Talk:Molly Maguires

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Molly Maguires article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

	Molly Maguires is part of WikiProject Pennsylvania, which is building a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit the attached article, join or discuss the project.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 In need of attention 2 Lyrics 3 Neutralising 4 Images 5 Irish Coal mining heritage? 6 Can this be justified? 7 Lurid and sensationalistic, violating NPOV 8 Terrible NPOV 9 Coal and Iron Police 10 Rewrite of Sections 1 and 2 11 Rewrite Redux

[edit] In need of attention

I've put this on a list of pages to the readaddmitting needing attention. It definitely needs some work. - Scooter 22:00, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I added a good deal of detail from Rhodes (1919), and a bibliography. Rjensen 11:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lyrics

Are the lyrics to the song posted old (pre 1923) or a more recent song? If they are likely to be under copyright, they should be removed. (If no one gives info on status, I will move them here to the talk page soon.) -- Infrogmation 17:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Someone else already removed the lyrics as copyrighted. -- Infrogmation 21:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lyrics to the Balladeer's song, "Sons of Molly", and the Dubliner's song, "The Molly Maguires". --Thisisbossi 02:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutralising

I personally see Oliver Chettle's "neutralising" changes on 20 April as slanting the article pro-business. I'm reluctant to let pass without comment what I perceive as painting the Mollies as the villains, sanitizing the brutality of the coal companies, or investing their hired guns with an air of authority (changing "spies" to "agents"). Comments from others? Mark Dixon 13:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

agree, but more detail and evidence should be provided rather than simply restoring what was there --Paraphelion 17:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• There needs to be a lot of work in this regard. I made one quick edit in the McParlan entry as it was galringly misleading (see here) and hopefully can get some more done soon.

Ken Albers 16:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• The recent edits by Osioni seems to involve some editorializing and much lack of clarity.--Paraphelion 20:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This entry fails to capture the labor relations atmosphere of the Mollies' time. The article seemingly refers to Pinkertons as a noble group standing up to a terrorist organization. While the Mollies may have been a violent group, we must remember the unchecked management practices of the time, the presence of labor-exploiting "company towns," as well as the almost complete lack of any safety measures for miners. As the article currently stands, it is in dire need of a proper explanation as to the motivations of the Mollies' actions.

[edit] Images

The images in this article are too large. Can somone fix them, please? I don't know how to. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 22:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It appears that this has since been taken care of. --Thisisbossi 02:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Coal mining heritage?

Seriously, what Irish coal mining heritage is there?

• Please sign your comments. Anyway, the county of Kilkenny in Ireland was known for its anthracite coal, and it is likely that some Molly Maguires had experience in the mines there. However, this article is probably misleading in that Irish agrarian struggles were a much mroe relveant heritage to the Molly Maguires. --Brian Z 21:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Can this be justified?

The Mollies "were largely responsible for the ultimate partition of Ireland." That needs a bit of evidence, I think. Frankly, I don't believe it.

[edit] Lurid and sensationalistic, violating NPOV

This really should go without saying. Using terms such as 'in the anthracite region between 1865 and 1876 the bravest of men could not forget how many of his fellows had been shot and suppress a feeling of uneasiness when he found such a missive on his doorstep or posted up on the door of his office at the mine' or 'Kehoe was crafty enough to see the advantage of throwing dust in the eyes of the public and, when the outside world was bargained with, the A.O.H. was put forward; but, as matter of fact, it was the old story of ravening wolves in sheep's clothing.' or, my favorite, 'a great many men were killed to satisfy the vengeful spirit of the Molly Maguires' is wholly unacademic, and belongs in a paperback pulp-sploitation novel, not in an encyclopedia. --70.108.56.178 04:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't know much about the history here, but the style of writing in parts of this article is entirely inapproprate and contrary to WP:NPOV.--Srleffler 04:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but it seems ridiculously anachronistic as well; much of this article sounds as if it was lifted in whole chunks from accounts written about the time these events transpired, without the insulating effect of quotation marks. Puleez! +ILike2BeAnonymous 07:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Lurid?? well if you don't like lurid please avoid the Mollys! Ditto if you abhor POV and want cold hiostorical "facts" only. Actually the passage is from the leading historical Journal (American Historical Review) by the foremost historian of the era (Rhodes)--famous for being less POV than most. Rjensen 07:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Less "POV" (only in this god-forsaken place could that even be a valid adjective!) than most, perhaps; that may be like saying that Richard Nixon was more circumspect an anti-Communist than Joe McCarthy. In any case, the problem is that significant portions of this article are so positively bewhiskered and couched in the Victorian tones of the contemporary accounts that it's quite absurd. If this material is to be included, it ought to be judiciously gone through, and the selected passages set off as quotations. My God, man, to read this article, you'd think you have to still watch your backside while riding horseback through Pennsylvania! +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Editors who talk like ILike2BeAnonymous don't seem very NPOV to me., Indeed they seem to enjoy the lurid parts--(McCarthy! Nixon! Communists!) Is the passage Victorian? Well yes, but so were the Mollies. And no, it's pretty quiet in those districts these days (but in neaby Pittsburg 5 members of the Duquesne basketball team were shot this week). Rjensen 08:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrible NPOV

Long time listener, first time caller. I have contributed to articles before but never tried to edit a bad one. Anyone want to help me with this one? This article sounds like it was written by Sean Hannity, it has no place in an encyclopedia. Anyone with me? (want to help me?) --cfoster

[edit] Coal and Iron Police

This article is definitely in need of work; to mention one area, it lacks any reference to the Pennsylvania Coal and Iron Police, whose acts were one underlying cause for the rise of the Molly Maguires. The Coal and Iron Police were an official private police force (from 1866 to 1931, approximately) and who in some communities were accused of assault, kidnapping, rape, and murder. While the Molly Maguires were not heros, their actions cannot be placed in proper context without mentioning the other activities of the time.

DeciusAemilius 04:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite of Sections 1 and 2

I've re-written the first two sections, on Molly Maguires in Ireland and the US, almost from scratch to try and add social context while removing the rather obvious biases of the prior text. The other sections still need some work.

DeciusAemilius 21:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite Redux

I've gone through and pretty much re-written everything to try and add social context and remove POV statements. I've also removed a dead link and added a couple more. It's not what I'd call finished by any means but I think it's a major improvement on the prior text.

DeciusAemilius 05:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's better to rewrite section by section and let the editorial community comment on each change. Every new addition has to be based on the scholarly sources and be free of POV, which is not the case here. One much needed improvement is a summary that states what this is all about and why important. As for Rhodes, he's a very solid scholar from American Historical Review who's out of copyright. Rjensen 06:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing per se (I've not read Rhodes and thus cannot comment) but the prior page was quite biased. I have endeavored to strip the article down do the bare facts and add in proper notices as to where controversy exists; I will add sources as time allows.

DeciusAemilius

deleting Rhodes (PulitzerPrize, president Am Historical Assoc, fully footnoted article in the leading scholarly journal) is uncalled for. His careful narrative was replaced with poorly written stuff that is unsourced--who knows where it came from? Better look at Wiki rules on reliable sources before making wholesale changes. Every change will have to be fully rederenced or it gets deleted. We don't go from solid scholarship down to pop history in Wiki. Rjensen 06:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)