Talk:Ida Braiman

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

POV issues.

Most detailed cites describe a situation where stone-throwing strikers were attempting to intimidate non-striking workers and their employer, at a site which was also the employer's home, with several (non-striking) workers injured by objects thrown at them through the windows of their workplace. A grand jury accepted Sauter's claim of self-defense. Does the article reflect this? Anmccaff (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a sentence that includes the reports of stone-throwing from the crowd. Catemcc (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...written from a POV, rather than from sources. Are there -any- decent sources that dispute that the mob was pressuring univolved workes? Any that dispute that potentially lethal objects were thrown at the workforce? Anmccaff (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Lady, Chicken?"

r.i.l. Anmccaff (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this source should be reinstated, if corrected in its citation (an error in the automatic citation generator that I hadn't fixed) -- it is a 1971 item in a feminist journal that mentions the press reprinting posters of the 1913 document. Catemcc (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the over-citing issue for a moment...why? What do you feel that mention in a very, very, little little magazine is cite-worthy? Anmccaff (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]