Talk:San Diego free speech fight

Bias

I am not sure the highly ideological term "class conflict" should be used to describe the events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LienEmpire (talk • contribs) 05:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Extensive

Extensive revision for point of view and poor writing style is now pretty much completed. This note is likewised revised. Richard Myers 09:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed POV template.

There is still a possible issue with "local 13" in the text; IWW "locals" were, and are, normally referred to as branches, not locals. However, there were a few cases of IWW branches being referred to as locals. Issue is not yet determined; confirmation sought. Richard Myers 10:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You've done a damn good job. Great work. Kudos! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphan status

Seriously, the article is still orphaned. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It does have a few links now.--Carabinieri 20:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a link from Reitman. I'm sure there are others that can also be added. I'm not through with this article, because i think it still needs some fixing. Richard Myers 04:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead

The lead section needs to be revamped too. Currently it kind of gives a background, while it should summarize the rest of the article.--Carabinieri 20:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Anarchist template

A couple of us who edit organized labor articles believe that the anarchist template in this article — included in addition to links providing information on anarchism — gives undue weight to anarchism in an article that is more immediately associated with organized labor.

We discussed it briefly here:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Organized_Labour#New_type_of_template_--_do_we_need_one_too.3F

I am willing to listen to discussion from other points of view, or to other possible solutions, before removing the template. Richard Myers (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

POV this article sucks!!

"These disturbing incidents"

What is so disturbing about being tough with anarchists? Anymore distrubing about anarchists coming to try and destroy san diego?

YankeeRoman(68.195.102.206 (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

Vancouver BC Free Speech Fight

Just wondering where to fit this in; note the connection to San Diego.Skookum1 (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Pullman Strike which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 4 February 2015

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Note that pinging participants in previous discussions only applies to previous discussions about the specified action (e.g., the title of this article. Editors are not required to ping everyone who has participated in other discussions about capitalization of events. bd2412 T 19:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

San Diego Free Speech Fight → San Diego free speech fight – This term is almost always lowercase in better sources (books), as it is not a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Data from sources

Only lowercase is common enough to appear in book n-grams.

Books show uppercase hits are pretty much only in citing sources in title case, such as "History of the San Diego Free Speech Fight" and "A Crisis of Confidence: The San Diego Free Speech Fight of 1912". Otherwise mostly lowercase in text, implying not treated as a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Book occurrences: On the n-gram link that Randy Kryn posts below, or on mine, one can click through and look at actual books, e.g. as here. The listings are as described above: lowercase use in text usually, and uppercase use in citing titles of other works in title case. One has to get into the second page before finding a single book that uses uppercase in the text; these are relatively rare, not at or near half as Randy would suggest. There are not many books newer than 2008 that mention it, but those that do are still lowercase (e.g. [1] and [2]). Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Google scholar finds many articles mentioning the "San Diego free speech fight"; some snippets show uppercase, but examination of them shows that in every case (up through the first several pages that I've studied at least), every such uppercase occurrence is somebody else's title, in title case. Every use in running text is lower case. Probably there are exceptions, but I haven't come to one yet. Certainly treatment as proper name is rare. Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The ngram you posted lists one book! "You can click through and...", it's one book! I like your range too, '1900-2008'. Isn't it obvious now that you should stop using ngrams on these discussions, they haven't been updated since 2008. The years are rolling by and the ngrams stay the same, like nDorian Gray. And weren't you supposed to ping all the voters who were discussing this originally on another page? I don't know, that would be, fair. Randy Kryn 12:22 5 February, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not following what you're saying here. What one book? Which link? And no we don't normally ping people; that was an odd suggestion from a closer, which got not much support and caused nothing but trouble when attempted. Dicklyon (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I confused the words 'yielded only one result' from your first link in this section when I click on 'Search lots of books', so I guess it yielded only lower case. An odd result, but that boosters your case, although...using nGrams gives only outdated information now, and it could be said to be, in the age of fast-moving information tech, an antique tool. Time to give up nGrams? It seems they all stop at 2008 and some at 2005. What happened? Did Google drop the program/tool? The ping request is because many people already voted or commented on this topic, and some on this article, when you lumped lots of pages together on the 'Pullman Strike' talk page. So if they've cared enough to vote there, but don't know about this vote, shouldn't they be told? As I said, it seems fair. Randy Kryn 1:00 6 February, 2015 (UTC)

You can always look to Google Book Search to collect stats yourself from newer books. I linked the only two newer books I found, and they use lowercase. What else have you got? Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Survey and discussion

• Support as nom, per MOS:CAPS and obvious dominance of lowercase in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nominator immediately above In ictu oculi (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Your n-gram only has one entry, so it doesn't reflect usage in any way besides saying usage doesn't exist. This n-gram of 'San Diego Free Speech' using data from 1990-2008 (not your preferred 1900, 12 years before the event) shows upper-case to be prevalent (no current data since 2008 on any of these n-grams you use on different talk pages, a useless source at this point). Wikipedia's own page on this issue says 'The most notable of all of the free speech fights was the San Diego Free Speech Fight' (or did until you decapitalized it), which makes it a proper name through notability (if a 'free speech fight' is a 'thing', then the use of the term pertaining to one particular 'fight' is a proper name). So, once again an attempt is being made to belittle social movements by decapitalizing and deemphasizing them. Isn't there a decree or something saying that when you try to change these names you have to ping everyone who voted on past attempts to change the names? Pings, please. Randy Kryn 12:48 4 February, 2015 (UTC)
• Support, while there are some RSs that use the capitalized version such as USD within the body of the content (and not as part of a title), others do not KPBS, Journal of San Diego History, UC Berkeley, University of Alabama Press). Therefore per MOS:CAPS, the name change makes sense.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

• Comment - this is an example of rigid/conflation of guidelines that wind up with a controversial and highly POV-flavoured result; no matter what MOSites say, this looks odd and downplays the reality of the Free Speech Fights both as an historical phenomenon and a movement with a proper name, including in its own terms. If this were an ethnicity or tribe WP:NCET's self-identification provision would kick in; instead, abstruse technical arguments and citation/googlesearch stats were manipulated and pored over, and the NPOV side of teh proposed title change was ignored; again, guideline-mongering and statistical games based on conflations of guideline parameters winds up degrading a title for what comes off as political purposes, even if the MOSite faction conducing their wiki-wide lower-casing campaign don't understand the POV issues they are affecting.Skookum1 (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. You get four people, me included, not even a handful truth be told, chiming in, without pinging others who would have an interest in the issue, and wham bam thank you Sam the San Diego Free Speech Fight, which has been described as the most important Free Speech event of its era (remember Free Speech, first amendment to the Constitution and all, a little matter of one of the basic human rights which emerged from the founding of the United States? That one), degraded, made less important, and declared "not a proper noun" even though very many people and institutions use it as a proper noun. Another social milestone in American history bites the lower-case dust on Wikipedia (the same guy who started this wanted to downgrade every one of the African-American Civil Rights Movement pages too, saved by the bell - the Liberty Bell!). I wouldn't like to be a fly on the wall when some of the labor historians wander by and find out that this has happened. Randy Kryn 7:57 12 February, 2015 (UTC)

You mean the "Liberty bell" huh? Thing is, the move review process like DRV requires no comment about the editors perpetrating the controversial move; which is why many "bad closes" I've seen, including certain ones that were clearly hostile, I never went about the process to challenge the move; partly because who had done it is so entrenched in "the community" that they are unassailable; and it's them who write the rules about how to challenge, if ever, what they decree, or as here, what they treat as consensus but really isn't, as invalid logics and statements are counted as equals to those that are valid when they're not supposed to be.

And also, in guidelines somewhere as I've pointed out here and elsewhere "if you're not familiar with the subject please stay out of the discussion [and the votes]." Being familiar with the guidelines (that you helped write and monitor/maintain according to your own personal preferences/theories) is not the same as being familiar with the subject of the discussion; a technicalist would claim, as we have seen, that the subject is the title, not what the title is about; which is an absurd claim and just word-games from people who may have a cursory knowledge of the actual subject, but it seems not enough to recognize when the impact of their desired move/change is extremely POV; and to me constitutes newspeak, as do their arguments, and the re-tooling of the meaning of so-called "consensus".

I suggest you take this to move review; how that will go who knows but this shouldn't be accepted meekly; it's time for editors knowledge about the content stand up against those who wield their knowledge of guidelines and procedure as if that's all the encyclopedia was about.Skookum1 (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea how to do a move review, I came into these processes with the proposed decapitalizations of the Civil Rights Movement pages, and don't know the ins and outs. I have seen how tiny changes in wording, agreed upon by a few people, can act as justification (often by the person who thought up the change and then goes around pointing to it, saying "See, we have to change this, tis the rules!") for sweeping Wikipedia-wide changes. Maybe the closer should take it to this move review, just to assure a little more confidence in this outcome. After seeing what I've seen, and the small amount of editors involved in these things (often the same ones voting the same way) I wouldn't consider a major move or rule change on the up-and-up unless notification is promoted and left up on one of the banners at the top of all Wikipedia pages. This system, like the extinct nGrams which all end either in 2000, 2005, or 2008 (eons ago in internet time, and focused on books and not web searches which are the new "books" in terms of what could be considered a proper noun), may be broken and, because a long list of interested people doesn't have to be pinged as they probably should be (even editors who had previously commented on this exact issue weren't notified), broken in a way that should be of concern. Randy Kryn 13:23 12 February, 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

This doesn't strike me as a neutral article at at...it's about how the poor IWW people were persecuted by the wicked Bosses. What court actually declared that their rights to free speech had been infringed? Without that, it's simply a matter of opinion...they considered their rights to have been infringed. It shouldn't be stated as a fact. For all we know, the people who signed the petition against them were doing it for what they considered perfectly good reasons' they were sick of the violence at the meetings, they were sick of traffic being held up, they felt it was a public safety hazard. We don't know, because the article makes no attempt to explain their point of view. "The police played fire hoses on the crowd, indiscriminate of women and children"....what were they doing in a dangerous protest area anyway? Have you ever tried to play a firehose on a crown discriminately? It sound to me like they put their women and children at the front of the line in the hopes that the police would be scared to do anything, or that they could use their reaction as propaganda. If they were just mixed in with the crowd, it's still stupid to expect them to be treated differently. The vigilantism says to me that a good many people of the town were not happy with being invaded by radicals looking to cause trouble. And many other things; I don't care which side is right, but the article needs to not be about the heroic IWW members and their fight against The Wicked Capitalists. AnnaGoFast (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)