Talk:Sacco and Vanzetti/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Disgrace

Dukakis on the unlawful sentence of death passed on Sacco and Vanzetti: "any disgrace should be forever removed from their names". But what about the disgrace perpetrated by the US government of the time on these two men ? Pamour (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

What about the deaths of Berardelli and Parmenter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.39.71.98 (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Far from clear

It is not clear if anyone was killed in the earlier attempted robbery in Bridgewater in 1919. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.127.25 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This attempted robbery was on 24/12/1919. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.127.25 (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

See http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/sacvan.html This says that no one was hurt in the attempted robbery in Bridgewater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.127.25 (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

All shot-gun shells can kill a man. If the jury tampered with a shell, this would not normally cause anyone to be acquitted or a mis-trial to be declared. The whole passage is close to being idiotic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.127.25 (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

See http://www.famous-trials.com/saccovanzetti/770-chronology . This says "no one is hurt". This is in the attempted robbery in Bridgewater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.127.25 (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The alleged sources, Watson and Joughin, need careful study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.127.25 (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Problems with Organization and General Tone of this article

The introduction of this article states the general consensus that Sacco and Vanzetti were unfairly tried and convicted, but states that later analyses have both 'clouded the case' suggesting they may in fact have been guilty, and 'added doubt to their culpability' suggesting later evidence continues to exonerate them. This is a little confusing, but I have no particular problem with it.

However, the body of the article is full of either excessively detailed or ambiguous (often without citation) sentences that look like attempts to cast doubt on Sacco and Vanzetti's innocence, and the article reads in general like it has been written by an amateur cold warrior attempting to re-litigate the case (perhaps out of a personal vendetta against anarchism as an ideology--the phrase 'admitted anarchist' in the background section, as if anarchism is a kind of crime or fault, reveals this bias). It does not read as a summary of secondary sources but as an original synthesis of primary and secondary sources attempting to overturn the consensus (stated accurately in the introduction) that the two were unfairly tried, convicted, and executed.

It might help organizationally to create a separate "Alternative Viewpoints" or "Evidence of Guilt" section where the editor or editors who are intent on arguing Sacco and Vanzetti's guilt can gather whatever details and evidence they would like, and the general population can read through that evidence with transparency as to the intentions of those editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.75.1.141 (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

lots of words above signifying nothing - synopsis - they were guilty but didnt get a fair trial - boo hoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.38.155.134 (talk) 09:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)