago Police Department and the defendants Fielden, Schwab, Spies and Parsons." Being a non-US citizen, and thus unfamiliar to the machinations of that country's legislature, I still cannot help to wonder how any country's legal proceedings can manage to fit 54 into 24.

The herein much-debated Messer-Kruse "Undue Weight" article says that 118 persons were called to testify. Might that be a more reasonable number? Eivindsol (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"No Evidence"

The line in the entry that reads: "The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, did not offer evidence connecting any of the defendants with the bombing..." is inaccurate. The prosecution introduced much evidence linking several of the defendants to the manufacture of the bomb, the distribution of the bombs, and an alleged plot to attack the police on the evening of Tuesday, May 4. An eye-witness was put on the stand who claimed to have seen Spies light the fuse of the bomb. Police officers testified that Fielden returned their fire with his revolver. Now these witnesses and this evidence may be disputed, but it is historically wrong to claim it was not introduced. For more specific information, see http://blogs.bgsu.edu/haymarket/myth-2-no-evidence/ MesserKruse (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You must provide reliable sources for your assertions to make changes along these lines to the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have provided reliable sources. See my discussion of the McCormick's strike above in which I cite the primary sources for this information. By what standard are you claiming that http://blogs.bgsu.edu/haymarket/myth-2-no-evidence/ is not a "reliable source." It clearly cites primary sources in its rebutal of this myth. Perhaps its not "reliable" sources you want but ideologically comfortable ones.MesserKruse (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's policy concerning reliable sources. Blogs are not considered reliable sources. Also, according to our policy concerning "undue weight":

articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views (emphasis in original)

You should not delete information supported by the majority of sources to replace it with a minority view. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I see I will have to fight these battles one at a time. I will start with the most obvious. Here is a "majority" source, indeed the most often-cited source for information on Haymarket there is, Paul Avrich, The Haymarket Tragedy: from page 190: "Spies had heard that two men had been killed, apparently the correct number, but when he picked up the Daily News, the paper reported six deaths." So, it should be evident that this authoratitive source also agrees the proper number should be TWO. As for you claim about Wikipedia's policy, your characterization of it is absurd, especially if the "majority" source that is cited can be shown to be factually wrong. Explain to me, then, how a "minority" source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong "majority" one?MesserKruse (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to discuss reliable sources here, that's what the talk page is for. However, you might want to have a quick look at Wikipedia's civility policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how anything that was posted was uncivil. 86.169.28.122 (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll review Avrich tonight. Please have a little patience and leave the article as is until then. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. You might also consult the citation provided in the article for the McCormick deaths, that of Green, pp. 162-171. Note that this cited source does not claim that six men were killed, only that August Spies claimed that six men were killed in his Revenge leaflet. Thus, the source cited does not actually support the fact alleged.MesserKruse (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I checked Avrich and corrected the number of fatalities at McCormick. Thanks for bringing the error to our attention. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to see that Timothy Messer-Kruse posted here and received some unwarranted flak. Two years later he published a meticulously researched, peer-reviewed book that I have cited in edits made to "Suspected Bombers." (FYI: I do not know Mr. Messer-Kruse.) AECwriter 06:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This incident, the discussion here on this Wikipedia Talk Page was reported on in The Chronicle of Higher Education today. As Wikipedia really needs scholars to participate to improve its authority and quality, it would be a good idea to make it a little easier for them to contribute. Maberry

I agree with Maberry. Also, Messer-Kruse's persistence is commendable. --Magicmike (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This article, "The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia" details the efforts of Timothy Messer-Kruse to correct the treatment on WP of the 1886 trials related to the Haymarket riot. He ran into objections based on "verifiability vs. truth" , "majority vs. minority views", "primary vs. secondary sources", and "original research", all of which proved to be handy tools to obstruct an authoritative account on WP. Brews ohare (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I strongly support people in academia editing but I do think it is hard for them to accept that their degrees do not count on here. All that counts is their sources, which can not be a blog! I am new to Wikipedia but I do not understand why he couldn't make a separate section for his "minority" view. That way both views could be represented if properly backed up with reliable sources. Isn't that the point of Wikipedia? Semccraw (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own "anybody can edit" adage sometimes goes against the reality of the Wikipedia community: yes, anybody can edit, but you need to follow the rules. I'd say most scholars who have problems with Wikipedia generally don't familiarize themselves with the rules or with the social context of Wikipedia. A lone scholar wanting to make edits may not be very successful unless they extend the effort to understand the history and editing of a particular article. I've been a Wikipedia editor for 5 years and came to this talk page because of the article in the Chronicle. I also want to urge Messer-Kruse to be patient, and recognize that Wikipedia is not like a book of original research but is always a collaboration - that part of the key to a successful Wikipedia experience is convincing your fellow editors that your sourcing (not your research, but your sourcing and verifiability) is decent (and follows the Wikipedia rules which have been established over 11 years). -- kosboot (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, I'm interested in any way we can encourage scholars to contribute. Messer-Kruse's article describes frustrations many scholars might encounter. How can we alleviate these obstacles for new contributors in the future? Comment on my talk page. Kmpolacek (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible origin of "no evidence"

Although they doubtless got this information somewhere, "The Chicago Anarchists" Eleanor Marx Aveling and Edward Aveling, source: To-day, November 1887: "sentenced to death upon no evidence whatever." "Every statement made in this paper may he relied upon as absolutely accurate. Where the statement concerns the trial, it is taken from the verbatim daily report of that trial, which appeared in the New Yorker Volkszeitung." "Upon the legal points our informant is Captain Black, the advocate of the accused men." User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The archives of New Yorker Volkszeitung may be online and searchable, but are behind a paywall. However a search for August Spies returned no hits. Not sure what is going on. Archives are available in 65 libraries including libraries in Chicago and New York; however it is in German. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Messer-Kruse controversy

Timothy Messer-Kruse raises serious questions that go to the heart of Wikipedia's credibility. As a small donor, I would hope that Wikipedia will see fit to take his constructive criticism seriously, and respond with the kind of care that he displayed in his well-researched article in The Chronicle Review dated February 17, 2012. A response that only points to a general policy is less than satisfying. 192.195.154.9 (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Fred Chavez

I might also add: "Woe be to anyone that places the Wikipedia in a position that results in Jimbo being forced to make a public apology" over the matter. Just sayin'... --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 19:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed on Fred's point. That Wikipedia would risk pushing away legitimate historians like this is disappointing at best. Stack (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Public apology? Come on people lets just look at what happened here. Messer-Kruse started a discussion about some reasonable points, a discussion that ended quickly. He made some mistakes in citation. Editors appear to have seen the link containing clarification was a blog and (somewhat legitimately) dismissed it. It's my understanding that Messer-Kruse intended the blog post as a way of presenting his argument. I'm sure if the discussion had continued that would have worked out.. Messer-Kruse decided he couldn't be bothered, fine. His approach is, frankly, even better because it neatly removes the problem of avoiding interpreting primary sources - even if it is a slower approach.

The world is richer for that book, regardless of what we say on the matter.

This made "news" on a few places today, but if you read through the discussions people tend to agree - Wikipedia content policies are decent, interactions with new editors can sometimes go a bit wrong (unintentionally) and that publishing a book just underlines the issue. As I read Messer-Kruse's article my takeaway is that we are being offered ideas here about approaching situations like this, it is not a slamming. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to MesserKruse's Chronicle account, because I've been through similar experiences myself on Wikipedia. However, I reviewed his User contributions page. (He may have made changes before he signed in with a user name.)

I got the impression from the Chronicle that he had a long, frustrating exchange with somebody who just didn't get it. Actually, he simply made a few changes without explanation in the talk box (and discussed them in the user talk pages, rather than the article talk pages). I understand how confusing the Wikipedia system is at first, but it's a clear Wikipedia rule that changes without explanation can be reverted.

When I reviewed his explanation in Talk to defend his changes, I saw that he was citing a blog -- which is also not acceptable as a WP:RS. Even worse, when I tried to follow his link to the blog, it was a subscription-only link -- which is another violation of WP:RS. It's as if he turned in a paper without using the MLA style sheet.

Then, in 2011, he came back and finaly got the procedures right [6] The final version of the article removes the claim that police officers were killed by friendly fire, and now it says that according to a newspaper report, an anonymous police official said that police officers were wounded. Is it true? I don't know. I'm not a historian. In the epistimology of Wikipedia, all we have to go on is primary sources, filtered through the work of scholars and historians published by academic presses.

MesserKruse seems to be saying that he doesn't accept Avrich's reliance on an anonymous source in a Chicago newspaper that the police wounded each other in friendly fire. That's a reasonable point. He's a historian and his evaluation of that source stands against Avrich's. I would be interested to know whether any other historians had addressed that point, and how they lined up, especially in the light of any new evidence. If there's a serious debate, then the article should include it under WP:NPOV.

However, if MesserKruse is the only one to have made that point, in his published work, then it is indeed a minority viewpoint. He would be pushing his own work, which would be a violation of the rules as original research and also suspect as a conflict of interest. The way to get it in would be to find somebody else who had agreed with it in a WP:RS.

Wikipedia and academia are similar but not identical. For a scholar, challenging the weak evidence for Avrich's accepted view is good. That's what advances knowledge and keeps people awake at lectures. But it's not acceptable for Wikipedia until it gets more scholarly support.

All introductory reference works, encyclopedias and textbooks have to simplify, and there isn't room for every minority opinion. And all new opinions start out as minority opinions. So there's a tension, on Wikipedia and everywhere, between being inclusive and being readable.

So all MesserKruse did was leave two dozen edits and messages. That's a pretty low frustration tolerance. He spent less time on this than he would marking an undergraduate paper. Conversely, he didn't learn the Wikipedia style of comments, citation, etc. So Wikipedia's response wasn't that ridiculous after all.

Not that I'm complaining. MesserKruse raised an important issue and improved the article.

My primary use (and contribution) for Wikipedia is in molecular medicine. Major scientific journals, like Science and Nature, have reviewed Wikipedia and found it to be surprisingly, counter-intuitively, reliable.

Wikipedia will survive this. --Nbauman (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Nbauman. I see here a situation whereby a newbie (to us), but an expert on the subject (possibly not then, but certainly now) was bitten by a more experienced editor who should have asked more questions. (Why are you doing this?) Such things happen, and should flow off one's back. However, I've seen many an short-tempered academic had his or her buttons pushed, resulting in tirades and infighting. Don't let the drama get to you. Bearian (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Point of clarification... WP:Original research doesn't prohibit someone from using reliable sources that they created so long as those sources meet the WP:reliable sources criteria (there may be POV concerns, but those aren't at issue here). Shadowjams (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect to Bearian, you've completely missed the point. This has nothing to do with Gwen Gale or any other editor. Although the Wikimedia (not just Wikipedia) community in general has an extremely poor record when it comes to dealing with new users, and seems more interested in scaring them away (and if they are experts chasing them away) that is also not at the heart of this matter. The underlying issue has to do with what the policies and guidelines say on verifiability and reliable sources and how they are interpreted, and that is where the problem remains to this day. Most of the material this user corrected was either wrong or poorly sourced, so obviously, many editors and admins aren't applying the rules appropriately, but rather repeating the rules without applying them in an informed manner. We should not be putting roadblocks in the way of new users, nor should we be threatening users who are making Wikipedia more accurate—we should be thanking them. I personally do not blame Gwen Gale or any other editor for this continuing problem; it's endemic to the culture. However, I do blame the way the policies and guidelines are written, understood, and applied. Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I read Mr. Messer-Kruse's book and based on that book made some changes last week which may not have complied with Wikipedia protocol. I'll be sure to do so in the future. Then today, I started the below Talk section before seeing this one (it wasn't here yesterday, apologies there too). I made my article changes before finding the link to the Chronicle of Higher Ed article just now, and haven't yet read it (I anticipate a treat!).

Whatever may have happened with Mr. Messer-Kruse's own posts doesn't matter at this point. The book is out there and people like me are reading it. I would hope his book's contents and not his Chronicle article or Wikipedia history will be the topic of discussion. To dismiss his book as a "minority viewpoint" is unfair. No other contemporary scholar has examined the court record to anywhere near the same degree, and you'd be wise to instead recognize the book as a watershed in Haymarket scholarship, even if "watershed" isn't a Wikipedia term. Given the depth of his scholarship and the way he looks at multiple pieces of evidence from a variety of viewpoints, you really can't lump his book in with a garden-variety "opinion."

Regarding the friendly-fire question you mention above, Mr. Messer-Kruse does not say with certainty that anarchists fired at police first, but he makes clear it's possible, so those that breezily suggest friendly-fire was responsible for the police deaths look foolish. So it goes with much of the information he presents.

AECwriter 01:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aecwriter (talk • contribs)

Signpost article

I became aware of this issue after reading the 13 February 2012 issue of The Signpost. Messer-Kruse raised at least five important factual issues, some have been accepted by Wikipedia editors, others have not. Here is a review of article issues raised by Messer-Kruse.

1. (22 January 2009) #"No Evidence": "The line in the entry that reads: "The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, did not offer evidence connecting any of the defendants with the bombing..." is inaccurate."—"The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, offered some evidence and witnesses connecting some of the defendants with the bombing but argued that other defendants were guilty because the person who had thrown the bomb had been encouraged to do so by the defendants, who as conspirators were therefore equally responsible." The article now says: "The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, argued that the person who had thrown the bomb was not discouraged to do so by the defendants, who as conspirators were therefore equally responsible.", no longer claiming that evidence connecting defendants with the bombing was not offered, but stops short of saying that Grinnell offered some evidence and witnesses connecting some of the defendants with the bombing.
2. (22 January 2009) #Body count: "The claim that six men were killed at the McCormick riot is inaccurate. This claim comes from the report written for the anarchist newspaper by August Spies. Chicago cornorer's records and all the other daily newspapers finally settled on two deaths as the correct number." The article now states: "In the end, two McCormick workers were killed (although some newspaper accounts said there were six fatalities)." (on May 3, and at least four workers were killed in the May 4 Haymarket riot)
3. (22 January 2009) "In this section "May Day parade" the reference to Albert and Lucy Parsons taking part in a great march of 80,000 workers should be deleted because it is a myth." The article states, "Albert Parsons was an anarchist and founder of the International Working People's Association (IWPA). Parsons, with his wife Lucy and their children, led a march of 80,000 people down Michigan Avenue." Q: What exactly is the myth? Whether 80,000± marched, and whether the Parsons took part, should be verifiable. A: http://blogs.bgsu.edu/haymarket/myth-4-the-great-march-of-the-80000
4. (30 January 2009) Talk:August Spies#The Relative on the Jury: "The claim in the section "Trial" should be changed because it is not historically true that a relative of one of the policemen sat on the jury. According to the record of the trial, M.D. Flavin was examined and during the course of his questioning noted that Officer Flavin was a “distant relative”. The defense challenged him for cause and Judge Gary did overrule the challenge and the defense used one of their 180 peremptory challenges to remove Flavin from the jury pool. Flavin did not serve on the jury that convicted the anarchist defendants." August Spies states "The jury was selected specifically by a special bailiff; one of the jury members was a relative of one of the slain policemen."
5. (26 August 2011) "...claim(s) that most police officers were killed by 'friendly fire'... simply don't stand up to scrutiny."[7][8] The "mostly from friendly fire" statement was removed with this edit of 01:43, 25 January 2012, which fails to mention this significant change in the edit summary.

I don't think the problem is that Messer-Kruse "let the drama get to him." He had enough evidence from the resistance to the five little edits listed above that getting the article up to his standards was going to be a long, tedious process of WP:BRD, one which he did not have time for. He attempted to expedite the process by soliciting cooperative editing, but nothing came of it. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I want to thank everyone for their very thoughtful and constructive consideration of the issues I have raised with my article "The Undue Weight of Truth," (The Chronicle Review, Feb. 12, 2012). I haven't waded into this discussion in any public forum since the publication of my piece because I didn't want to steer what has become a very rich discussion of some fundamental issues including the nature of truth and verifiability, the strengths and weaknesses of crowd-sourcing history, Wikipedia editing policies, and, not least, the conflicting cultures of academia and Wikipedia. Most of what has been posted here I find fair, though my reason for writing now is to clarify one point about the editing process in my case. When I referenced my blog page as a source I was doing so merely as a shorthand for the primary sources it contained not as a blog per se. I was attempting to highlight a number of primary sources at once, not promote my own blog site which has been such a minor part of my activities that I've long neglected it. MesserKruse (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone at this point thinks that you were trying to promote a blog, but you have to realize what we at "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" are faced with.

Let me start out with a description of the right way to deal with an error in a Wikipedia article, then a discussion of a few wrong ways.

The right way:

You edit the page so as to remove the error and replace it with something better. The something better has inline citations to reliable sources establishing it as being factually accurate. Other editors check the references and, if they are sound, move on. Sometimes someone questions a source but that is quickly resolved on the article talk page.

Alternatively, you first suggest the change on the article talk page (but you still need the citations). This is useful for people who are hesitant to edit an article directly but still want to contribute.

The wrong way: (See Talk:Haymarket_affair#"No Evidence")

You suggest a change but do not provide a citation to a reliable source. Instead you cite a blog that other Wikipedia editors cannot access. At this point stop and think about the thousands and thousands of folks who do that. The vast majority are either pushing fringe beliefs of spamming their blog.

You are politely told "You must provide reliable sources for your assertions to make changes along these lines to the article."

You respond by asserting that your blog is a reliable source because it cites primary sources. Then you throw in a rather snarky accusation: "Perhaps its not 'reliable' sources you want but ideologically comfortable ones"

Your incivility is ignored and you are politely requested to "Please read Wikipedia's policy concerning reliable sources. Blogs are not considered reliable sources. Also, according to our policy concerning 'undue weight'"

You declare that you are essentially at war with Wikipedia: ("Fine. I see I will have to fight these battles one at a time.") FINALLY you do what you should have done when you were asked to do it the first time; provide a citation to a reliable source -- along with yet another attempt to pick a fight ("your characterization of [Wikipedia policies] is absurd")

Other that a polite request that you be civil, your attempt to pick a fight is ignored, and as far as I can tell, everything that you provided citations for got corrected in the article (if they weren't you should be discussing it here).

You then posted an opinion piece about Wikipedia in The Chronicle of Higher Education, which resulted in an article in the Signpost and then this: Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia. This triggered a well known social phenomena; rather than circling the wagons and defending Wikipedia as one might expect, multiple people opined that of course Wikipedia policies must be wrong. That's pretty much what happens when anyone other than blatant vandals or spammers complains.

And so here we are. Lots of drama, lots of discussion, and very few actual improvements to the article. Given how this is working out for you, would you be willing as an experiment to try doing things as I described in "The right way" above and seeing whether the results are better? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This attitude (Guy Macon, above) is why I have never become an editor on Wikipedia. When I read this, I don't think "Wow, anyone really can edit this!" I just see an insular and testy club for which I'm not at all sure I want to go through the initiation process. I acknowledge your right to model your community this way, but I think you might do well to consider how it influences possible contributors like me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.26.10 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Boy oh boy, do I ever agree! This is the kind of stuff that Wikipedia has become known for. I'm amazed that Messer-Kruse ever came back. I figure he probably did so because, after all, he has a life-long interest in the topic. Which, of course, at Wikipedia, makes him suspect. In practice, having expertise in a subject winds up being a negative here. Moynihanian (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Experienced Wikipedia editors know that a new and inexperienced editor, regardless of how intelligent, well educated, and knowledgeable they may be has no chance of successfully editing a controversial article. That this is a controversial article is somewhat of a surprise, but it is obviously well-defended for whatever reason. Criticizing him in this way is inappropriate. He had the good sense to not "argue with the garbage truck" but wisely found a venue where he would be accorded respect. From the beginning the problem posed was how to integrate the work of the leading expert on the subject into the article in an appropriate way, not evaluating his ability to successfully navigate a complex game. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I wish most experienced people around here would understand this...

I have noticed that academics, even eminent ones, are often remarkably thin skinned when a statement of theirs is challenged by a lay person or even someone from another field than theirs. But be that as it may, Professor Messer-Krause is no longer an inexperienced wikipedia user.Mballen (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Messer-Kruse was "thin-skinned." When you look back at the history, I think he was greeted with condescension and veiled hostility, and was understandably irritated. If there's any surprise, it's that he bothered to come back. I've written much fuller thoughts about this whole thing on my talk page, for those interested. I think Wikipedia needs wholesale, fundamental reform, not just the usual nips and tucks that get discussed when these things happen here. Moynihanian (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Professor Messer-Kruse holds a Ph.D. degree and is certifiably adept at self defense. He could never have climbed the academic and administrative ladder had this not been the case. He ought to be able to take it as well as to dish it out. Contrary to the narrative Moynihanian, Acewriter, and a few others are trying to establish here, there was neither "flak", nor "condescension" nor "veiled hostility" in either Gwen's response, nor in Guy Macon's measured explanation of what happened. It is absurd to suggest that there is some sort of oxymoronic wikipedia populist/exclusive cabal. As for hostility, it was all the other way round. Messer-Krause was miffed (hostile) at being reverted for not providing a verifiable citation in 2009 (see above), and he failed to grasp that on wikipedia "reliable source" is a technical term and not a personal insult to his blog (which was not even accessible in 2009) or to himself. (And it happens that he has never condescended to provide a published page reference for his statement about the large march being, in his words, a "myth"). It was Messer-Kruse's own statements about "picking his battles" with Wikipedia and his insinuations about the purported "ideological comfort" of other wikipedia contributors that showed (unveiled) hostility. It seems Mr. Messer-Krause is in fact well known in other quarters for his polemical stances (see the review by Richard Schneirovof his other book cited on this page). This is amply evidenced by the title he chose for his Chronicle of Higher Ed. article:The "Undue Weight [meaning wikipedia's POV policies] of Truth [meaning himself]. Since Messer-Kruse now pronounces himself satisfied with the response on the Talk Page (and I hope will be also in the changes to the article), it is now perhaps time for a little "historical revisionism" on his part about the story of his dealings here. An apology from him to wikipedia (and not the other way round) would be more in order. His statement above, although seemingly gracious, is not quite that but trails off into vague statements about needing to have discussions about verifiability. And by the way, exempting academic historians carte blanche from having to provide verifiable citations would not be a reform of wikipedia I would like to see enacted -- though that seems to be where Messer-Kruse's defenders are heading.Mballen (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It's clear that we disagree about the merits of Messer-Kruse's complaint. You won't convince me otherwise, and I won't convince you. We've each made our decisions. So, rather than fight it out, I'll confine myself to addressing only one point. You wrote that it is "absurd to suggest that there is some sort of oxymoronic wikipedia populist/exclusive cabal." Who had made such a suggestion? Could you please provide a citation? Thanks. Moynihanian (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

And so here we are. Lots of drama, lots of discussion, and very few actual improvements to the article. Given how this is working out for you, would you be willing as an experiment to try doing things as I described in "The right way" above and seeing whether the results are better? (from Guy Macon above)

Condescending? I have to agree with the critics such as 199.8.26.10 and Moynihanian here. Wikipedia is fantastic, but this kind of agentless phrasing is offputting. 146.115.128.120 (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

My reference to a supposed cabal referred to the commenters on the Chronicle of Higher ed article such as this:

What actually happens at Wikipedia is that the Wikikids who run the joint are so scared of anyone with an opinion, and especially of anyone with true expertise, such as an academic, that they automatically reject the contribution. In doing so, they are insular, arrogant, circular, and literally unprincipled, the matter meaning that they routinely ignore their own stated rules and principles.

Mr. Moynihanian, on the other hand, appears to be complaining that wikipedia is the equivalent of a corporate entity paralyzed with too many regulations and that as a consequence its reputation is declining (from its former high position?). Obviously the two complaints are contradictory (oxymoronic). In any case, Professor M-K, chairman of the Department of Ethnic Studies at University of Kentucky at Bowling Green University and Vice Provost, must be delighted that the "issue has been raised" because he got to go on NPR, and now maybe someone will review his "controversial" book. Nice work.Mballen (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

A couple responses. First, while I do believe that Wikipedia is frequently paralyzed by its policies, that's not why its reputation has declined. For the full set of thoughts, see the essay on my talk page. Second, it's strange to have my comment here juxtaposed with one left somewhere else by someone else, and labeled "oxymoronic" as a consequence. Get your cabals straight, Mballen. Moynihanian (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for having offended you Mr./Ms Moyihanian. I will take a look at your page. I find that expert opinion is everywhere treated badly in the USA, not only on wikipedia. And few people want to take the trouble to examine primary sources (that is left to graduate students), but instead repeat endlessly what they learned in their youth or is written in older material. (This is doubly true in the case of school text books, which are often as much as a 100 years out of date). For my part, I have not fully grasped all of wiki's rules (especially the formatting rules), but my experience has been overall very positive. It seems to me that wikipedia is an excellent place for getting the findings of newer scholars out to broader audiences. For my part, when I have found what I considered inaccuracies on wikipedia and have yielded to the temptation to correct them, I have generally had no trouble with having my revisions being reverted, except on one occasion, on the topic of humanism, which interests me greatly, and where for some reason feelings appear to run unusually high. Even better, I can correct my own mistakes as they become apparent to me. My perception is that the reputation of wikipedia rather than having declined has increased greatly, especially after the recent articles about it in scientific journals. I can't help seeing Professor Messer-Krause's doings as part of an orchestrated publicity campaign, perhaps abetted by other people, including his publisher, designed to bypass peer review. Incidentally, Messer-Krause is listed as editor of a journal entitled "Works in Progress" (i.e., works exempt from peer review.)Mballen (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted. You raised a good point about Wikipedia's reputation. I think it's declining and you think it's improving. With each of us, there could easily be confirmation bias involved, given that I am quite negative in my assessment of Wikipedia and you are positive. In fact, neither of us knows its reputation. I see a steady stream of articles about incidents like Messer-Kruse's, and think the word is getting out, and you find reasons to think diffrently. As for Messer-Kruse's motives in writing his critical article for The Chronicle of Higher Education, I only judge by whether I think his criticisms are on target.

Wikipedia's article talk pages are just full of lengthy debates over personalities and motives, when they ought to be focused on the accuracy of information and the best ways to deliver it. As it concerns his eligibility to contribute, Messer-Kruse could be Satan with a great p.r. agent, for all I care. To take an extreme hypothetical, if Hitler came back to life and wanted to write about Naziism, I'd be fine with it as long as his contributions conformed to the rules. But here at Wikipedia, as soon as there is disagreement, the discussion will quickly turn toward the ad hominem side of things, even when Uncle Adolph isn't involved, which to me is a strong indicator of a very weak system.

And the systemic weakness isn't primarily one of this or that policy or guideline. Rather, it goes deeper. When the basic premise is that factuality doesn't matter, but only verifiability of secondary sources, and that the truth of the matter is irrelevant, I think it's a slippery slope toward abandonment of all standards. Usually, when people mention "slippery slopes," they have a theoretical fear, but in Wikipedia's case, the Messer-Kruse experience is very, very far from isolated, indicating that the slope is both greasy and quite well traveled.

Finally, to make one more point, in several of my postings about this case, I refer to my talk page. Not that you objected, but in case others do, this isn't a matter of my wanting to promote it or myself. It's a matter of not wanting to be especially repetitive or verbose on the other talk pages. The unwritten rules baffle the hell out of me and always have, so that's how I chose to handle it this time around. Moynihanian (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Moynihanian, you say above, "When the basic premise is that factuality doesn't matter, but only verifiability of secondary sources, and that the truth of the matter is irrelevant, I think it's a slippery slope toward abandonment of all standards." This is a misinterpretation. The premise is that inclusion in the canon of generally accepted knowledge is a close approximation of truth. The content of Wikipedia is a summary of that canon. In this case M-K's work is an addition to the canon which will, hopefully, be included in our article. As to standards, please review Wikipedia:Five pillars. Our problems with this article are due to the iconic nature of this incident within the hagiography of the left which M-K is attempting to debunk. In addition, treatment of this subject brings back into consciousness the criticism Marx made of the Anarchists, that their strategy of terror was wrong-headed. This is a difficult issue now due to the collapse of Marxism-Leninism as a credible revolutionary movement and the embryonic efforts of anarchism to configure an alternative vision. Those considerations don't belong in the article, but explain the headwinds those who would improve the article face. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The premise is that inclusion in the canon of generally accepted knowledge is a close approximation of truth.

Given there there is no such animal as "the canon of generally accepted knowledge," and that if there was such a thing, it would include a wider variety of sources than what Wikipedia allows, I will stick with my belief that "truth" is irrelevant at Wikipedkia. I don't think that Wikipedia's incorporation (if it happens) of Messer-Kruse's edits will have any impact on the relevance of "truth" here. What it will say, and what it has already said, is that Wikipedia isn't (yet) too obtuse to react to negative mention in elite circles, like The Chronicle of Higher Education, NPR, and The Atlantic.

The same thing will happen again at Wikipedia, and indeed probably has happened multiple times since Messer-Kruse's protest got attention. Organizations don't change on the merits, especially big ones. Wikipedia will circle its wagons until it no longer can, and at that point it will change. Moynihanian (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The sum of the information published in reliable sources certainly does exist and it may be summarized. Only your editing behavior and whatever effort you may make to improve our policies and procedures are relevant. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you believe, as Wikipedia does, that facts and the truth have no intrinsic existence but are entirely a function of consensus, which is inherently a political standard, then yes, only one's "editing behavior" and fealty to the Wikipedia organization are relevant. Of course, those faith-based standards fly in the face of a very long struggle on the part of academia and science for independence from religion and politics, which is why (in my view) Wikipedia is fundamentally incompatible with the Western intellectual tradition, and with academia as we know it. Academics and others need to understand the direct challenge that Wikipedia poses to free thought, and act (or not act) accordingly. Moynihanian (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Get that published in an academic journal and we'll add it to Wikipedia... User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A restatement of Wikipedia policy is not a statement of my personal position. As to your position that making knowledge available to the global public is a challenge to freedom, what can one say? We live in a world ruled by ignorance. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia makes words and stories available, without regard to their accuracy or truth, and actively rejects fact. Yeah, I'd say that's no less a challenge to intellectual freedom than, for example, what the Catholic Church did before the Renaissance and then the Enlightenment began knocking the barriers down. Ideologues of all kinds have been trying to reconstruct barriers to fact ever since; what's new with Wikipedia is primarily that its barriers are electronic. You're every bit as anti-intellectual here as any cleric from the 16th Century. There is truly nothing new under the sun; only the forms change. Moynihanian (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Trial length?

Can someone add how long the trial lasted and on what date the jury returned their verdict? Thanks. Are there any digital archives online with scans of Chicago newspapers of the times? --Pmsyyz (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The trial lasted from July 15 to August 20, 1886. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/haymarket/haymarketchrono.html. AECwriter AECwriter 05:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aecwriter (talk • contribs)

At the time it was the longest trial ever held in Illinois. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

However, the jury returned its verdict after only four hours of deliberation, which was speedy. Historians sympathetic to the strikers also claim that the jury had been selected unfairly. That is what they say, I am not endorsing this opinion necessarily ( jury selection records that are on the Library of Congress Website). What this wikipedia entry doesn't really make clear is that the movement for an eight hour day was a huge grass-roots movement among workers and progressives, but that factory owners and the press overwhelmingly did not support it. This is the (easily verifiable context). When wiki editors quotes press coverage they should be aware of that the press was overwhelmingly hostile, as can be seen by the newspaper clips available on the web. Our article could also stress that after the Haymarket and various assassinations by madmen that occurred at about that time, anarchist and socialist organizations overwhelmingly repudiated the use of violence as self defeating.16:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If it is convenient to you, the archives of this newspaper which are readily available, might be a helpful resource. The New York Times, while a quality newspaper for its time, was quite conservative seeing the obvious hand of Johann Most at play. It is also quite chatty, seizing on any excuse for a good sound bite, talk about anachronism... User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The point is that we may never know exactly what happened and that reporting that expert historians disagree in their interpretations of events may be the most honest course to take. Another point is that virtually all leftist movements repudiated violence as a self-defeating tactic in the aftermath of the Haymarket Affair and the wave assassinations that occurred in that same era.Mballen (talk) 18:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the unfair selection of the jury, this is always attributed to the selection of a "special bailiff." The role of the special bailiff in jury selection was unsuccessfully challenged by the defense on appeal and then cited by authors Henry David, Paul Avrich and James Green as an example of prejudice on the part of judge and jury.

Paul Avrich, who is among the scholars challenged by M-K, wrote of the special bailiff: "After eight days of fruitless examination, an unusual expedient was adopted. The candidates for the jury were not selected in the customary manner, by drawing names at random from a box. Instead, they would be handpicked by a special bailiff, nominated by the state's attorney and appointed by the court. While this procedure was sanctioned by the defense, it soon became apparent that the bailiff, Henry L. Ryce, was exercising his powers in a grossly unusual manner, weeding out prospective jurors who might be sympathetic to the defendants. Otis F. Favor, a Chicago businessman who was examined for jury duty, later made an affidavit that Ryce had told him, in the presence of witnesses: 'I am managing this case, and know what I am about. These fellows are going to be hanged as certain as death. I am calling such men as the prosecution wants'" (The Haymarket Tragedy, Avrich, page 264).

He cites the Governor Altgeld's statement on why he pardoned the remaining defendants where that is all set forth in the first few pages, see Gov. Altgeld's pardon .. (1894). We need a section on that. "Illinois. Governor (1893-1897 : Altgeld). Reasons for pardoning Fielden, Neebe and Schwab" The book is actually by Karl Kautsky but contains both the text of the governor's reasons for the pardon and the cited affidavit. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Timothy Messer-Kruse deflates several points made around the appointment of a special bailiff, including that the appointment was "grossly unusual" and the claim the bailiff bragged he was eager to see the defendants hang. Avrich notes that the defense approved the special bailiff, but M-K asserts the defense actually demanded their right to one (and endorsed the man selected). M-K shows the other authors have overstated the central claim that the bailiff packed the jury, but he does ultimately agree the bailiff's choices reduced the number of industrial laborers in the jury box. After the bailiff was appointed, "(t)he rate of selection of industrial workers declined from 26 to 7 percent, while that for businessmen shot up from 41 percent to 59 percent" (The Trial of the Haymarket Anarchists, Messer-Kruse, pages 46-49). That's a factual statement we can use, but I caution against any interpretation one way or the other. As for the bailiff's supposed brag, M-K says it wasn't even Otis Favor who made an affidatit; instead it was EA Stevens who made an affidavit claiming that's what he heard Favor say. User:AecwriterAECwriter 01:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Karl Kautsky is a reliable source. His work contains the text of the governor's pardon statement which includes the text of the affidavit including the name of the person who signed it and the notary he signed it before. That portion of his book is not mere opinion or political analysis, although that too was considered generally reliable, at least before 1917. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Best described as "socialists and anarchists," not "anarchists."

I came here because of the Chronicle article (of course), but was surprised that all of those tried and convicted were described in the lead simply as "anarchists." August Spies describes himself with the following: "While an anarchist in my general conceptions, I am practically and more specifically a socialist." (from his autobiography ). George Engel was a member of the Social Democratic Party. "Adolph Fischer was a militant revolutionary zealot and German-born socialist who immigrated to the U.S. when he was 15 years old." "[Oscar] Neebe was never considered a leader of the Socialist movement, but he remained to play an important role in organizing the movement." Albert Parsons wrote, "The working people thirst for the truths of Socialism and welcome their utterance with shouts of delight." (All of preceding from the UMKC law school website (). Well, I'm sure this debate has been had before, and there's a perfectly reasonable explanation. If not, let's change "anarchists" to something appropriately general such as "anarchists and socialists," or something similar.Haberstr (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Both Avrich and Messer-Kruse (from what I've read so far) make a clear distinction between socialist and anarchist views and actions. The latter (page 13) notes that the anarchists rejected socialist solutions such as worker cooperatives, labor political parties, and trade unions. The movement from socialism to anarchism was a process of radicalization and it is not surprising that many (most?) anarchists found their roots in socialism. I think, on this issue, the article is accurate as it stands. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The definition of anarchism is a reasonable first step, the second reasonable one is to see if your definition matches the views of the Haymarket defendants. From your (Messer-Kruse's) definition and my brief review of facts alone, 'anarchists' is misleading and doesn't cover the main political views of the defendants, while 'anarchists and socialists' does. Does anyone have evidence that most/all the defendants didn't actually and explicitly believe in socialism (or social democracy), or were not members of explicitly socialist (or social democratic) organizations, or were not working for explicitly socialist (or social democratic) newspapers that (by the way and of course) vociferously advocated workers' right to form unions?Haberstr (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about "the main political views of the defendants." Rather, it is about the events described as the Haymarket Affair. Anarchists pursued a very specific revolutionary goal that they felt would likely lead to violence at some point (but not necessarily at Haymarket) -- I don't think this is in dispute. Are you aware of reliable sources that contest the approach used by Avrich and Messer-Kruse to focus on the anarchist nature of the events? I also do not believe it is in dispute that the defendants specific actions and goals were different from the larger movement involved in the May Day demonstrations.

Labeling them as "socialists and anarchists" would be very misleading, especially since the defendants' total political views are not explored in any depth in the article. It suggests an inappropriate POV that there is no real difference between anarchists and socialists. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course the article is not about the "main political views of the defendants." This comment, however, is about something that is in the first sentence of the article's second paragraph, a one word label for the defendants' political views. The defendants were all socialists or social democrats. Some, but not all, also described themselves as anarchists (but not, in the case of Spies, in the sense you have described and which is restated in the following sentence). It is precisely what is in dispute whether all, some, or one of the defendants believed that acts of violence such as setting off a bomb at a crowded public event would lead to chaos and eventually positive political change. Nonetheless, all the defendants are confidently labeled 'anarchists' at the beginning of the entry. As for the notion that "socialists and anarchists" suggests "an inappropriate POV that there is no real difference between anarchists and socialists," does labeling Ghandi a 'vegetarian and socialist' suggest POV that there is no difference between vegeterians and socialists?Haberstr (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Haymarket rally was an anarchist rally. It was organized by anarchists and attended by anarchists. Spies, to quote Messer-Kruse, was "one of the leaders of a 'Revolutionary Congress' held in Pittsburg that formally launched the International Working People's Association, the organizational center of the revolutionary anarchist movement in America." Messer-Kruse differentiates between socialists and anarchists -- he treats them as having similar views on many issues but correctly, IMO, explains why anarchists were a separate group. The events at Haymarket occurred because of their anarchism -- not because of their socialism, their vegetarianism, or, in the case of Albert Parsons, because he was a former Confederate soldier turned Radical Republican.

When we properly emphasize anarchism in our article, we are following the sources. It seems ironic that you are here because of the Chronicle article and are now second guessing Messer-Kruse's emphasis on anarchism. The second sentence of his book refers to the meeting and the fact that it was organized by "self-proclaimed anarchists". On page 3 he refers to "these eight anarchist leaders". He keeps this emphasis throughout the work

Messer-Kruse's treatment is consistent with Paul Avrich's, still the definitive work on the subject. Avrich in the first two sentences of his preface mentions "anarchist" in each and keeps up the emphasis throughout.

Why should wikipedia take a different approach? Probably in the body of the article we should explain, as Avrich and Messer-Kruse do, more fully the relationship of the Haymarket meeting to the overall labor situation, differentiating between the anarchist position and the general position of the majority of the folks involved in the overall demonstrations.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's hear what Louis Lingg had to say on the matter (taken from his court statement at sentencing): "Anarchism and Socialism are as much alike, in my opinion, as one egg is to another. They differ only in their tactics. The Anarchists have abandoned the way of liberating humanity which Socialists would take to accomplish this. I say: Believe no more in the ballot, and use all other means at your command. Because we have done so we stand arraigned here today – because we have pointed out to the people the proper way. The Anarchists are being hunted and persecuted for this in every clime, but in the face of it all Anarchism is gaining more and more adherents, and if you cut off our opportunities of open agitation, then will the work be done secretly." Self-described "propaganda of the deed" anarchist.AECwriter 11:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this ties into the explosive nature of controversy as exemplified at Occupy_Oakland#Anti-police_Saturday_evening_marches_of_2012 and Messer-Kruse's expressions of political opinion regarding the effects of terrorist tactics which according to him resulted in a red scare and set back the labor movement. This provides a motive for suppression of his opinion. I note that the word "anarch*" is wholly absent in the article Occupy_Oakland despite extensive videos of black-clad demonstrators engaging in destructive activity. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the negative public response to the anarchists and Haymarket is part of the existing consensus scholarship and is not unique to Messer-Kruse. As Ayrich says in the conclusion to his work (page 454), "... it [Haymarket] marked the climax of one of the most bitter industrial struggles in America's experience, interrupting the eight-hour movement and turning labor away from radical doctrines for years to come." Also, "... their advocacy of violence, even as a defensive measure, isolated them from the great majority of American citizens, who preferred peaceful reform to armed insurrection. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Anarchist theory is not wedded to unproductive violence. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Fred, because you've said elsewhere that you can't afford M-K's book, you could try a local library or university. If they don't have the book, you can probably obtain it through an interlibrary loan.User:AecwriterAECwriter 02:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've broken down and ordered all three of the recent books. Only M-K's is at all expensive. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Aecwriter, my local library system would scoff at a request for such a scholarly non-fiction tome. Alas, we are cursed with an abundance of romance novels and vampires :) ...and only a handful of books in the entire political / historical / philosophical spectrum. I'm so excited by all this discussion and so want to read the book, that I will visit food pantries for the next month to hoard the necessary sum. As well, this evening I've signed on to our Anarchism Task Force. I've managed to make over 150 edits within a couple of months by maintaining an extremely low profile, but finally got rebuffed today by attempting to add merely a citation to an already existing statement in what I now gather to be a "cherished article" within the Anarchism portal. I do believe, as is mentioned somewhere above in another section, there are some articles that will be untouchable for me for some time to come Fylbecatulous talk 00:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Good luck, Fyl. Gosh, an Anarchism Task Force and an Anarchism Portal. Good thing Wikipedia is "neutral" and "balanced," or that could get out of hand. User:AecwriterAECwriter 07:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

References

History recorded by historian versus history recorded by machine

I'm having some trouble checking the truth of M. Messer-Kruse's account of past events against the actual edit history of the article and account contributions histories, as recorded by MediaWiki. See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 147#History recorded by historian versus history recorded by machine for details and discussion. Uncle G (talk) 08:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• His memory may not be correct; remember this is an inexperienced editor; one of us would have been looking at the edit history while we were writing and have it perfect. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said: See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 147#History recorded by historian versus history recorded by machine for details and discussion. Uncle G (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Messer-Kruse says he tried to edit the article a dozen times over two years -- whereas from my reading he tried a dozen times over two days. Is this simple a case of remembering wrong because of inexperience? Or is it a deliberate distortion?

Here is how he characterized his interaction with wikipedia on NPR:

MESSER-KRUSE: Well, I think one thing is to make new contributors more aware of sort of the Wikipedia culture because I think one of the obstacles I ran into was that I was too easily deterred from trying to persist and make these changes, although I, you know, I try it a dozen times over two years. I sort of gave up after I was scolded and told to look at the civility policy at one point. At one point, I was branded a vandal for trying to change a page after someone had changed it back. And I kind of slunk away. And in the last week, I've been reading some of the comments to my article and some people have been suggesting that I was not persistent enough. So it seems like a catch-22. Either you persist and resist against these policies and accusations, or you don't. In academia, of course, if I submit an article to an editor and I get it returned to me and rejected, I don't then call up the editor and yell at them and insist that it be published. I just go somewhere else. So there's that difference in culture, I think, that maybe many academics like myself would find an obstacle to really contributing.

Mballen (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Messer-Kruse is a historian who is making a career of writing books and articles that cast strong aspersions on inaccuracies he has uncovered (with the help of graduate students) in the works of dead historians. Yet the record shows that he made 12 edits (some of them unexplained deletions, considered vandalism, at that time) in his moments perdus 24 hours in 2009 and then nothing for three more years. 24 hours was the total length of his interaction with wikipedia. So what he is promulgating -- i.e., a story that that he made many efforts to edit the article over a period of two years -- is, paradoxically -- to use his terminology -- a "myth" -- a myth designed to cast doubt on the veracity of wikipedia and to insinuate that he alone possesses "the truth". Also the record shows editors asking him to please be patient, to try to learn wikipedia's guidelines, yet he mentions nothing of this. I, for one, question Professor Messer-Krause's sincerity; and I wonder at the credulity of those who are giving him all this publicity.Mballen (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Do the details really matter at this point? Or, for that matter, does Messer-Kruse's motivation? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it matters to see what is really going on here. I think the Chronicle of Higher ed and NPR really are to blame for their misleading reporting. I suppose it is not news that entities such as this feel very threatened by the internet. As for the Haymarket, that took place over a hundred and twenty years ago, and worker's rights have probably never been in more jeopardy than today.Mballen (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of completely unsourced opinion ... Moynihanian (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Police corruption

“The police commander who ordered the dispersal was later convicted of police corruption.” This vague sentence needs to go. It’s an example of how poor scholarship has been whittled down to pure innuendo in an effort to make the defendants appear innocent. First, these corruption allegations of 1889 had nothing at all to do with the Haymarket incident, making it misleading. Second, it’s unclear if “police commander” means Inspector John Bonfield or Capt. Michael Schaack. Third, neither was convicted of police corruption. M-K has a footnote on the matter on page 194: “Paul Avrich…(claims) that both Bonfield and Schaack were dismissed in disgrace from the police force after an investigation found them taking payoffs, including stolen goods…. Had Avrich consulted a wider array of sources he would have discovered that neither Bonfield nor Schaack were ‘cashiered’ but that both were in fact cleared of all charges.”

For those who argue about “consensus opinion,” I point out that two scholars who allege corruption, Henry David and Paul Avrich, have different accounts of said corruption.

I’m deleting the sentence.(talk)AECwriter 01:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's a third account. According to Robert Loerzel in Alchemy of Bones: Chicago's Luetgert Murder Case of 1897 (University of Illinois Press; 2003) , Police Captain Michael Schaack, lead investigator of the Haymarket bombing (and author of the book Anarchy and Anarchists , 1889 cited repeatedly -- and uncritically -- in our article), was dismissed from the police force on charges he had manufactured evidence, but was reinstated in 1892. The Luxembourg-born Schaack was a celebrated and flamboyant figure who was controversial throughout his career. See http://www.alchemyofbones.com/stories/omalley.htmhttp://www.amazon.com/Alchemy-Bones-Chicagos-Luetgert-Murder/dp/0252028589

Sections of the book pertaining to Schaack are on the web: http://www.alchemyofbones.com/who/closeups/schaack.htm Mballen (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

According to Loerzel (p. 52), many saw Schaack's book (quoted here at length, often without attribution) as the product of a warped mind. Mballen (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

I am rather unsure as to how to proceed according to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. It is clear to me that the article does not currently meet good article criteria. But is also seems clear that what is needed is a major rewrite not a review. Would it be possible to simply delist it at this point? I don't think a renomination would be productive until considerable work has been done. The good article nomination and discussion is at Talk:Haymarket_affair/Archive_3#Good_article_nomination_on_hold which was closed favorably by a user account of User:Steven Walling. Is there an objection to simply delisting it pending improvement? User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, any GA article can be listed or delisted by anyone at any time (see the "Individual reassessment" instructions under WP:GAR). You don't need to do a thorough re-assessment if you feel there's one major problem (stability/conflict) that overrides everything else. If someone really objects, they can take it to a "Community reassessment", and hash it out then. But until then, feel free to be bold and just delist it. —Designate (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I will unless someone speaks up and gives a good reason. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Be patient with the community reassessment at WP:GAR. That is the most likely way to get other involved to take action to improve the article. In the mean time, you can notify all the projects listed here of the discussion there. In addition that process will result in a collective consensus regarding its quality rating. If there are no comments on that page at the end of next month then there might be reason to be concerned.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep notifying the projects, maybe we will get some more editors involved. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

New York Times coverage

Contemporary coverage from The New York Times:

• "RIOTING AND BLOODSHED IN THE STREETS OF CHICAGO" Chicago, May 4
• "DANGER STILL LURKING", Chicago, May 6
• "THE ANARCHISTS COWED". Chicago, May 7
• "THE CHICAGO ANARCHISTS", Chicago, May 10

Other:

• "Putting the Working Class on Trial: Law and Order in the Wake of the Haymarket Bombing Alyssa Gardina

User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Still other - Wikipedia on Trial -:

a librarian's thoughtsMballen (talk) 02:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Chronistic considerations

It was 1886, the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral occurred in 1881. Dynamite, detonators, guns and ammunition were freely available to anyone with the money to buy them. Clever political agitators had not figured out that provoking the police to attack or kill you is far more effective in mobilizing public support than killing them. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

With the anarchists gone, Chicago has been peaceful for 125 years. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that the opposite happened, far from having public support, the anarchists were reviled, and remain stigmatized. Progressive reformers went to great lengths to dissociate themselves from them and to this day, May Day is not celebrated as Labor Day in this country. Some mining industries granted workers an eight-hour day in 1898, twelve years after the Haymarket Affair, and after WW1 others gradually followed (including, for example, Henry Ford's auto manufacturing, to the great annoyance of the other car makers), but the desirability of the eight hour day was not officially proclaimed until 1937, under the Fair Labor Practices Act of FDR's New Deal. So it could be argued that the violence of the Haymarket Affair really retarded the its adoption.Mballen (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Fur phun

The bloody revolutionaries of 1886 were gradually transmogrified over the next 125 years into unrecognizeable plaster saints by leftist sycophants. When in 2011 a serious researcher who had not drunk the Kool-aid attempted to edit the Wikipedia article "Haymarket affair" he was given the bum's rush and reduced to whining in the Chronicle of Higher Education about "Truth".

Actually we do need something similar, but, as usual, references needed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Granted, they are frequently referred to in secondary literature as "martyrs", do you really think that suggesting they may not have received a fair trial is equivalent to calling them plaster saints?Mballen (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It bears repeating that M-K says in his book the anarchist defendants were indeed martyrs, just not the kind of martyrs they had been made out to be. Oscar Neebe, among the pardoned, later in life scorned their portrayal as "bleating lambs." Whatever their role in the Haymarket bombing, they did in fact seek revolution, regarded dynamite as a tool, and were quite ready to attack police. The connection between the plan and the bombing remain murky. If we "suggest they may not have received a fair trial," we are obligated to point out the errors on the part of the defense. That includes requesting the special bailiff, not instructing the jury that manslaughter convictions were an option, not requesting separate trials, and arguing that they acted in self-defense, which implied guilt. The literature also wrongly characterizes the judge as being wholly biased against the defendants. In several instances the judge intervened when the defense made errors. Much of the perception of an unfair trial come from the appeals to the Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. Arguments were made on appeal that were not made during the trial, which prevented them from being considered by the higher courts. After the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the convictions, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the case and by unanimous decision denied the writ of error. User:AecwriterAECwriter 14:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about whether they were or were not martyrs, I said that martyr is not the same as "plaster saint" which is how you characterize the 1980s historians view of them. You say the trial was fair because it showed the defendants advocated revolutionary violence (in what they saw as self-defense) and several of them were known to have made bombs. But you say the connection to this particular crime was murky. That seems to be the substance of M-K's "revisionist" argument. Other historians might say that "murky" = unfair, even given the fact that they had been training as a militia and possessed bombs. In other words, merely being an anarchist made them guilty, or as good as. In fact, as I see it, that is the whole point to these quarrels. I don't think it is necessary to give a play-by-play account of the trial here, only representative examples, say, of why M-K disagrees with Avrich. Let readers make up their own minds. That is NPOV as I understand it. 17:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Mballen (talk)

I have begun summarizing the trial. Murky well describes certain matters such as Waller's testimony of the meeting of May 3. I can't tell from that if they ever decided anything; likewise Rau's account of reaction at the newspaper to "Ruhe" being printed. More confusion than conspiracy. Fischer seems to have played a pivotal role, just my opinion, of course. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Too Many Subheads

Subheads were recently added without any argument being made as to why. They break up the article without providing any organization. Generally, subheads should not be used to announce text of one or two sentences.

I agree the article does require some thoughtful reconsideration of section titles and subheads, but this was not done well. Lately I've been looking at other articles that center around a trial, like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and O.J. Simpson, where there are good examples of sections and subheads. User:AecwriterAECwriter 14:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It is work in progress on a start class article where an outline is appropriate. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If a article on the trial, a tedious and dreary chore of little general interest, in my opinion, is to be written, please create it. It would not be deleted. This article about an historic epoch in labor and political history. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the subheads. Obviously it's an article about both labor history and the trial.

I've been hanging back on writing something to summarize the trial in an engaging and balanced way, feeling I need to do more reading before undertaking this difficult task, though I see no reason why the end result need be dreary. Also, Tom had said he would undertake the effort of rewriting the article, so I was waiting to see what he produced. Could be he is reading also. To prepare myself, I've been limiting myself editing articles about individual defendants. User:AecwriterAECwriter 02:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was bold and did some editing. Hope it will be found satisfactory. There is still a lot of needless redundancy and possibly too much detail, but so be it. My main change was to limit the use of the term "anarchist" to those actually brought to trial. The demonstrators I think should just be called demonstrators as more NPOV. By the way, I didn't find other sources, such as the library of Congress and various University websites, suggesting that it was an excessively speedy trial. Mballen (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for diving in, Fred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aecwriter (talk • contribs) 03:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not happy with many of the changes, never am, but thanks to both of you for weighing in. One important thing. Not all information gathered during the investigation was presented as evidence in the trial, nor could it be. Be sure to check regarding whether something was actually presented as evidence before moving it there. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I went through it twice and tried to change references to Avrich (1984), pp. 232-34. From Averich, The Haymarket Tragedy, pp. 232-234. (no date) which I think is shorter and preferable. Because it took so long there was an editing conflict and it wouldn't accept my changes. Maybe someone else would like to try. Or perhaps it is not necessary. I think it is more elegant, myself.Mballen (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if my changes created an edit conflict. My personal preference is to include the book's title, but I'll defer to your judgment. So long as it's consistent throughout the article, I'm happy. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Elegant is better. What was the edit, Mballen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:AecwriterAECwriter 16:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually went through whole thing and made about 40 tiny edits, changing the title of the book to the date (except in the first mention). I haven't completely grasped the automatic citation template and am not sure what Wikipedia prefers, though I'm sure would probably prefer consistency as an ideal, at any rate (few articles seem to achieve this). I am prepared to defer to anyone who has more knowledge (or stronger feelings) about this matter than I do. I know there are different preferences among different style editors.Mballen (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It's my impression that you get a "conflict" alert only when two people are trying to edit the same section at the same time.User:AecwriterAECwriter 16:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

We have an unusual citation format going here, although I once thought it should be standard. We have a section for works cited, then, for the works listed as sources used, a shorthand citation. It is a little confusing at first. I think we should generally follow Malik Shabazz's lead as he seems to have a clear conception of what he wants. It is hard, however, for me to remember all the details of the expected format. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I consider it a learning experience!

The wiki entry on shortened citations approves both styles, calling one "notes" (with date and page number only) and the other "references" (title and page number only), and when using dates has one comma instead of two parenthesis (my bad). In our case there are three main dates for books cited more than once: 1936 (David); 1984 (Avrich); and 2011 (Messer-Kruse). Avrich wrote another work in 1969, but it is cited only once, so can be given in full. Chicago says if you have a bibliography you can use shortened notes throughout, though it seems to me a no brainer that having the first reference cited in full is easiest on the memory of the reader. Chicago, MLA. and Social Sciences stylesheets are quite different, BTW. Chicago is preferred by book publishers. (The trend is Science and Social Science citations is to completely avoid italics.)

Here are examples of wiki-approved shortened citations from the wiki article on that topic.

The Sun is pretty big,[1] but the Moon is not so big.[2] The Sun is also quite hot.[3]

Notes

^ Miller 2005, p. 23.

^ Brown 2006, p. 46.

^ Miller 2005, p. 34.

References

Brown, Rebecca (2006). "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51(78).

Miller, Edward (2005). The Sun. Academic Press.

Shortened notes using titles rather than publication dates would look like this in the article:

Notes

^ Miller, The Sun, p. 23.

^ Brown, "Size of the Moon", p. 46.

^ Miller, The Sun, p. 34.

See also: http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2012/03/01/which-shortening-is-best-ibid-op-cit-loc-cit-etc/ Mballen (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Prosecution Testimony -- Whoa

The current revisions being made to this section are, IMO, out of control. The problems seem obvious:

1. It is all original research. The only source being cited is a primary source -- the trial transcripts. This article originally attracted attention because M-K tried to make a few edits based on his analysis of primary sources. Now 18,000+ bytes of ext have been added and all of it it original research. At this rate, the wikipedia article will have more material on the actual trial than M-K does in his book.

2. This is way too much information. So far only three of the 24 days of testimony have been added and the article is already way too detailed. I can't see where the section needs to be any more than six or eight paragraphs. The people who have commented have suggested a small expansion in the existing test on the trial might be in order. Nobody has suggested what is currently going on.

3. There is no analysis being added. This, of course, must come from the reliable secondary sources. Our article should only provide specifics on the testimony where the reliable sources feel it is relevant.

Fred needs to stop adding material and bring the discussion here. Absent anybody thinking the present course he is pursuing is a good idea, we need to revert everything that he has added and start over. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There is analysis in M-K's book which is mainly about the trial. It can be added as appropriate, for example the objection when Waller was asked if had had any bombs. Although Waller's comments are nearly as dense and hard to understand as defendant's objection was. It is very difficult to summarize something you don't understand. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

M-K's analysis is a lot more understandable if a link to the testimony or other event he is commenting on is briefly summarized with a link to it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Briefly summarized? There is nothing brief about what you have been adding to the article. By the time you are finished, the article will be way to long and unreadible. It is original research on your part to summarize the primary sources because YOU, not a reliable secondary source, are making the determination of what material to include and what to exclude.

There are already cited reliable sources that summarize key points of the testimony. These sources are what the article should rely on. It is inappropriate for you to second guess these sources on what aspects of the testimony is relevant.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Reading and interpreting primary sources is the job of appropriate professionals publishing original research. Writing a narrative out of primary sources is original research. This isn't appropriate in an historical article. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Brief summaries of the content of the testimony is not original research, we do that all the time, in fact, with all sources. It is not offered as truth of the testimony, only of its content. When it is finished it will contain both sides. I think it will be possible to shorten and summarize it later as much of it is repetitive. Mass deletion of well-sourced material is improper. The information that "that there was no evidence" will also be included, and its source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The interpretation of documents is the professional function of the historian. For a variety of reasons past documents are not trustworthy, including deliberate falsification, linguistic shift, constructions of meaning and power relations, and gaps in the documentary record. The material is not well sourced, its OR. Cite out of Messer-Kreuse's work on the trial, and judiciously and minimally illustrate major points (where observed as major by someone who can interpret documents) with the primary source. Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing amateur history, nor for publishing original research conducted by professional historians if they just happen to be wikipedia editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Using primary sources is original research.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research. And you're making a lot of statements and making changes without any discussion. No one really understands what you're doing. I also think the article should be readable even if it's a start class article. User:AecwriterAECwriter 02:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources#You are allowed to use primary sources... carefully, "Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles."

"Primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is True™. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what we're saying it does." Thus my summaries of testimony can be edited and refined by anyone who wishes to do so. I am not adding commentary about what I might believe is the significance of the testimony. Although reading the testimony at length does clear up certain matters which might otherwise be uncertain such as the place in the police formation where the bomb fell, in the middle, not in front, or who gave the statutory order to disperse, Captain Ward, not Inspector Bonfield, as the NYT's article has it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This is OR, and you are conducting yourself disruptively. Stop it. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Fred -- the key word is "carefully". Your revisions leave 25% of the article based on primary sources. Carrying forward at your rate (which you've indicated is your intention) would bring the percentage close to 50%. There is nothing "careful" about that -- especially since there are readily available secondary sources that adequately summarize the data. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

A summary to the effect that there was no evidence can be added. User:Fred Bauder Talk 05:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Although that would take only one sentence and viewed as a percentage of material would be rather small compared to a summary of the testimony. User:Fred Bauder Talk 05:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to see the sources can readily find them on the web and can be directed there, so it is doubly a waste of space to quote them at length. It is not as though Fred is looking at the archives.03:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is clear that even short summaries of all the testimony, and other elements in the trial would be of considerable volume, perhaps 200k. What is more troubling is the degree of imbalance it would introduce into the article. The trial, indeed the event itself, needs to be set in its context of American labor history, the struggle for the eight hour day, and the movement to support the defendants and remember them.

I'm thinking perhaps a separate article, perhaps titled Trial of the Haymarket Eight, might be a better place for extended treatment of the trial. It is difficult to write about the trial, beginning from scratch, because one must start somewhere, and starting with the prosecution evidence makes everything seems very point of view. Perhaps we could create a framework from M-K's commentary on the trial and support that with links to the testimony and exhibits when relevant. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Commericial public relations firms who have been trying to infiltrate wikipedia on behalf on their clients are watching Mr. Messer-Kruse's PR antics with great interest, since for years, they have been running into the Undue weight rules. Interesting, too, they quote the comments, purportedly in support of Messer-Kruse:

Among the hundreds of comments is one that says WP’s insistence on believing in the innocence of the bombers shows the “left slant” of WP’s editors and their “painful contortions of reason, logic and debate rules and when confronted with evidence in conflict with the party line, (they) lapse into lectures on civility.” Messer-Kruse’s attempts to correct the WP entries on the bombing were erased within minutes and he was warned that further attempts would get him classified as a “vandal” and permanently barred from WP. Other entries on the Chronicle’s website note that almost all WP “editors” operate behind a cloak of anonymity while scholars and journalists are required to identify themselves and accept public criticism. Journalists, it is noted, often risk their lives in pursuit of information and in providing their bylines. Several postings said few of the 10,000 WP “editors” have any expertise or background in the subjects they are editing.:::http://www.odwyerpr.com/blog/index.php?/categories/99-Wikipedia http://www.odwyerpr.com/blog/index.php?/authors/8-Jack-ODwyer/P2.html

Kind of misses the point; undue weight was not properly interpreted above. Press releases are still not reliable sources, even if reprinted by great newspapers. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No separate article for the trial. If you want to talk about the larger labor history, go edit the article "Eight-hour day." User:AecwriterAECwriter 23:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't seem to have an article which adequately addresses the McCormick rally and the incident at the McCormick factory gate on May 3. This incident could be covered better in this article, the eight hour day article or a separate article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Fred, the point is not whether press releases are or are not "reliable sources" (and there is no way to tell if a newspaper article is or isn't based on a press release). The point is that PR firms do not like Wikipedia's undue weight policy POV because it hinders them from using wikipedia to publicize the work of their clients. They like Messer-Kraus's public attack on this policy and are noting his success at publicizing his book and at provoking public opinion against wikipedia.Mballen (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The undue weight guideline was not applied properly here, what did happen that it was cited improperly to exclude well-sourced information. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If you are talking about the 2009 interaction, Professor Messer-Kruse, author of a tendentious book about the trial, declined to follow wikipedia's guidelines. Had he done so in 2009, then his version of events would have been accepted (as one among many versions). Instead, he deleted material without explanation, which is considered vandalism, and then ceased contributing after leaving a snarky comment about the supposed bias against his view by wikipedia's editors. Then, two years later, he published an opinion piece alleging that he was being treated unfairly by wikipedia because he and he alone is possessed of "the TRUTH"; and he went on NPR falsely stating that he had been trying to "correct the record" on wikipedia for a period of two years (instead of 24 hours, as was in fact the case). But you must know that.Mballen (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Unreadable

The strange wording of edits, the odd arguments being made in Talk, and the wounded pouting lead me to believe that more than one editor here is stoned. Which makes me feel silly for having taken this article seriously for the last two months. Why I've conributed my good work to this effort, I no longer know. User:AecwriterAECwriter 17:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The article remains an embarrassment and needs lots of work. It is an emotionally charged matter which has not received adequate scholarly attention. Difficult issues are raised by the subject matter, the sources available, and our editing process. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Avrich is now cited 28 times, Foner 16, and Messer-Kraus 12 times. That is pretty respectable for Messer-Kraus, author of only one book on the topic, and that less than a year old. Also, all the changes he wanted have now been made. Perhaps it is time for the unbalanced notice to come off. Of course, that does not preclude future improvements to the article, which would include a well-sourced historiography section, IMO. Some further background on German anarchism and the German-48er immigrants to the USA might also be pertinent.17:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Mballen (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't go by count. That a newbie editor, however well-educated and well-informed, did not edit well is irrelevant. The article remains unbalanced and containins little solid information about any aspect of the matter and considerable misinformation that has no place here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Highlighted the ambiguity and contentiousness of Messer-Kruse's argument: i.e., he says that the trial was fair, but implied that "most" but not all of the defendants were guilty. He then says that although the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, it was indeed "tragic" (but not a miscarriage of justice? How can this be?) that four of the anarchists were hung. He also contends that the defense lawyers defended not the defendants, but anarchism itself. Does he offer proof of this in the book? Also there really is undue weight if the opinions of the majority of historians -- David, Avrich, and Foner are not given.

He conveniently summarizes his conclusions on page 8 of his book, however I'm not sure they are supported even by his own work. It is clear to me that jury selection was a miscarriage of justice, which is what the governor who pardoned the remaining 3 defendants concluded, see Gov. Altgeld's pardon .. (1894). Weight, for the purpose of determining undue weight, must be determined on the basis of how the sources are treated now by historians; I doubt David, Avrich, and Foner are taken very seriously today. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Now I will say a few words about the affair as I see it, in case anyone thinks I personally have "leftist bias". By chance my S.O., who reads German well, last week happened to visit the museum of the City of Chicago and saw an exhibit on the Haymarket Affair. My S.O. concluded, on the basis, not of Messer-Kruse's recent book, but on knowledge of German, that the bomb was likely thrown by an anarchist, but thought that the trial was a farce. IMO we will never know who threw the bomb, it is likely to have been an anarchist or a provocateur. I also am willing to believe that the evidence was more damning than some critics of the trial would have you believe and that according to their lights the prosecution may have been more fair than is generally believed. Making bombs and advocating their use IMO is wrong and I seriously doubt that historians of the trial believe otherwise.Mballen (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It is unknown who threw the bomb, but there is good evidence that one of the defendants spent a day making bombs, loaded them in a box, and carried them to a "Hall" where anyone who wanted to was free to take bombs from the box and that several men did. It is not leftist bias that is at issue, but whether propaganda has a place in a reference work. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The original source, other than the investigator is Testimony of William Seliger (first appearance), 1886 July 21. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

According to Avrich (p. 231) the satchel (or trunk) was intended for the Lehr-und-Wehr Verein (p. 161) a radical group that held weekly drills with bombs and other weapons and which met at Neff's Hall (located behind a tavern). The hall was the meeting place of both Lehr-und-Wehr Verein and the Northside Anarchist group of which Seliger and Lingg were members. http://chicagocrimescenes.blogspot.com/2009/07/lehr-und-wehr-verein-and-second.html Here is the reference for trial testimony, which differs from the story you tell: http://www.chicagohistory.org/hadc/transcript/volumej/251-300/J272-285.htm

The story that you tell does occur in a contemporary book about the affair, Anarchy and the Anarchists written in 1889: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/schaak/chapter13.html I am not saying the story is not true. Only that accounts differ and that an encyclopedia must give both. Here is another reference, according to which Avrich thinks Schwab threw the bomb, and if this is true then it is not true that Avrich thought the defendants were all innocent! http://books.google.com/books?id=_cvK3VNcp28C&pg=PA346&lpg=PA346&dq=time+of+explosion+of+Haymarket+bomb&source=bl&ots=dYTLRfO6kO&sig=tSJgrz9-fKH3_dh_-T8fDVL0_nk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oeZXT-39D4Hx0gGs6qHBBg&ved=0CGcQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=time%20of%20explosion%20of%20Haymarket%20bomb&f=false

Personally, I wonder if it could ever have been possible to have had a fair trial of an incident of that nature.Mballen (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

They were taking bombs and other ammunition to this venue for drills on a weekly basis regularly over a considerable period of time, not just on the evening of the Haymarket rally -- in case I haven't made myself clear.Mballen (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Finally, and I don't have time to contribute more for now, contrary to the assertions of Messer-Kruse that the consensus of historians comes down on the side of the anarchists, the website Dramas of Haymarket, an online project produced by the Chicago Historical Society and Northwestern University, concludes that there is no consensus and that the Haymarket affair continues to be a contested issue on the part of historians and the public alike and probably always will be: http://www.chicagohistory.org/dramas/epilogue/epilogue.htm Mballen (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Fred wrote: "I doubt David, Avrich, and Foner are taken very seriously today. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)". I beg to differ. I think that David, Foner, Avrich, and Green (author of a Ph.D. dissertation on the affair) are indeed taken seriously. They are the main authorities on this topic. Other authorities, I imagine, are the collective ones on the Library of Congress and Chicago Historical Society website, as well as the U of Missouri at Kansas City and Northwestern legal and history departments that have posted archival material on the web. Foner, it is true, has come under attack for inaccuracy, but inaccuracy is very common especially among historians who are as vastly productive (with the assistance of graduate students) as he was.Mballen (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Mballen (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

An error

In this edit my language summarizing the content of M-K's book is quoted, then attributed to M-K. Although it is hard to summarize a scholarly work in one phrase, I believe it is a fair characterization of M-K's book. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the quote marks. My problem is your attempt to pass off opinion as fact. Your use of the words "shows" is POV and does not belong; this was my point in reverting your edit. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It is our routine practice to summarize the information in a source and express it in our own words. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. I can't believe you are seriously going to defend your attempt to pass off opinion as fact. Check out WP:RSOPINION. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops, missed that. Thanks for removing quotes around passim.Mballen (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Fred tries to pass off much. This is same editor who unilaterally decided to revert the article to Start Class, then used its Start Class status as a reason for haphazard, confusing edits, acting as though he passively found himself in this situation. It's a "work in progress," he told us imperiously, assuring us he just wanted to get the edits started. Yet soon after, in another post he condemned anyone who might make a "mass deletion" of the mess he created.

More confusing is Fred's stance on adding facts about the trial. Initially, he announced that adding trial details would be "dreary." He wasn't interested in the trial, but in the labor history. Strange then that so many of his edits do focus on the trial. One was a long list of OR bullets that became a self-fulfilling prophecy when it comes to "dreary." Then he suggested a new article be created for the trial. Why try to craft a passage about the trial if you admit you want it excised from the article completely? This sort of inconsistency characterizes Fred's approach to editing.

I for one am going to take Fred's original assertion to heart. It's a "work in progress," with many changes ahead.User:AecwriterAECwriter 03:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I find the characterization of previous historians as "seeing things through a romantic haze" or creating "plaster saints" to be inaccurate, just based on googling the web. One could do worse than model any future wiki article on the excellent presentation by Northwestern University, which makes the point that the Haymarket Affair was a turning point in the way foreign immigrants were viewed, especially Germans (the term at the time included Jews and Czechs). Another website made the point that it was a turning point in the history of the second amendment, because the thwarted attempt by the workers to organize various miltias (to counter the private militias employed by the factory owners), which used to drill at beer gardens such as that owned by Neff's tavern. The extreme repressiveness of the Kaiser's autocratic government ought also to be taken into account when discussing the militancy of the anarchists. Also these sites make the point that occurred to me, which is that the eight hour day only became federal law in 1937 by executive order of Franklin Roosevelt. And May Day is still not celebrated here as a worker's holiday because of the contested memory of the historic event.Mballen (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

"Googling the web." I've got to try that sometime. User:AecwriterAECwriter 16:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

All Wikipedia artilces are "works in progress" -- which is one reason they cannot be considered repositiories of "TRUTH" nor used reliable sources for citation in scholarly papers. This is also why why scholars don't seek to publish their original research here. Nevertheless, they are of course very useful as tertiary sources, needless to say! Cheers!Mballen (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Any reviews yet?

Have there been any reviews of Messer-Kruse's book yet? Because, at this point, all he is is an academic who had published a book on the subject that makes controversial claims about the subject. Since the book is considered a "controversial and groundbreaking new history" as described by the publisher, we should really be giving it minimal weight until there is evidence, through reviews, that the new info is accepted by the historian community.

I'm also concerned about potential copyvios in the article, as the use of Messer-Kruse's book in Ref 49 references a decently long section of a paragraph, which includes the phrase "and Louis Lingg, the hot-headed bomb maker denounced by his associate, Seliger." Hot-headed is not a normal encyclopedic term to use, which implies it is from the book. And it is not in quotes, which is where my concerns about a copyvio come from. Or, at least, close paraphrasing. Silverseren^C 03:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The phrase, "and Louis Lingg, the hot-headed bomb maker denounced by his associate, Seliger.", was introduced into the article in this edit It replaced this:

On May 7 police searched the house of William Seliger where Louis Lingg was lodging and found in Lingg's room a number of bombs and bomb making materials. Selig, upon his arrest, caved in and talked freely, identifying Lingg as a bomb maker.

User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's a handy, if limited, search of a kind that often works for this: Scholar "The Trial of the Haymarket" since 2011 Nothing as of: Fifelfoo (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I already ran that search. I was just wondering if there had been anything Google missed. But, yeah, until those reviews are out, Kruse's book should only be used sparingly and minimally. I'm also concerned that the only reason the book is being pushed so hard by some Wikipedians is because of the article he wrote in the Chronicle of Higher Learning. Considering that, as I see have been noted in above section, a fair amount of what he stated in that piece was incorrect, I don't feel any credence should be lent to it. And it certainly should not affect the normal process of how article building works. Outside influence should not affect anything internal in terms of our normal processes. If we let that happen, it won't be long before governmental politics and worse get involved. Silverseren^C 04:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Labor History is the most likely candidate. Their current issue is 2011 52 (4) so I'd suspect that any review would appear in 53. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

But it could appear in any of the four issues, sadly. :/ At least the first issue for 2012 should be out within 3 or so weeks. Silverseren^C 04:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

By all means we should keep looking for reviews, and for comparative evaluations of earlier work. However, M-K's work was published by an academic press and in peer-reviewed journals and there is no basis in Wikipedia policy for not using it freely. Additionally, in his work M-K evaluates earlier work; those evaluations may be used both in the article and as the basis for editorial discretion regarding their reliability and appropriate use. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that since it, as described, overturns all the prior scholarship in the subject area, we should be very cautious on how we use it until it has been vetted by other historians. Just because it has been published doesn't mean there aren't flaws in it that the first review to come out will point out. When dealing with things that reverse the entire rest of the academic community in the area, we need to be careful. Silverseren^C 14:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It conforms to the trial transcript, which earlier historians did not access. He is respected enough that he was invited to speak at the Chicago History Museum the current name of the Chicago Historical Society: "Dr. Tim Messer-Kruse, chair of the Department of Ethnic Studies, will offer his thoughts on the historic trial during the Haymarket Commemoration Weekend at the Chicago History Museum Saturday and Sunday (Sept. 24 and 25) [2011]. http://www.bgsu.edu/offices/mc/zoomnews/inbrief/09-22-11/page101438.html User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That does give more credence to Messer-Kruse. Though I don't think it's much to ask to wait for the first scholarly review of his work before going all-out in using his book to rewrite the article. Silverseren^C 14:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

We have a problem: "Anyone who mentions Haymarket without reading this book risks embarrassment." Ends 125 years of cant User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Is Morgan Jones someone important? Silverseren^C 15:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem. Giving someone a hearing, as the Chicago History Museum is doing, is not at all the same as giving them an unqualified endorsement. Contrary to what is being implied Messer-Kruse's opinions have already been duly noted here. Does Fred Brauder really think that Messer-Kruse should henceforth be considered the sole source of information on the Haymarket Affair? Mballen (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is a discussion of the book on a modern anarchist site that M-K participated in. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Um, Fred, did you actually read the comments on the link you sent? Not one commenter was the least bit impressed by Messer-Kruse's sweeping assertions.Mballen (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It's an anarchist forum, not a seminar on anarchist history. Its interest for me was that M-K showed up and responded in good faith. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Fred, Messer-Kruse does a lot more than summarize the trial transcript. He draws conclusions about historical events, and it is those conclusions that are being given undue weight. I find it hard to believe that somebody in this day and age accepts, almost without question, everything the police and prosecution say, but that's what Messer-Kruse seems to do. You seem certain that Messer-Kruse's slim volume has replaced Avrich's book (which is about two or three times its size) and all prior historiography. Why? Because Messer-Kruse says so? Because his publisher says so? Without independent, third-party reviews we are left to rely on... what? The size of Messer-Kruse's megaphone? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I've purchased Avrich and am reading it, and using it as a source, see the section in the article entitled "Background," but I'm only beginning to read it. M-K strongly criticizes Avrich's use of sources, particularly A Concise History of the Great Trial of the Chicago Anarchists (1896) by Dyer D. Lum, see pages 7 and 8 of M-K's book. His criticisms seem well founded. Lum is kind of available on line at http://books.google.com/books?id=3TPG4lidRxQC&pg=PA1&dq=Dyer+D.+Lum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=97FOT8nuB4GvsQLppvUS&ved=0CFgQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Dyer%20D.%20Lum&f=false but is a rather expensive investment for such a low quality book; not that there were not great wrongs which justify his passion, if not his treatment of information. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Repeated deletion of sourced material

Simply claiming that material that has good sources, in this case the trial transcript and The New York Times is original research, when it is well within our guidelines for use of reliable sources in inappropriate. Use of primary sources, which the NYT's source is not, depends on how they are used. Simply summarizing the indictment and the report of the Grand Jury is not original research. I'm not edit warring, but reserve the right to replace information inappropriately deleted information. Which I will do from time to time as I work on the article. Only a good reason founded on Wikipedia guidelines and policies justifies deletion of well-sourced and appropriate information. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand what is going on in the mind of Fred Bauder. He put words in the mouth of a source. Mballen (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

An example is needed. Summaries can always be improved on. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Use of a 19th century newspaper for opinion, when High Quality secondary sources are available is original research. The interpretation of what 19th century bourgeoisie newspapers thought, and its connection with both opinions and reality is the job of an expert. Similarly, the reading of trial documentation into historical narrative is original research. If you wish to become an amateur historian of 19th century labour disputes, the local history journals for Chicago are that way. This is an encyclopaedia, which represents the state of research in secondary sources, not personal interpretations of past documents. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Fifelfoo. Correct me if I'm wrong, but every editor who has commented (except Fred) has opposed the reliance on primary sources for adding new material. If the info is relevant it should not be that difficult to find a secondary source that says the same thing. Picking and choosing material from primary sources that fits a particular agenda is both POV and OR. While the declaration is made that "I'm not edit warring", the fact is that continuing to use sources that everyone else opposes seems like the very definition of edit warring. I would suggest that Fred share his plans on the discussion page first and obtain agreement, if possible, for his future edits if they use these same types of sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The report of the Grand Jury is about the content of the indictment and the report they made to the court. Any opinion is theirs and the, initial, relevant question is whether it is appropriately reported and summarized. The sources used, the trial transcript and a newspaper article which quotes their report verbatim, are appropriate. Again, it is Wikipedia guidelines and polices which control these questions not Wikipedia:I don't like it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The report of the Grand Jury is nothing more than a regurgitation of the prosecution's case. Finding multiple excuses to include the same material creates a very clear POV. You have made it clear what your POV is with comments like this [9] where you refer to historians that disagree with you as "leftist academic sycophants" and this [10] where you declare M-K is merely reflecting the new majority opinion and describe those who disagree with you as "barbarians" and this [11] where you refer to the "hagiography of the American left". Why should the wikipedia article include information that not even M-K felt was relevant for his book? Why, in your edit, did you ignore M-K's info (p. 36) that "the defense successfully appealed for a change of venue out of Judge Rogers' court on the grounds that his charge to the grand jury had been biased? It is the existence of relevant info like this from secondary sources which makes you amateur use of primary sources misleading and casts doubt on the relevance of any opinions expressed by the grand jury. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Not all grand jury reports are "regurgitations of the prosecution's case". We don't actually have any source for the prosecution's case in any event, although somewhere in some archive the records of the proceedings of that grand jury might exist. As to my point of view, for the purpose of Wikipedia editing, it is reality based, not politically based. That is what we do here. Political advocacy and discourse belongs in other forums. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestions for expanding coverage of the grand jury's return to include information about change of venue are productive. Shame it was all deleted before you could improve on it. I'll take a look at M-K's coverage of the grand jury. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I glanced reviews of Avrich's book printed in scholarly journals on Jstor, through the library I belong to, and I saw that while Avrich was a leftist with an interest in Anarchism (not the bomb-throwing kind, but rather the kind that George Orwell favored), his book was faulted several times for refraining from coming to conclusions, not for leftist bias. As for the eminent celebrities, such as Clarence Darrow and William Dean Howells, who criticized the trial, their criticisms were based on free speech grounds. (One of them said he could have ended up being tried for murder simply for having been present at a rally and listened to a speech.) So the accusations flying around here against historians for "erecting plaster saints" and for supposedly contributing to "a whitewash" and the like are aimed entirely at non-existent hypothetical strawmen, and consist of suppositions and innuendo.Mballen (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Section on the Chicago anarchists

We need a background section under Haymarket_affair#Background which outlines the nature of the Chicago anarchists and their relationship to the anarchist movement in the United States, and Europe, and a brief outline of their revolutionary theory. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Fred, I appreciate your effort to incorporate Messer-Kruse, but you keep making suggestions to Balkanize the article. I think the existing pages for the individual defendants allow us to expand on these matters where necessary. There are also existing pages on anarchism. You seem to have difficulty making supporting edits, introducing weird new structures and pages. The only thing recommending a new page on the Chicago anarchists is that it might distract Fred Bauder from this article for a while.

The Haymarket affair becomes more understandable when the theory behind the idea that bombing the police and then shooting the survivors leads to successful revolution is make clear. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Truth be told, your composition skills are not good enough to introduce material. Some careful rewording of the existing Haymarket article and addition of some omitted facts seemed sufficient, and in the end that was all Messer-Kruse sought. Again, he himself never asked for a full exposition on his theories here. On NPR on February 22, he was content that he had "kicked loose a few facts" on Wikipedia. This approach requires fewer of the kind of disruptive arguments your edits and comments draw.

M-K thought he might make a few corrections. I doubt he has time to rewrite the article, and, doubtless, fully realizes the futility of trying. Wikipedia articles can be completely re-written but such re-writing is likely to be rejects, and, thus, is usually an unproductive waste of time. A start class article such as this is not so precious that on-going editing should stop simply so that the public can view its ramshackle content. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought the article was better before you introduced the subheads and started trying to explain the "new" findings on February 27. You alone decided to take us back to square one, and since then it's been a mess. Does anyone else agree that we should revert the article back to it's state on February 27? That was the last day the article was readable. User:Aecwriter98.248.125.79 (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Rather then constantly reverting the article, how about trying to improve it. How can M-K's work be appropriately used to improve the article in ways that we all might agree on? User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Fred, in my old age I have discovered that what you don't say is as important as what you do say. People simply cannot absorb too much information at once. One way to improve the article would be to go through it carefully and make sure that you haven't said the same thing twice. The article as it stands is extremely redundant and this impedes clarity. For example, if you say critics of the trial believed that the judge and press were unfair and you source your statement, then it is not necessary to give multiple examples of this unfairness. Everyone knows critics thought the press, trial, and judge were unfair. As far as Messer-Kruse, every criticism he made has been addressed, his work is now cited and his point of view, namely: that perhaps the trial was less unfair that critics of the trial allege, is now acknowledged. More than this cannot be expected. We cannot reproduce his book here. Rather than being the last word, Wikipedia functions as a portal to further knowledge through links and citations. BTW Please make further comments at the end of the page.Mballen (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I add comments immediately after what I'm commenting about. On balance, I think it is works better, although any method we use on a talk page will have confusing aspects, if for no other reason that eventually everything gets buried in the archives, unlike Facebook which will bring anything recently commented on to the top. I'm still working on M-K, I think there may be considerable material in his book which we are do not include now. I do other things, but this article remains a top priority. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to delete anything by Fred Bauder -- must have pressed wrong button. My apologies.Mballen (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The scandal continues

See the comments at http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/14/britannica-define-outdated/if-you-liked-britannica-youll-love-wikipedia where this article and the way our gatekeepers treated a respected scholar continue to used as examples of Wikipedia's problems with accuracy and governance. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you are blowing this way out of proportion. No matter the subject there are always going to be negative comments to any opinion piece. They don't deserve much, if any, weight. AIRcorn (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Fred? There is absolutely no scandal. On the contrary, the article itself and 99 % of the comments are very favorable to wikipedia.Mballen Mballen (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Read the comments by georgesanders and The Great Midwest User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

What of them? The article itself is not critical of wikipedia, on the contrary. The only persons critical of wikipedia are yourself and the Chronicle. This is much ado about nothing. Mballen (talk)

Epistemological problem (Re Messer-Kruse controversy)

"There is a potent difference between knowledge claims rooted in reason, or in facts that reflect some version of a real or objective world, and the subjective opinions by which we advertise our personal prejudices" - Benjamin R. Barber, in "America's Knowledge Deficit," The Nation, 29 Nov. 2010, 21-22 (the online version is behind a pay firewall). I would suggest that Wikipedia users recognize this distinction. Not everything in the world is only a matter of majority or consensus. Spanghew2fs (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

PDF version on author's website User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This opinion piece targets right-wing opinion. There is actually research showing that knowledge of simple politically related facts is inversely related to a subject's viewing of Fox News. The innocence of the Haymarket "martyrs" is a left-wing shibboleth, but the same principles apply. The appearance and participation of the black bloc at Occupy Oakland is proof of the need for accurate public knowledge of this and related matters. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The "innocence of the Haymarket martyrs" is only a subject here to the extent it is discussed in scholarly debate. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that because of its format and methods does not declare winners and losers in those debates, until other tertiary sources (with academic oversight do), like the Chicago Historical Society or the Encyclopedia of Chicago or published literature overviews (usually in academic journals). In the meantime, Wikipedia just chronicles the debate that occurs in secondary sources.Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Location is misleading

The location of the monument at 41.869784°N 87.819763°W / 41.869784; -87.819763 differs significantly (about 9 miles to the east) from the location of the actual Haymarket Square, which is close to the 41.8849°N 87.6441°W / 41.8849; -87.6441 location as is presently show in the article. The two should be distinguished. Drf5n (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Tried to clarify. The problem seems to be that the article is about what happened at the Haymarket and therefore that should be the principle location for the coordinates, while the box and its coding is designed for an article on the monument. If someone can do better, please do so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

split "haymarket martyr's monument" off from "haymarket affair"

there appears to be enough for separate article of monument, with section hat. this would solve the 2 locations problem. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 01:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

While the fate of the monument is, in my mind, a continuation of events that peaked during "the affair", there is also a tendancey these days (that I like) of giving monuments their own articles. This will be a bit like separating Siamese twins, it needs to be done with a delicate touch. Which I don't have, but lots of others do. PS Do you mean the monument in the cemetery or the police one? Or one of the others? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection. I am not sure what is better; whether to have a section in this article (and therefore keep the infobox here but lower down and cleaned up), or a separate article. One way or another someone with a deft hand and a vision, will need to volunteer. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

shouldn't be too hard. i will cut and paste a victim memorial userspace incubator. i will revisit in 6 months. could argue for 3 articles: Haymarket Martyrs' Monument (NRHP); Haymarket Memorial policeman statue (public art); Haymarket affair events. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 16:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking forward to the fruits of your labors. Carptrash (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

ok, done, having trouble with civil unrest infobox, any help welcome. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 21:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)