Talk:History of Denver/Archive 1

Inclusion/exclusion of Emma Goldman passage about IWW members

This comment contests a change to a passage of the Denver History article that has stood for several years.

Rjensen offers the following reasons for deleting a referenced item about Denver history, and for moving the union the Industrial Workers of the World (of which i have been a member) out of a labor section, and into a political section:

(1) IWW already get too much attention in this history of Denver --2) \it was acting in politics not as a labor union)

This is wrong on three counts. First, removing this history has the characteristic of sanitizing Denver history. Removing a reference to Denver jail authorities using rockpiles and a sweatbox for punishment ought to be a part of the record, if it is true. Rjensen has made no claim that it wasn't true.

Second, "too much attention" is clearly a judgment call. One paragraph about a particular period in the city's history, in which union members were locked up in violation of their first amendment rights to free speech, shouldn't be considered "too much attention" about the organization they happened to belong to. The article's subject is, in point of fact, the history of Denver.

And finally, the IWW may be considered the "least political" of unions, in at least one important sense: it constitutionally prohibited its members from engaging in political activity in 1908, and these prohibitions on political activity have continued to exist for more than a century:

ARTICLE VI Sec. 6. No funds of the General Administration of the I. W. W. or subordinate parts thereof shall be used for political party purposes.

ARTICLE IX Sec. 3. No general officer of the organization or parts thereof, or any salaried organizer shall be permitted to accept any office in any political organization, nor shall they be allowed to accept any nomination for any political office except permission be granted by a referendum vote of the entire organization.

ARTICLE IX Sec. 4. The General Executive Board shall not appoint as an organizer of the I. W. W. anyone who is employed as organizer for any political party.

ARTICLE IX Sec. 5. No organizer of the I. W. W. while on the platform for this organization shall advocate any political party or political party platform. http://www.workerseducation.org/crutch/constitution/1908const.html

Many other unions do engage in political activity routinely, donating to electoral campaigns and endorsing candidates. Since 1908, the IWW has done none of that.

The IWW members in question were arrested for attempting to speak to workers about joining a labor union, the IWW, for the purpose of organizing on the job. Rjensen's contention that the IWW members were engaged in political activity is incorrect.

Rjensen's opinion may be based upon the fact that the referenced author, Emma Goldman, did routinely engage in political speeches. But this passage isn't about Emma Goldman; she simply is the referenced author. Unless her autobiography can be impeached on the history that this article references, the history should stand. Richard Myers (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is an article on Denver--its history. The fact that Goldman and IWW staged one of their protests there is a minor event and gets mentioned--but it was minor and should be treated at the Goldman and IWW pages, where it is not considered important enough for a single mention. The IWW in Denver was not a labor union at the time and did not represent any workers. It was making a political protest of the sort it made in dozens of places. The problem with making the IWW a centerpiece of the union movement is that it demeans the actual workers who had their own real unions in Denver. Rjensen (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's misleading. The passage mentions that two branches were formed, in spite of (or perhaps due to publicity about) the mentioned free speech fight for labor rights. The IWW currently represents the staff workers at FRESC Denver, who are employed (indirectly) by, and do research for, the AFL-CIO. But that is all essentially beside the point, in my view, and i include it only to refute the implication that the organization is somehow unimportant or irrelevant, or a mere historical curiosity.

The information is good, referenced history, and it should remain in the article. Richard Myers (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IWW had its labor days, but the activities under dispute here were pure politics with no union members involved. The events were NOT important enough to get any mention in the IWW or Goldman articles, and I think a sentence here about there month-long protest is plenty--rather than giving them more coverage than any other topic in Denver history. It is in my opinion the duty of the editors to allocate space with a sense of what the history of Denver is like. The Goldman quote weakens the article Rjensen (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came here via a comment at the Organized Labour project. FWIW I think the distinction between political and industrial activities of trade unions can be extremely vague or even artificial...and the degree of difference is often fairly specific to national traditions (eg contrast UK and Australia with USA, not to mention South Africa or Poland). I can't comment on the history of Denver itself, but a solution might be that rather than trying to divide this between trade union and party political issues, perhaps it might be better to have a section called Social Movements in Denver, which could include free speech, women's suffrage movement, labour movement (radical and reform varieties), progressive movement, political parties etc. Just a thought. --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review (January 2014)

History of Denver

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've rewritten major sections of this article and would like some feedback. Any suggestion on what information to include in the intro would be appreciated.

Thanks, Killian441 (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... I am starting this peer review, but I will not have time to be thorough. Other editors are welcome to help! Madalibi (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I've had a busy start to the new year, but I will start to work on updating the article. Thank you again for taking the time to look this over. -Killian441 (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments by Madalibi

Hi Killian441! This is an interesting, well-written, and well-structured article. Unfortunately I don't have time to read it thoroughly, so here are just a few comments.

References:
- There are a lot of footnotes that don't point to a bibliographic entry, and many bibliographic entries with no footnotes to go with them. Sometimes it's just a formatting problem, as when note 13 cites "Leonard 1990", a work that is formatted as "Leonard & Noel 1990" in the bibliography. I won't go through the list if citation errors one by one. You can use the very convenient script User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js to check for them yourself. Once the script is installed, you will just see them automatically. All the books that are not cited in the article should go in a section titled "Further reading" or something.
- If you're planning to apply for good article status eventually, you will need page numbers for the books you cite. Browse through your footnotes to see which entries are missing page numbers.
Section titles should not be fully capitalized: check MOS:SECTIONCAPS.
Lead section. Here you should just summarize the history of Denver as it's recounted in the article. You should start by stating clearly where Denver is, and what the scope of "Denver" is (I see you already do that), then say when it was founded and by whom. You can tell the story chronologically in as few words as possible, but trying to be complete at the same time. You could then use the last (probably 3rd or 4th) paragraph of the lede to explain the significance of the history of Denver, or important themes in the history of the city. I'd be glad to comment on further versions once they're ready. For more ideas, you can also read WP:LEAD.
Images: when I use an image, I like to point to something intriguing that will make the reader feel like reading the text that goes with it. Some captions are excellent, like the portrait of James Denver with his namesake city or the picture of the Zephyr and its record-breaking trip. This is just the kind of tidbit that will attract a reader's attention. But the "Painting of Denver in 1859" with its wagon carts and tipis is just crying for a more interesting caption! In the caption for the "Front exterior of Union Station", you could explain the significance of that station in the history of Denver. Same for the Tabor Grand Opera House, the State Capitol, Jefferson Territory, etc. For more ideas, see WP:CAPTION.

Ok, that's all I have time for right now, but that should at least get you started! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everybody! I have transcluded this peer review from its archived page because the editor who asked for a peer review hasn't responded to it yet. I'm just trying to make it easier for other people to find it and improve the article. The review is short and compact, so it shouldn't disrupt this talk page. Madalibi (talk) 08:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1 missing references to some names , 2 barry fey did not start family dog, he took it over months later — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.34.142 (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Denver

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Denver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Denver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]