Talk:Molly Maguires

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Irish Republicanism WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance for Irish Republicanism-related articles.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

WikiProject Irish Republicanism tasks:

 

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Molly Maguires article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
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

[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


Yes I'm with you, and would like to help. I like Wikipedia a lot, but I've never contributed. I've done a lot of research on the Molly Maguires and this article is bad. I've read the Wayne Broehl book in the credits, and while it has a somewhat anti-Molly bias even this work recognizes openly that contemporary sources for information were only pro-Reading Railroad (Gowen letters and Bannan articles), and Pinkerton propaganda. It raised clear questions about McParlan's credibility, although it offered no challenges. I've read much of the Kevin Kenny book "Making Sense of the Molly Maguires", and he offers a much more balanced account.

If nothing else the anti-Irish and anti-Catholic sentiment of the times, the extremely harsh working conditions of the mines, and way that the Molly trials intertwined the Molly Maguire related violence with the Ancient Order of Hibernians and the Workingmen's Benevolent Association (which is probably a false representation) should probably be explained.

I wanted to paste in something I found on the American Philosphical Society website, but I see that is not allowed. I also see in the discussion that someone says they re-wrote two sections but I'm not sure I see that. Can we use quotes from books with bibliographical references? or do we need author's permission? Or rather, how can I help? BLangton 15:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)BLangton

As the comments on this page show, it's a "hot" issue that brings out POV. The only solution is to closely follow Wiki rules and be sure every statement is solidly based on thescholarly literature. Rjensen 14:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The Rhodes excerpt is offensive and should not be included in this entry. In 1910, the Irish dealt with a significant amount of discrimination in this country and unfortunately this passage suffers from a common view of that day. The Molly Maguires entry needs to include more discussion of the working conditions of the Pennsylvania coal miners which led to such violent and questionable behavior. Based on Rhodes, Irish workers would kill if not given a "soft job" there is no mention of the high workplace casualty rate, poor living conditions in company towns and heavy handed treatment by mine management.Joeymag 22:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)joeymag

[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)

[edit] James McParlan or James McParland

There appear to be authoritative sources for both spellings. Google gives a similar number of links for each spelling (2,930 for McParlan, and 2,220 for McParland)

This individual appears in a number of places -- Western Federation of Miners and Molly Maguires for example. But with different spellings.

This appears to be a dilemma for which someone needs to make a decision-- so a page for the individual can be created. Richard Myers 10:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Richard Myers raises a good point. I think "McParlan" without the "d" has a better claim. Rjensen 11:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Here, finally, is some definitive information, from two footnotes:
His stenographer, Morris Friedman, wrote a book about him — as "McParland." [The Pinkerton Labor Spy, New York, Wilshire Book Co., 1907.]
[The Corpse On Boomerang Road, Telluride's War On Labor 1899-1908, MaryJoy Martin, 2004, page 10.] He "signed his name as 'McParlan' on Pinkerton reports... He added the 'D' to the end in the 1880s yet dropped it again in 1900, only to restore it in 1901."
best wishes, Richard Myers 08:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

This article needs a lead section to summarise its contents. Tyrenius 00:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rhodes

The use of James Ford Rhodes as a basis for several sections in this article is a potential detriment that needs to be corrected. While the man himself may have been distinguished he was writing c.1905-1910, and (according to Kevin Kenny) was relying directly on the published accounts of the Pinkertons themselves. His account must be presented with more interrelation of other scholarship, as his natural biases -- combined with the existing political situation at the time, in which several prominent people involved with the Molly Maguire prosecution remained influential -- makes it incorrect historiography to present his account directly. It would be better to either include alternative scholarly views or, since the material is available and also PD, cite the direct accounts provided by Pinkerton.

DeciusAemilius 23:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki should not be in the business of condoning murder and assassinations. Rjensen 13:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excerpt from James Ford Rhodes History of the United States from Hayes to McKinley 1877 - 1896 should be clearly delineated

The passage beginning with "Many of the Mollies were miners and the mode of working...", and ending with "... it was the old story of ravening wolves in sheep's clothing." appeared originally in American Historical Review, April, 1910, and was later reproduced in Rhodes's History of the United States... cited above, p 52 - 58 (Chapter 2). I would propose employing the Quotation template, which would furnish a clear box around the excerpt. It also furnishes a field for a full and proper citation. The treatment would look like this:

Many of the Mollies were miners and the mode of working... it was the old story of ravening wolves in sheep's clothing.

– Rhodes, James Ford , ''History of the United States from Hayes to McKinley 1877 - 1896 Volume 8 of the series History of the United States of America, From the Compromise of 1850 to the McKinley-Bryan Campaign of 1896 October, 1919, The Macmillian Company, New York. pp 52 - 58

I am aware there is a notice to that effect already, but it's placement, unfortunately, implies that the next three paragraphs are Rhodes. They are not. As can be seen in historical versions, they predate the excerpt furnished by Rjensen in Revision 35302183, 11:40 16 January 2006, nor is it clear in the present treatment where the excerpt ends. The block quote treatment of the template would clearly signal readers what text belongs to Rhodes, his time, place and viewpoint, and what belongs to ours.

Also, in Scholarly secondary sources, there is a link to the University of Illinois website with the chapter from which the excerpt was extracted. Though this page has been done with care, I would preferentially point to the Google Books digital facsimile of the entire reference, available since October 31, 2006. This facsimile is (very nearly almost) as good as having the book itself in one's hands, having been reproduced from a copy at the Andover-Harvard Theological Library. There is no ambiguity about footnotes or paragraph breaks, since one has the original formatting and typography. While it is a facsimile, it can be searched for key words and phrases.

Finally, I would hope that we could eventually replace the excerpt with a fair and balanced paraphrasing of sourced references. Even with typographic flags, one can still edit the excerpt, and casual readers could never be sure if what appears to be a quote has not been corrupted by a careless editor or a really skillful vandal. The article history shows that in the year since Rjensen furnished the quote, a number of editors thought they could phrase Rhodes better than Rhodes. ;) Alas, passions still run high on this matter; time does not heal some wounds as quickly as one would like, so keeping that excerpt whole becomes a bit of a chore.

I will undertake this revision in a week or so, unless there are matters others would like to discuss. Gosgood 18:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, please don't change. we use quotes for entirely different reasons (that is we quote primary sources)., This is different: a full-scale scholarly study. It's like Wiki's common use of the 1911 Britannica that forms the core of many historical articles. The problem is that POV is very heavy on this topic and use of a standard scholarly source avoids a lot of trouble. Rjensen 19:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no strong motivation to paraphrase, but I truly do think that the Rhodes quote is not well set off, and it should be, both as a service to Rhodes and to readers. I speak entirely as a first time reader of the article who found the beginning and end of the Rhodes quote unclear, and was unnecessarily confused and unsettled by ambiguous formatting. I've placed further remarks on your talk page. Gosgood 22:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
yes I now find Gosgood persuasive and agree with his plan--with the proviso that the Rhodes article be kept permanently. The main reason is we need an anchor that's heavily fact-oriented and has been vetted by professional editors of the American Historical Review, because of the intense POV that seems to surround this topic. Rjensen 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Mollies were villians?

I grew up in Philadelphia and learned about the Molly Maguries as a group Irish Catholic heroes who stood up for the rights of workers and were one of the first "unions" in the country. Feeling like I needed a refresher on an old history lesson I pulled up Wikipedia which has never let me down yet. This time I was shocked and upset at the obvious bias in this artical.

Maybe because we were regional and a Catholic school I was taught the story with a bias in the other direction, but I really don't think so. I know there was a pardon issued in regard to the Mollies and was able to find this blurb on the net:

"John (Black Jack) Kehoe, a saloon owner and former miner was identified as the “king of the Mollies” and accused or a murder that had happened twelve years earlier. Kehoe and nineteen other were executed. Kehoe received a posthumous pardon from Pennsylvania governor Milton Shapp in 1979. Shapp wrote: We can be proud of the men known as the Molly Maguires, because they defiantly faced allegations which attempted to make trade unionism a criminal conspiracy."

http://www.jttoday.com/2005/2005-02/PinkertonBook/MollyMaguireMyth.html - that was the web site I found. I beleive it's the local paper in Jim Thorpe PA but am unsure. It has intersting section at the end that tells you what happened to those involved in the procecution on the Molly Maguires. I don't really know how to properly site this source or even really edit the article so I thought I'd post here and someone who knows more then me may make better use of the information.

Peg 72.81.22.118 04:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The histories are complicated by a great deal of bias, for there are two competing narratives. The more dominant narrative (the one we hear most often) is told by those who consider the Mollies to have been thugs intent upon accomplishing criminal goals by criminal means. The alternative narrative suggests that they were justified in challenging the power of the wealthy.
The simple fact is, the wealthy have a great deal of ability to establish laws to protect their wealth. Many of the mechanisms which might be employed to change the system are either criminalized, or remain ineffective. There are some who propagandize to protect the status quo, just as others agitate for change. These efforts extend to the interpretation of history. Whose narrative is believed is often more significant than what really happened.
Wikipedia is supposed to be edited from a neutral point of view. In reality, that is difficult to achieve on contentious topics. Note the banner at the top of the Molly Maguires article, stating that The neutrality of this article is disputed.
There are some folks who edit Wikipedia who are very much intent upon viewing this particular history, and much of union history from the perspective of those who consider the rights of ownership to be inviolable. There are others who question this perspective.
Some articles tend to be written from one perspective, some from another. Many of these articles are under frequent dispute, and the current tone reflects either the philosophical beliefs of the last group of editors, or possibly of the group that managed to be more tenacious and determined.
In this particular article, James Ford Rhodes is an absolutely awful source to use due to his obvious bias. I expect that's why the neutrality of this article is disputed. But at least one editor believes differently, and introduces the hatchet job with respectable language such as, "a major scholarly analysis in the leading professional history journal..." Whether such garbage stands, depends in part upon who takes an interest in the article.
Consider that anyone can edit Wikipedia. The articles that tend to be tinkered with least often are those that are carefully researched, and painstakingly footnoted. If you are passionate about the Molly Maguires, please consider joining the effort to make the article reflect the real history. That may mean a trip to the library to check out some good books. The Wikipedia article about the Molly Maguires will be better for your participation! Richard Myers 08:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Mollies were villains? Part Two. Neutrality and the Rhodes quote

I'm not sure that the "real history" of the Molly Maguires can ever be recovered. Too many principals had died before anyone had asked them anything, a tragic loss.

That said, I believe this article can be a good article, even a featured article, so long as we editors succeed in rising above the quagmire of advocating one point of view or another, and instead, undertake an inventory of the various points of view extant, and the authoritative work supporting each viewpoint. That is, if I read the neutral point of view guidelines correctly:

  • It is not the business of Wikipedia to proclaim the (overlooked) saintliness of the Mollie Maguires.
  • Nor is it the business of Wikipedia to identify the Mollie Maguires as a 19th century terrorist organization bent on the destruction of the American Capitalism.
  • It is the business of Wikipedia to report on these as dominant threads in the debate on the meaning and importance of the Molly Maguires.

I think it is fair for Wikipedia to report on a movement originating in Ireland and exported (at least) to the coal fields of Pennsylvania, and in that context, rose to U. S. prominence when eleven of their members were hanged on June 21, 1877 as murderers or accomplices before the fact, of victims drawn from the ranks of colliery employees or their agents. I think it is fair for Wikipedia to report that after the president of the Reading Railroad, Franklin B. Gowen, hired the Pinkerton National Detective Agency, one of its agents, James McParlan, infiltrated the Maguires in late 1873. By March, 1875 he had accumulated enough evidence to obtain the arrest of the first Molly. He was the key witness in their 1876 trials, and, after 1878 and the execution of around nine other so-called Mollies, their force as a movement was spent.

Everything else about the Mollies, including the fairness of their trials, their aims as an organization, their role as either a nascent union, or a gang of murderous thugs, the number of Mollies actually executed, the number of Mollies involved in the group, et cetera, ad nauseam are all matters of active debate. In pursuit of a neutral viewpoint, it is not the lot of Wikipedia editors to take sides, but to inventory the threads of debate, cite the references back up each significant thread, and give readers room to make up their own minds. I think if we editors can pursue this goal, then a feature article will arise, for this is a rich area of history.

I am not fond of the prominent use of the James Rhodes quote (even though I was the editor who bought it to typographic prominence. My concerns were technical). Rjensen, and, perhaps others, promotes Rhodes' work as a piece of standard scholarship intended to check edits with extreme point of view. It is compared with the use of the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition as the basis of many Wikipedia articles. It is heavily fact-oriented and has been vetted by professional editors of the American Historical Review.

I do not think it wise, nor kind to Rhodes, to ask his early twentieth century quote to function as an arbitrator to our twenty-first century debate. First, the use of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica in Wikipedia is not without caution, as the guideline to the use of this source observe. In particular, I think the cautions on old references, the absence of modern scholarship, and shifts in cultural norms are as pertinent to the use of Rhodes as it is to the use of the 1911 EB. To make a somewhat extreme analogy, I would not use a 1911 guide to radio repair to fix a contemporary table radio. The 1911 repair guide may be well written, amply illustrated, and heavily fact-oriented in regards to electronic valves, coils, and condensers, but demonstrably useless when it comes to contemporary integrated circuits.

One can argue that the field of electronics is not the same as the field of history, that the latter does not experience the rapid evolution in theory and practice known to the former. To this I reply — not without a little dark humor — that losers are rarely allowed to write in the history books. For this reason, it often falls to the lot of later historians to review the work of their older colleagues and ferret out the lives and times of people who had been denied access to the pens. The waves of revisionism that periodically wash through historical scholarship differ only in degree to what is experienced in the technologies; they do not differ in principle. In light of that, I do not believe that Rhodes can furnish a standard of scholarship for the twenty first century reader as he had done for the early twentieth century counterpart. I have little doubt that he and the editors of American Historical Review. (April 1910), worked with care and diligence. This is why I think it something of a disservice to Rhodes to use his work without his having an opportunity to revisit and update; his January, 1927 death has severely compromised his characteristic attention to detail.

This does not mean that Rhodes should be disposed of entirely. He does represent an early thread of the debate that was held, almost without question, in the late nineteenth century by affluent, well-read Americans. He was a Bourbon Democrat; Mark Hanna, a key supported to President William McKinley, was his brother-in-law, and he had made a considerable fortune in Cleveland iron, coal, and steel industries before retiring in 1885 to pursue historical scholarship. I cannot imagine him assuming a point of view markedly antagonistic to Hanna, Rockefeller, or any other captain of industry. He wrote to that culture, and, for us, furnishes a window into that culture. It is in that capacity that he can inform us why the Molly Maguires were so reviled in the 19th century press and papers of record.

In light of that, I would celebrate the retirement of that large block quote back to the external reference from whence it came, so that it is afforded no greater eye space than that afforded to Howard Zinn, Philip Foner, Kevin Kenny or others. I cannot forsee the development of an article that aims at a balanced survey of the various threads of the debate, when one thread, the Rhodes excerpt, so dominates. "heavily fact-oriented" it may very well be, but facts selected in support of a viewpoint now a hundred years old, a viewpoint hardly cognizant of much historical thought that has occurred in the twentieth century. Take care. Gosgood 22:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no 21st century debate. No new facts on interpetations have come to light since 1900. It's a matter of celebrating/denouncing/describing the Mollies. The revisionists have a POV agenda that seems rather immune to historical evidence. So let's keep the Rhodes scholarship for the benefit of people interested in facts rather than POV -- or replace it with even better scholarship (but that is a very hard challenge). By the way on Rhodes--he in fact sharply disagreed with his brother in law Hanna on politics and voted the other way. Rhodes was famous for looking at all sides of the issues--a model to Wiki. Zinn and Foner did not study the Mollies, they merely looked for violent heroes to celebrate for killing mine foremen. Kenny did and more from his work would be welcome. Rjensen 23:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


"Zinn and Foner did not study the Mollies, they merely looked for violent heroes to celebrate for killing mine foremen."
Thank you, Rjensen. You have demonstrated precisely the mentality that i was decrying above. You seek to tar all who disagree with your pro-privilege, management-can-do-no-wrong-philosophy with the same brush — that everyone who looks deeper into the history is evil, and values only mayhem and murder. You've demonstrated that your bias is of the same cloth as Rhodes, whose bigotry is apparent in the statement, "...mining bosses refused to employ Irishmen, but this did not ensure their safety, as they might then be murdered for their refusal."
I strongly advocate trimming back Rhodes to a sentence or two, to diminish the bigotry to a level that can be appreciated historically for what it was, rather than having this biased point of view continue to dominate the article. Am wondering who shares my point of view on the text-box abomination that pollutes this otherwise decent article. Richard Myers 04:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
actually I am opposed to terrorism and assassination and can't abide it on American soil. Actually the Mollies did not kill any capitalists and indeed they greatly strengthened capitalism by linking terrorism with labor unions. It set the union cause back 25+ years in the coal fields and elsewhere.Rjensen 04:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no 21st century debate? Interesting point of view. Kevin Kenny, in his introduction to Making Sense of the Molly Maguires tracks a number of shifts in the debate since 1900, and though he wrote that introduction about ten years ago, there appears to be no reason to think that the thought trends he was charting in 1997 lost all momentum at 11:59 PM UTC, Sunday, December 31st, 2000.
But, interesting or otherwise, that point of view, along with the one that Rhodes scholarship is for the benefit of people interested in facts rather than POV, or that Rhodes is a bigot, or that Philip Foner is a communist historian, or that everyone seems to have a "bias" (Yes!!!!), or that Rjensen's biases do not even pass the laugh test, or that Gosgood's late, lamented dog, Olmsted was the best darn dog there ever was, all of them, every single one of these viewpoints, are to be checked in at the door along with the gun, the live ammunition, and the various chips sitting on one's shoulders, and, before hitting the “edit” link, the checked-in Wikipedia editor is to take on just one point of view: the neutral point of view. The first three, terse, paragraphs sum up the policy nicely; one need not read my ramblings below, unless they are truly at a loss for entertainment.
In putting this policy in place, Wikipedia recognizes that no human being alive (including historians and Wikipedia editors) can express a subject, verb, and possibly an object, without developing some point of view, because developing a point of view is intrinsic to communication.[citation needed] In light of that, the only admissible point of view for the Wikipedia editor communicating sentences in the main namespace is one that exhibits neither sympathy nor opposition to the subject matter at hand. Upon introducing one or more sentences into an article, the neutrally sympathetic editor is obliged by the attribution policy to seek out one or more reliable published sources that documents the point of view echoed by the freshly introduced sentences. Indeed, the freshly introduced sentences are just paraphrased summaries of an already published viewpoint, which the Wikipedia editor is, in essence, importing into the article for the reader's edification. In the absence of such sources, the freshly minted sentences can only be construed as the Wikipedia editor's original thought, reflecting the editor's viewpoint, and, being in violation of both neutral point of view and attribution policies, may be removed at any time.
In particular, an editor's belief that a certain source is intrinsically true, and therefore automatically reflecting “facts” is, in contrast, a point of view that violates both the attribution and neutral point of view policies. How is this so? An editor's belief in what is factual is not a reliable, published source. Readers just can't peer into the craniums of editors and independently verify the source of the editor's beliefs. As it happens, some editors may then engage in finding sources to establish a basis for their own beliefs, but such sources are better suited for articles on the contents of particular editors' heads, and, as such, would likely run afoul of Wikipedia notability guidelines.
Now insofar as to Richard Myers question on whether the Rhodes quote should be shortened, I agree. I happen to like Rhodes (“Darn! wasn't I supposed to check that viewpoint at the door?”), but that is immaterial, just as Rhode's supposed bigotry is immaterial. What is material is that when some editor writes a sentence to the effect: “In the nineteenth century, American newspapers and periodicals generally regarded the Molly Maguires as inherently evil Irishmen who terrorized the anthracite region for two decades.” a citation to Rhodes establishes the sentence as something other than the editor's opinion. The editor cites Rhodes work and furnishes a link to the on-line PDF version at Google Books, so the reader can read Rhodes in context and decide for him or herself whether the sentence approaches factuality. This is a terse, effective use of this particular reference, and is in contrast to its present use: as a “factual counterbalance to editors who are pushing their points of view.” Well, that in itself happens to be a particular editor's point of view, and my understanding of neutral viewpoint requires all of us to check that kind of stuff at the door, so I am not an adherent of the excerpt's use as a check against point of view issues. Second, I regard this large excerpt as giving undue weight to a particular point of view. That happens to be my particular interpretation of a guideline; anyone is welcome to take issue with me. Third, I see no technical sense in maintaining a word-for-word copy of a passage from Rhodes work, when there is a pristine, read-only copy in Google Books. When I put the quote in that {{Quotation}}, box, which Richard Myers finds less than endearing, I went through letter, by letter, resyncing the excerpt to the quote, a mind-numbing, pointless exercise, because now it sits as a target to the next feeble-minded vandal looking for a place to plant a low-brow gag. I spend enough of my time cleaning up such crap; I don't have a hankering for more.
Oh! Sorry. That unfounded, heavily POV ladened remark about feeble-minded vandals – I should have checked that one in at the door too; so sorry — Gosgood 21:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Fascinating discussion about POV here. What is useful about Rhodes is that he actually talks about what happened in the 1860s --which otherwise hardly gets mentioned. Most of the discussion seems to be meta-Molly...that is, talking about how historians talked about the Mollies. An encyclopedia ouight to start out by saying what happened in the coal fields, and only Rhodes does that. Rjensen 23:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/l/Talk%7EMolly_Maguires_cf02.html"