Talk:Haymarket Riot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
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.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

Contents

[edit] PoV

The following was deleted from "street fighting" as not especially relevant there:

In Chicago, this marked the use of a bomb agathe syupi peopleinst authorites, triggering the riot. As presumably an Anarchist, or a protestor hurled a bomb that killed a Chicago police officer, and several protestors. At which point the police opened fire on the protesters killing dozens, wounding 200. While people have been arressted and found guilty of the bombing, most historian agree that those who were tried probably had nothing to do with the bombing, that Chicago justice system at the time was too badly corrupt, and the business leaders too strong to really have a fair trial.
This riot proved that Chicago's success and business models were badly flawed. It is believed alchol, social class inequalities, and difficult labor in effect made hard people. This riot touched off international protests around the world, and permanently tarnished Chicago's reputation, as being the business place for everyone. The compounded corruption by the business leaders of the time, as well as the harshness of punishment created for Chicago events that would help lead up to the St. Valentines day massacure.
People are discouraged from using or provoking the use of lethal force against police officers. As it will guarantee that the police officer will kill people right after lethal force is used against them in a protest situation. Even if the protestors may be right, the second lethal force is used, anything the protestor may have been right on, will be completely ignored. Social order will be maintained at whatever the cost, and to most people quoting a business leader of the time, "life is cheap".

I don't know how useful it is (very POV) but it shouldn't be lost in the murk. --Andrew 08:13, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

It's an accurate sentiment but inaccurate history and analysis. Wyss 07:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who Was Michael K

The caption of one of the photos reads "Michael K at the statueless pedestal of the Policemen Monument, Chicago IL. MK took to his too early grave whatever he knew about the 1969 and 1970 bombings". This is obviously related to the 1969/1970 Weather Underground bombings mentioned in the article. The article, however, does not mention Michael K at all.

Does anyone know who Michael K was? An An 05:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Michael K was an activist who enigmatically alluded to knowledge of bombing the statue. Thanks Carptrash for the info.An An 02:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Current revision is openly biased.

it needs to be changed. don't proselytize. Lockeownzj00 16:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 07:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Then change it.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 18:55, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
that appears to be what we're doing. Lockeownzj00 02:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't see much that needs changing. If you can show me something that is proselytizing, I'll help you edit it. 17.102.46.100 19:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The article is fine as it is. Why do right-wingers always want to re-write history THEIR way?

why dont you look at the edit history to when i edited? the article rang of the "heroes..." offending sentences:
'called heroically for workers...'
'THe police opened fire on the crowd, murdering at will'
'stating what everyone knew to be the truth...'
'Activist Michael K at the statueless pedestal of the Policemen Monument, Chicago IL. MK took to his too early grave'
the fucking edit caption was: 'The Haymarket Martyrs went to their deaths for us!'
and, if you took 5 seconds to read the history, again youd realise i am an anarchist and the foremost thing we need to stop is ::skewed propaganda.
Lockeownzj00 23:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Are there still any specific POV concerns that have not been addressed or can we remove the notice now? Kaldari 15:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Take it down! I can't see a 'dispute'. If there's anything to be worked on, let's work it anarchist-style - in peace! An An 07:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There's still a significant bias in the tone of this article. I think it would require a complete re-write of the article, focusing on what actually happened, people involved, etc. Unfortunately, it doesnt seem that anyone has actually been reading/discussing on the talk page. 67.11.138.6 01:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that this article is biased. However, I would like to know why you say it is biased. Could you list some specific examples please? Thanks. Gwen Gale 01:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


Where was the "meeting near the McCormick plant" what streets? Wegerje 19:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Was Haymarket really an anarchist driven protest?

[edit] looks like my changes were labeled vandalism

more fauxlibertarians at work it would seem. My changes were correct. Yours are wrong. What part of my changes constitute vandalism?

And what happened to my account?

Why can't I make edits?

[edit] what happened to my info about the new monument?

I added new info about the new monument in my edit, and it was REMOVED!

Look, fauxLibertarians, you can't tell ME anything about Haymarket. I have ALL the info about it already.

FYI, here is a photo of the new monument: http://photos2.flickr.com/3699231_788bb338ca.jpg?v=0

Further, in his zeal to remove my non-rightwing edit, one of my accusers pointed to the title of my edit page, pointing out that it was biased. Well, it was, but OBVIOUSLY, the title of the edit page is not relevant to the accuracy of my edits, as that title is NOT included as part of the displayed edit.

YOUR bias is showing.

NOW what happened to my account? And why can't I edit?

[edit] here is an idea, 69.154.176.141

If you establish a persona here, and a bit of a track record, and actually sign your postings, then you are likely to be taken more seriously. I, for one, am interested in getting as much sculpture as possible on wikipedia and will back you a long way. However claiming that you know ALL about Haymarket is ludicrous at best and who-knows-what-? at worst. Carptrash 17:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaned up

I have cleaned up this article, removing the inaccuracies (most were related to the old police statue), adding some details along with a reference to the new statue installed in 2004, and a pic of it. Anyone have a date on the MK pic? Wyss 17:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Ask Carptrash An An 00:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not the Place for an Op-Ed

Someone put what appears to be the entire text of an op-ed piece condemning radical labor by some guy named George Frederic Parsons into the aftermath section. This is not needed and seems very pov to me. I took out the text but kept the intro. If anyone wants to put a few quotes from the piece in, be my guest.

I integrated it into the previous section. It's ok to briefly mention public opinion on both sides but truth be told, getting into quotations would quickly turn this article into a data dump of running 19th century rhetoric and since both "sides" made huge mistakes in judgement at almost every step, most of it would likely distract from the documented story of the incident itself and its aftermath. Wyss 07:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] question about numbers

A lit, fused bomb whistled over the heads of onlookers and landed near the police line, killing twelve people including a policeman, Mathias J. Degan (seven other policemen later died from their injuries). The police immediately opened fire on the crowd, injuring dozens. Many of the wounded were afraid to visit hospitals for fear of being arrested. A total of eleven people died.

12 people died from the bomb, and then the police opened fire. If eleven people died from the shooting, then it should say "A total of 23 people died that day." or something like that. I don't want to change it, because I don't know what any of the numbers are supposed to be, I just know that 11 is less than 12.

Thanks for pointing that out, I missed that someone had snuck that in sometime over the past month or two. Degan was killed more or less immediately, seven other policemen died later (the bomb landed among them) and there were three documented deaths among the civilians (lots and lots of wounded by indiscriminate police gunfire though). Horrible tragedy. Don't know why, but some of the people who edit here are not only way emotional when they arrive, but don't even bother to check if their additions mesh with the existing text, never mind with the reliable sources. Wyss 03:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Encyclopædia Britannica says 7 police and 60 injured.--Mujeresliebres 19:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 21st Century Standards

The second sentence in the "Strike at the McCormick reaper plant" section is blatantly West-chauvinistic. Even today—especially today—large parts of the world have labor standards that are at the level of late nineteenth century Chicago and in many cases much worse. I've made the following change:

"By 21st century standards, working conditions in the city were miserable, with most workers working ten to twelve hour days, often six days a week under sometimes dangerous conditions."

to

"By 21st century Western standards, working conditions in the city were miserable . . ." – Antelopotamus

[edit] See Also

Is there a reason the third great awakening is in the see also section?--Mujeresliebres 19:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago Anarchism

Something should be mentioned that the Chicago anarchists weren't necessarily anarchists. In Chicago, in the 1870s and 1880s, anarchist meant simply a labor revolutionary, be s/he a follower of Marx or Bakunin. Certainly some, like Spies and Lingg were what most people would consider classical anarchists, but Albert Parsons was much closer to socialism. His statement on the issue was along the lines of, if the capitalists call him an anarchist, he'd wear the badge with pride.

There are still many flavours and stripes of anarchist, from hard core communists to libertarian capitalists. Anarchist is the historically supported term. Gwen Gale 05:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Figure Error?

"In the next few days they were joined nationwide by 350,000 workers who went on strike at 1,200 factories, including 70,000 in Chicago." Something is off here. If there were stikes at 1,200 factories nationwide, there couldnt have been 70,000 in Chicago alone. I suspect an order of magnitude error. Can anyone verify what the other meant and if its a mistake? CoachMcGuirk 17:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Truth be told it seems accurate. Chicago was a ginormous manufacturing centre by then, at the hub of a continental railroad network and the US labour movement more or less got its start there. Strikes in most other areas would have been small by comparison. Gwen Gale 04:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Layout

The layout of this page is a mess in Firefox, perhaps someone with more knowledge of Wikipedia layout than I have could have a look? Donnacha 12:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Today, it looks ok to me in Firefox on FreeBSD. Gwen Gale 05:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinates

Hey folks. A few days ago I changed the title coordinates to the location of the site of the riot it self. Since then, the info box for the monument was added and I just changed those coordinates to the location of the monument in the cemetary.

Is it just me or is it a bit misleading to have two different sets of coordinates on the same page? I think both sites are significant, I am just wondering as to the best way to convey their difference... Thoughts?Edwardmking 21:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. The article is about the event, and the coordinates are listed to locate the site where it happened. Meanwhile, inside the cemetary monument's info box, its own coordinates are listed. Gwen Gale 21:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't figure out what you keep changing the coordinates to in the infobox. It looks like it is someone's front lawn in Berwyn, whereas what I had put before was the location of the statue and the monument inside Waldheim Cemetary.Edwardmking 21:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
haha! I'm not the origin of those coordinates! Anyway, what I suggest is... coordinates of Haymarket Square in the upper right of the article, coordinates of of the cemetary monument in the monument info box (I believe the ones in the info box at this time are correct but have a look?). Mind, there is now yet another memorial at the site. Gwen Gale 22:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Since coordinates are pretty much all I do on WP, I'm pretty anal about them. (Or is it the other way around...) The one's that I had put in the infobox were for the monument. I went there some years ago (and coincidentally helped to paint the inside of the chapel right next door.)Edwardmking 22:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Cool, I'm glad you are! Could you check them again? I do think it would be most helpful if the article's coordinates reflected the site of the incident west of the "loop" in Chicago, while the info box would carry the monument coordinates in the cemetary. Gwen Gale 22:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] haymarket square

Haven't been there in donkey's years but as I recall it's at the opening of an alley about 30 yards north of Randolph and Des Plaines. Gwen Gale 22:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If you click the coordinates, then click "Hybrid" next to google maps and zoom in, you can see the lamp post next to which the current sculpture now stands. You can't see the sculpture itself, but I was just there a couple days ago. If you do the same for the infobox, you can see the pedestal with the statue of justice. I picked that because obviously, the plaque cannot be seen from an aerial photograph.Edwardmking 22:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The wagon was roughly at 163 N. Desplaines St, Chicago... Gwen Gale 22:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it's changed since I was there... everything was overgrown with green and kind of a wasteland back then. Yep, the coordinates look ok, maybe a car length too far north haha! Oh and I can see the pedestal for the Union League Club statue is indeed wholly gone and they've put new concrete there. Gwen Gale 22:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And I thought I was picky!Edwardmking 22:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV of this article

I note there's been considerable discussion about POV on this talk page. I don't follow this page closely, and so cannot quickly associate comments with versions of the article.

But i would like to offer my reactions, just from reading the article. I hope that may be useful in any possible refinement.

First of all, it seems well-written. It reads well, and covers the specifics of the incident itself nicely. However, this is an extremely important topic, and i think it could be improved. Here are some impressions...

  • The photo caption about "Activist Michael K" is cryptic and improperly suggestive, at least to outsiders. Is "Activist Michael K" the person on the left, or on the right? What is his connection to Haymarket, or the monuments? The caption alludes to secrets, the context of which cannot be fathomed from anywhere in the article.
My grandmother took to the grave everything that she knew about the 1969 and 1970 bombings, as well. Of course she died in 1965. So how does the reader know whether this individual in the photo is more relevant, other than by guessing?
And the high resolution image of this photo has a problematic caption too. Why does the hi-rez photo have "I think" appended to the source? (Who is "I" ??)
  • Why so much focus on Haymarket, and so little on the killings at McCormick? (I suppose that could be asked of many historians, as well.)
  • The article doesn't really explain why this incident is referred to as a riot, in my view. What exactly was the riot, the initial attack by the police? The throwing of the bomb? The police shootings? What happened in the aftermath of the bombing/gunfire, did people go crazy as in a riot, or did they just try to get away from the shooting? I'm not denying there was a riot, i'm just uncertain from the article why this event is called a riot.
  • A bronze plaque set into the sidewalk states that, "A decade of strife between labor and industry culminated here in a confrontation..." I don't think the article expains the reasons for that strife. Even the section titled, "Strife and confrontation" doesn't explain the strife. They were striking for the eight hour day. What hours were they working, and why? What were working conditions like at the time? Aren't these relevant issues that ought to be explained within the article, at least briefly? Certainly we find some answers when (IF) we click on the Eight-hour day link. But shouldn't a couple of sentences about those awful working conditions be brought into the Haymarket article itself?
  • The documentation being sent to East Germany is a tantalyzing tidbit, what does it mean? How did it happen? Was it still available? Has it been returned?

Congrats to all on a great article. And, i'm hoping it can become even better. Richard Myers 06:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael K was likely one of the individuals who bombed the statue in the late 1960s. From what I hear, the Chicago police are still sensitive about it. I think most readers of the article glark this straight off (given there are very few if any comments about the caption and I can say it never seemed cryptic to me and I didn't write it). So far as the high res caption goes, I'd assume good faith.
Accounts of what happened after the bomb whistled over people's heads and exploded vary widely, from "a police riot" in which the police fired wildly into the fleeing crowd, to the police version, which rather vaguely says the police were attacked. It's all still very controversial.
Strife and confrontation, I think, sums it up rather helpfully. Workers were getting shot, there was confrontation at the rally...
The working conditions themselves are still somewhat controversial. Any attempt at describing them tends to get tagged PoV or Euro-American centric and it doesn't help that the available documentation tends to be very PoV one way or another. About the only thing anyone can agree on is that the strikes were held to pressure employers into implementing 8 hour workdays.
One must understand that Chicago city officials and business leaders cared little about the memory of the Harmarket riot. To them it was a deeply unpleasant episode involving people (immigrant German anarchists) they cared little about. To them, it was mostly a law enforcement-civil order episode. Documentation artifacts certainly weren't showcased in city hall sponsored library displays or whatever. I mean, although the police did start marching in formation towards the speaker's wagon, someone threw a friggin bomb at them and they started shooting. Either "side" could and does claim being the victim. So, over the years, lots of original source documentation apparently trickled its way over to East Germany, a communist country where the Haymarket riot was perceived as a key event in the history of socialist revolution (lots of political groups have tried to exploit Haymarket at one time or another). Mind, Germans hanged for it. Anyway, good question, the documentation was apparently not readily available in the mid-1980s. I have no idea where it is, though I'd guess it's still scattered in Germany.
Lastly, the article focuses on Haymarket square because the topic of the article is the incident at Harmarket square, which (for the reasons outlined in the article) had an international impact and because of the trial which came in its aftermath. Four innocent people were hanged for murder (and a fifth committed suicide to avoid being hanged). There was much persecution and intimidation of the anarchist community after the riot so the anarchists are spot on about that: In the aftermath, they were the victims.
There is zero evidence of an anarchist conspiracy. So far as anyone knows, the bomb was thrown by a lone, disgruntled individual (who was spotted briefly) for reasons one can only guess at. Meanwhile IMHO he did lasting hurt to the cause of anarchy in the states. Violence tends to have that effect (and there were anarchists who said so at the time Wendy McElroy, The Boston anarchists and the Haymarket Incident, 1980). Gwen Gale 06:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/y/Talk%7EHaymarket_Riot_e0d0.html"