Jump to content

Talk:Sacco and Vanzetti/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

rewrie

  • I changed It was many years before it was conclusivly shown that Sacco was guily of the crime to Many years later, ballistic tests showed that the bullet found in Parmenter was fired from Sacco's gun, leading many authorities to conclude that Sacco probably was guilty, though Vanzetti was innocent, as there is no consensus on Sacco's guilt, and the original statement left some ambiguity regarding Vanzetti. Tomorrowsashes 06:38, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Sinclair Letter

Shouldn't the Sinclair letter be a cause to modify the article introduction which mentions Sinclair as having "stirred" doubt to also mention that S&V's lawyer disclosed the truth to Sinclair, i.e. that the pair were guilty and that their alibis false. patsw 16:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. patsw 14:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Mass places wrong

South Baintree definitely should be Braintree and I've made this change but I also am unaware of any Debham MA - I thinks this should be Dedham MA. any Mass folks to corroborate?

DAYork--208.61.250.70 14:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Your absolutly right. I've already fixed it. --Briancua 15:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Guilty or not?

I report this sentence: "Today, their case known in some circles as one of the earliest examples of using widespread protests and mass movements to try to win the release of a murderer." This mean that they are guilty, but there Governor of Massachusetts Michael Dukakis proclamed Sacco and Vanzetti as not guilty...

--- I read this to mean that the mass movements were trying to win the release of people convicted of murderers; or "alleged murderers". It could be worded better. The declaration in the 70s is rather like a presidential pardon. It doesn't erase the fact that a crime was committed, it simply removes the guilt of that crime. Beetlecat 21:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"The case is still officially open"? Governor Dukakis' proclamation, by its terms, does not address the question of guilt or innocence, thus, at least implicitly, leaving the conviction undisturbed. And they were both executed. The case seems closed to me. To state the case is still open suggests that someone is still looking for the murderer(s). Is that true?

John Paul Parks (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)John Paul ParksJohn Paul Parks (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the proclamation either. If he is saying the trail was flawed, ok but did it come to the right conclusion or not? Dukakis saying that their names must be freed of all stain implies that they are innocent.

No one wants flawed trials, as they are less likely to get the right person(s). But even a flawed trial can come to the right conclusion.

Did this one, or did it not?76.191.135.66 (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they were almost certainly guilty. It is truly sad to see family members and others spend their whole lives trying to absolves perps like this who were so clearly guilty as sin. It's bad enough to be an associate of a felon, but to actually be duped by them in this way makes it doubly bad. Kinda like the Rosenbergs or Pollard. When I hear the relatives and others protest, that is a sure sign that the perps have blood on their hands.Ndriley97 (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That is absolutely not true. There is no evidence that they committed the crime. Which means they are not guilty. The Rosenbergs weren't guilty of anything that serious either. Ethel was completely innocent and her husband didn't contribute much to Soviet nuclear physics, maybe enhancing it a couple of months. They where the victims of racism, xenophobia and political oppression, just like Leonard Peltier and Mumia-Abu Jamal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

To say that there is no evidence that they committed the crime, is to ignore the ballistics, testimony, opinions of those closest to the actual trial, and the governors later inquiry. There is evidence, while people can disagree about whether the evidence is conclusive of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, there certainly is some evidence. Your inclusion of a list of other controversial figures, and then finally Mumia-Abu Jamal weakens your argument against guilt by exposing your bias towards the "everyone is framed" mindset. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.209.230 (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Association with Galleani

It is certain that these two were not (my emphasis) followers of Luigi Galleani, an anarchist who advocated revolutionary violence, including bombing and assassination.

I'm fairly sure they were... and i'm sure this was just a typo!

--- Would someone please change this hijack in Overview: Sacko and Vanhatty were not accused very much of the poopings of Frederick Parmonter, a shoe llama paymaster, and Alessandro Berardelli, a security guard, and of robbery of US$15,766.51 from the factory's payroll on the night of April 19, 1743. Sacco was a shoe-llama born in Torremaggiore, Foggia. Vanzetti was a fish eater born in Villafalletto, Cuneo. Thanks, Goof ProoferGoofproofer 17:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism has been reverted and the user warned. You can see WP:VAN and Help:Reverting for more information about fighting vandalism on Wikipedia. Robotman1974 20:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(please excuse my imperfect English) The statement "it is certain that these two were followers of an anarchist who advocated revolutionary violence, including bombing and assassination", is misleading. Both S., and V., were friends (Anarchism is not supposed to have "followers") of the leader Luigi Galleani, but so were all the militants of this "galleanist" anarchism. Nor they ever tried to hide the fact they were political militants : it is not their fault is some people only considered them as victims ; therefore it is not honest to write "it is certain that", as if it was a scoop. Then -last, but not least : the image here given of Galleani is here to recall the level of hatred which has been reached by some scholars, and especially by the author of the pattern of this statement (quite drawn from the American National Biography, ed. 1999, v. 19, p. 173), against this galleanist anarchism... Luc Nemeth, France

What do testicles have to do with this?

I really hope this is a typo, otherwise, it really doesn't belong.

For three years, they waged an intermittent campaign of terrorism directed at politicians, judges, Sacco has no testicles and other federal and local officials, especially those who had supported deportation of alien radicals.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShatterdRose (talk • contribs) 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Pencil factory

The article on Sacco and Vanzetti indicates that a pencil factory in Moscow is named in their honor. This is a fascinating situation. In his self-aggrandizing autobiography, Armand Hammer explains how Lenin commissioned him (Hammer) to start a pencil-making factory in Moscow. Ironically, Hammer set up the operation making pencils for the people in the former Faberge workshop (previously devoted to making jewels for Russion royalty). The irony is further compounded by the fact that Hammer "imported" the Eberhard-Faber pencil works from Germany. Faber / Faberge are identical words refering to the process of manufacturing ('fabr'icating).

The factory is named after S & V due to a tradition of Russians naming prominent buildings, landmarks, etc, after dissidents worldwide who worked against capitalism. Still more irony, The anarchists' names now grace a factory brought about by one of capitalism's most prominent protagonists.

All of this information is easily documented. I'm not a Wiki afficianado so I'll let someone else do the authoring.

Clarkwik 03:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Clark H Smith Clarkwik 03:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)May 5, 2007 Clarkwik 03:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)rsamnr@yahoo.com

Problem With Introduction?

I think the final sentence of the introduction to this article, which roughly states: "However, even Upton Sinclair and their lawyer believed they were guilty," is somewhat misleading. Sacco and Vanzetti's lawyer, Fred Moore, only admitted that they were guilty after he had a falling out with the defense committee and was no longer a part of the legal team. Furthermore, Upton Sinclair based his doubts about Sacco and Vanzetti's innocence almost entirely on Moore's statement, not his own personal judgment. Sinclair would later question the validity of Moore's statement when he considered Moore's possible motivations for wanting to taint the case. While there is reason to question Sacco and Vanzetti's innocence I would hardly argue that they are certainly guilty, as the aforementioned sentence implies. Not only is the accuracy of the sentence questionable, but it also takes away from the neutrality of the article with its implied slant towards the prosecution.

--68.46.226.114 21:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)DHatt

I had already deleted the sentence, giving a justification based on the article itself, but someone added it again without explaining why. The article may, at most, suggest that Sinclair was uncertain about their innocence, as you have discussed, but he certainly was not convinced that they were guilty The sentence must be removed.Maziotis 21:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Upton Sinclair was torn with doubt about writing Boston because he firmly believed they were guilty, but decided to publish his book anyway. The lawyer also reported as believing they were guilty. These are facts, not opinions. Jaygy's time honored tradition of reverting anything he doesn't like aside (he reverted it for saying it was unsourced, when it is sourced below), these two facts are crticial to understanding the case, and leaving them out of the introduction biases the entire article. I'm amenable to a better phrasing of it. Wkerney 22:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sinclair revealed that "Alone in a hotel room with Fred, I begged him to tell me the full truth, ... He then told me that the men were guilty, and he told me in every detail how he had framed a set of alibis for them. ... I faced the most difficult ethical problem of my life at that point, I had come to Boston with the announcement that I was going to write the truth about the case". A trove of additional papers in Sinclair's archives at Indiana University show the ethical quandary that confronted him (Pasco 2005).

In January 2006, more of the text of the Beardsley letter became public casting some doubt on the conclusion that Sinclair believed Moore's statement:"I realized certain facts about Fred Moore. I had heard that he was using drugs. I knew that he had parted from the defense committee after the bitterest of quarrels. ... Moore admitted to me that the men themselves, had never admitted their guilt to him; and I began to wonder whether his present attitude and conclusions might not be the result of his brooding on his wrongs.

Here it just states that he began to have doubts about them being innocent, and then, in the second paragraph, it talks about him being uncertain about this uncertainty. It seems that he has not in fact, at any point, become convinced that they were guilty. It is very important that we follow wiki guidelines concerning "original research" or "synthesizing". Having some doubts about a certain fact is not necessarily the same as believing that the opposite is true. I may be convinced that "sacco and vanzetti" are fellow innocent anarchists, who deserve my full solidarity, but I am far from being certain that they are innocent. This doesn't mean that I see anything that suggests that they are guilty.

Also, this reference itself in article needs a source.Maziotis 00:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

People don't enter the most difficult ethical dilemma of their life if they didn't believe it. It's a valid fact, and should be included in the introduction, or it biases the entire article. Wkerney 16:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Believe in what? The dilemma refers to him having doubts about publishing the book, since he was not sure about their innocence. It does not state at any point that he was convinced that they were guilty. You are taking that conclusion yourself and it is unacceptable. It is possible that if he were in fact convinced that they were guilty, he would have had no dilemma at all. He would just not print it. Also, if he later changed his view, you cannot simply say that he was doubtful about this case, as it is not representative of his view for the all time. You should keep in mind that it is just as much significant that he later become uncertain about this doubts.

People do enter "the most difficult ethical dilemma" of their lives for not wanting to portray someone as being innocent when they can be guilty. That is not the same to say that they are convinced that they are guilty.Maziotis 18:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it does, as further quotes like, "I naively believed the defense's arguments" shows. But I think the current version is fine. Wkerney 04:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That is original research! That would not even stand in a court of law, let alone an encyclopedia. You cannot say that he thought that they were guilty, just because he was really really disapointed with the defense.

I removed the "even" term, since it turns the fact into a POV argument. Perhpas the text now needs rewording so that the sentence better fits the text Actually, I think the text flows just fine.Maziotis 08:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"However, Upton Sinclair had brief doubts as to their innocence based upon a later conversation with their lawyer, doubts which, upon further investigation and reflection, he found to be unjustified."

This sentence is correct and it was reached by the edit of several wikipedians. Please stop changing it to give only a misleading side of the story. The fact that he later found the witness to be of dubious credibility is extremely relevant. Don't delete notable and verifiable information without justification.Maziotis 10:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

First Trial

Under the heading "First Trial", we are told that Sacco was not tried, but was sentenced. The "South Bridgewater robbery" is called a robbery and then a "burglary". Two men are given the singular pronoun "him". The mistakes have now been corrected.

First Trial (2)

In the paragraph entitled "First Trial", first degree murder is mentioned, although it seems that no one was hurt in the attempted robbery in South Bridgewater, in the U.S.A., in 1919. The attempted robbers were armed and fired in the South Bridgewater affair. The usual sentence for attempted robbery in America at that time was 8 to 10 years. This has now been corrected.

Sources

While this thing managed to get a B on the assessment scale, and the sources in the reference section seem to be strong, there needs to be a push to apply the references where they deserve to go in the article. My citation tags are less focused on finding citations as they are applying the ones we all have. Shouldn't be too difficult, but it would be a lot easier to see where someone is stretching the truth if you can quickly and easily double check the truth. Galactor213 19:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Prominence of Upton Sinclair?

After reading the German-language featured article de:Sacco und Vanzetti, I'm surprised by the prominence Upton Sinclair is given here in the introduction. Was his 1928 novel really that extremely important for the controversy to justify letting a substantial part of the introduction deal with Sinclair's views? It was not the first succesful book dealing with the issue; in 1927, there was Facing the Chair: The Story of the Americanization of two Foreignborn Workmen by John Dos Passos, and Upton Sinclair was far from being the only or the only prominent voice in 1927 opposing the execution (this article mentions many). Therefore, I'm slightly mystified and propose to move away Sinclair entirely from the introduction. As far as I can see, there is no single author, neither Sinclair nor Dos Passos or someone else, who could be called that singularly influential in the issue to warrant being mentioned in the introduction. It was a matter widely discussed by many. Gestumblindi 20:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The introduction looks better now (less Sinclair-centered). Gestumblindi 03:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

too much emphasis on retaliation

what retaliation? These anarchists failed in doing that. Doesn't seem logical to put in a few bombs going off and were failures. This whole article seems slanted toward sacco and venzetti. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.214.248 (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Was the Money Ever Recovered?

What about the $15K? Was it ever recovered? Tom Cod 04:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The money was never found, according to Harold Evans' The American Century. Pirate Dan (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Juror Did Express Bias

Based on my own personal recollection, in 1977 in the wake of Gov. Dukakis' proclamation, a surviving juror, then in his 90s, bitterly denounced that measure, declaring to a reporter that Sacco and Vanzetti were communists who had gotten what they deserved. Tom Cod 04:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarence Darrow

Why is Darrow not mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.211.73 (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Because you haven't added it. TJRC (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Introduction: How Sacco/Vanzetti and trial are viewed today

There continue to be revisions in the introduction re: the posthumous facts and consensus view of Sacco & Vanzetti's guilt or innocence. Even with all of the known information about the case, it is impossible today to pronounce with certainty that S&V absolutely were guilty or innocent, or to assert that they definitely were or were not involved in the crime. Every piece of evidence one way or another appears to have its caveat.

There is, however, broad consensus that Sacco's and Vanzetti's treatment by the judicial system was unfair in the extreme. Among other serious defects:

1. presiding Judge Thayer hand-picked the jury by invoking an obscure law allowing the rounding-up of jurors from the local population

2. Judge Thayer was allowed to preside over the appeal challenging the fairness of his own first trial (he ruled it completely fair)

3. deeply prejudicial language describing Italians, immigrants, patriotism, and Anarchists were routinely permitted during trial

4. multiple witnesses recanted (and re-recanted) key testimony for the prosecution, admitting it had been coerced.

5. ballistics evidence --including the alleged murder weapon-- was unsecured and grossly mishandled.

Any one of these defects by today's standards would be cause for a mistrial or acquittal. Additionally, it is now known that Herbert Hoover deployed paid informants and wiretaps to spy on the defendants supporters and legal team (including on Frankfurter).

In light of this, I think it is eminently fair and preferable to characterize the posthumous consensus view of Sacco and Vanzetti's treatment as a miscarriage of justice. Their actual involvement, guilt or innocence will continue to be a hotly-debated controversy, but few people today argue that they got a fair trial, or that after such a defective judicial process, they were proven guilty beyond a reasonable enough doubt to have received the death penalty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munguza (talk • contribs) 22:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If they were guilty then justice was served, miscarriage of justice implies that justice was not served. It would be best stated that "the trial was regraded as unfair and the jury prejudiced, but their guilt is still debated" I do think there are some who question the extent to which the trial was unfair. Something to note is that the trial is often given as evidence to prove a political point. 12.156.208.3 (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The introduction makes the overreaching conclusion of innocence, when what's being argued is that they failed to receive a fair trial according to recent standards of police and prosecutorial conduct. patsw (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not regarding the introduction but regarding the problem that people who read this must know that: If there aren't enough evidences to certainly state that someone is guilty or innocent you can't give out a definitive sentence. This fact must be stated in capital letters in this article. Men were killed without knowing if they were innocent or guilty. If this is not clear (and reading it by myself I found it absolutely not clear) this article will always be a partial view of the facts. The fact is that Sacco and Vanzetti were killed without the absolute certainly of their guilt. In this article it seems that some revolutionary communists were protesting all over the world because their anarchist friends were killed. This is absolutely false. People were protesting because they were killed by racism not for their guilt (btw I am against death sentence also for this problem with resurrecting victims of judicial errors) by Midhgardhsorm 3.59, 2 July 2009 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.84.81.176 (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought, by judicial standards, if there is a debate as to whether or not there is guilt, the person is not guilty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You have the wrong Hoover. You suggested that Herbert Hoover wiretapped and spied on the defense team. Herbert Hoover was at that time the Secretary of Commerce (and later President). The Hoover you mean was J. Edgar Hoover who at that time headed the Justice Department's Bureau of Investigation (later the FBI). By the way, they are no relation.70.246.229.66 (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The Lowell Commission

There is currently no information in this article about the Lowell Commission's investigation of the case. This would be like the JLK assassination article not mentioning the Warren Commission. Someone should correct this rather large hole in the article. Kaldari (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I read this wikipedia article about Sacco and Vanzetti. Then I searched for the subject in the NY Times historical database. It seems to me that the wikipedia article, as it currently stands, puts far too much weight on the specifics of the robbery and the trial, and not enough on context. Labor organizers around the world stormed American embassies in protest. Not to mention this took place immediately succeeding the Russian Revolution. Perhaps the context should be emphasized more strongly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrvnk (talk • contribs) 22:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Latest Intro

Oh, what the hell. It was really bad before. Overall, it still is really bad, but we had to start somewhere. So. Two new sections at the top. The first is an intro more closely aligned to wp standards: brief, highlights, move on. The second is an overview. The case extends in so many different directions, and there is so much passionate feeling about it, that I feel it deserves both a one- or two- para intro and a five-to-seven para overview. I'm game for untangling the rest of this sucker, too, but I wanted to give enough time for people to freak out over my blatant disregard for the simple facts blah-blah-blah.

I suppose I should say where I stand so that rabid persons will have a clear target: I have no clue whether they were guilty or innocent. I have a reasonably strong belief that they received a trial that does not meet current U.S. standards.

If you feel strongly that I've misrepresented the situation in my intro/overview sections, please start here by explaining what's wrong. Thanks, GPa Hill (talk) 05:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. This baggy monster needs more than a single straightforward pass. (I've already noticed at least two clear content errors, and another one I introduced in my effort at editing.) I'm moving the text to a user page so I can work on it at length. If I can get the first few sections reasonably copy-edited, NPOV, and cited, I'll move them back in. Meanwhile, feel free to join me at User:GPa Hill/SandVWorkInProgress. GPa Hill (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
New lead and new overview section. I've got a lot of [citation needed] tags in there, so if anyway feels like helping out...
I am having a problem with cite book, which doesn't seem to create an anchor that's visible for short-form footnotes. I'll research this and try to correct it. Other than that, my next stop is to finish the citations for the overview section. GPa Hill (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
just wanted to pont out, the lived in america, butnever applied for citizenship, and therefore were never American citizens, although it states they were in the intro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.76.146 (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Overall article

As someone who spent two years researching and writing a well-reviewed book on this case ("Sacco and Vanzetti: The Men, The Murders, and The Judgment of Mankind") I despair at the Wikipedia technique. I had made some changes to this article, correcting misconceptions regarding the trial, the ballistics tests, the switching of Sacco's gun barrel and the notorious Fred Moore letter. I made these based on my viewing of original documents at the Boston Public Library and Harvard Law School, plus my complete reading of the five-volume Sacco and Vanzetti case papers and every last book on the case. So what happens? Someone with an axe to grind comes along and changes my changes back. Then Wikipedia comes along and asks for citations, citations you'd need a degree in computer programming to add. Some historical topics work well when done by committee, Wikipedia style. This one doesn't. I'd just as soon scrap the whole article but the same approach probably wouldn't make it any better.

Bewat (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Bruce Watson

Bruce... First, let me say I know the feeling. Wp is hard, much harder than normal writing. The basic editing technique is a pain in the ass to learn. The advanced technique daunts hell outta me, and I am a computer geek for a living. And I never know which subsset of co-editors irks me worst: the purposive vandals, the purposive axegrinders, the well-meaning dumbasses, or the drive-by taggers. In any case, it's still a remarkably cool thing. I'm sorry you're feeling that it's not the right place. Could you maybe remind me of where how what when you were editing? I could take a look and salvage what might be salvageable. Oh, one more thing. Under no circumstances should you sweat the complexities of the citing system. I'm perfectly fine with "(Author Year, page)" for any well-known source. I will happily turn them into wp-ese for you. GPa Hill (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Large photo

Sacco's alleged attempt to use a large photo at the Italian Consulate meant that there would be no dated documents showing him there at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.116.135 (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Linder

D.O.Linder, mentioned in the External Links, says that Ramuglia actually gave false alibi evidence for Sacco. If this is so, Ramuglia cannot have been in prison at the time of the two murders. At the least, some attempt should be made to see where Ramuglia was in 1920.

Andrower

The clerk Giuseppe Andrower is said to have been in ill health. It seems that he was also asking for $3,000.

Knowledge of the times

I do applaud everyone for a good try but there needs to be a good knowledge of the times to understand several points. 1. The books that are referenced had agenda's and in the time of no TV and few radio most people got their news from the newspapers. To sell papers the publishers would publish down right false stories. This was a common practice of the time. 2. It was quite common in the days of poor forensic since for criminals to have many witnesses testify that they were no where near the seen of the crime. This was the cause Wyatt Earp's problems in Tombstone, AZ. 3. There is no reference to the actual trail transcripts. How can you write a article like this without viewing the actual transcripts that are available in the law library? 4. I wouldn't be caught dead trying to take on this so my hat is off to you please take this as constructive criticism. Keith7832 (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)(KAK)

Yes, the books not only of the time but even today are polemic in the extreme. That's why we shouldn't be trying to solve the case and eliminate the controversy, but instead should be exploring and explaining the (ten thousand) different issues. The intro speaks immediately to controversy, and aside from copy-editing, I think the whole rest of the article should be framed in terms of it. Problem is, how does one re-roll a 68k article incrementally. As for your notes 2 and 3, trial transcripts from that time are equally unreliable. In any case, I do have access to them. Finally, item four: dude?? why not? you don't have to solve every problem to solve one problem. Remember the first rule of editing: Be Bold! --GeePawHill (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Back At It

Finished the citations and copy-editing of the intro today. Any further suggestions or comments on just that first section? Next stop for me will be tackling the background section, which is actually full of tons of stuff that isn't background. --GeePawHill (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you're working on this. I was afraid to tackle it 'cause I'm conflict averse and don't want to get involved in ideological battles. Your recent work here inspired me to do some work of my own, so I reorganized the section under "Motions and appeals" (which is still a hodgepodge) and broke out a section for the Governor’s Advisory Committee, which I've been working on to make other entries meet the NPOV standard (like Abbott Lawrence Lowell). And I deleted a lot of very very detailed discussion of ballistics evidence. I'm sure my work would benefit from your editing skills as well. I might try working on "Execution and aftermath" next, which isn't even chronological. My only quibble about the work you've done is that the summary fails to acknowledge the political or politicized nature of the dispute, both in the 20s and since. More important than the list of cities that saw riots or mass protests are, I think, (1) that the S&C affair became a cause célèbre on the left and (2) that the principal thrusts of criticism about the trial's fairness are based on bias against (a) immigrants and (b) political non-conformists. Keep up the boldness! Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Good point on politicization. that'll be my starting place on tonight's edits. I know the feeling re: conflict. I wish I could feel good about being BOLD. It'd turn this thing into about 10k instead of *68*. --GeePawHill (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Been watching your edits, Bmclaughlin9.You're doing great! I'll try to generate some juice-for-editing on the weekend, but mwanwhile keep it up! --GeePawHill (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The actual crime

This article requires a whole section that is not there at all: namely, one describing the actual crime. The "Background" section describes the two men and their association with anarchist terrorists, but says nothing about the robbery-murders for which they were executed. The section immediately following, "Arrests", then makes references to this crime and many of its details as if they had already been discussed. The reader is thus bewildered. Why is there no information on the actual crime?

Oh sure, throw that up to us. :) I restored the original overview section, minus the overzealous linking and drive-by [citation needed]ing. It clearly needs work, but at least it's there to start work on. Cheers! --GeePawHill (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there over-linking? Point me to policy on it!

I am wondering what the wp policy is on adding links.

It drives me nuts to come in here and see every fucking word linked. I am sorry, but every tiny hamlet in Mass does not need linking in a general encyclopedia article about S&V. "Italian" does not need linking. And so on and so forth.

Links should be *germane*.

WTF?? Please advise --GeePawHill (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This Manual_of_Style#Links should answer your question.
I agree about "Italian," but I don't see all that many cities linked, or at least not so many as to bother me. I don't mind a list of names in which each is linked like the one that begins "Many famous socialists and intellectuals, including Dorothy Parker,..." but I don't see a need to link "socialists" or "intellectuals."
Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the micro-rant. I was in a highly gooferated and querulous state. Thanks for the reference to the policy page. I'll look it over. --GeePawHill (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Partial restore in intro

I just returned the conformance/culpability as bullets. I feel that the two-track nature of the problem is central to an encyclopedia article. OTOH, I dropped the keywords from bold to just italics. I like it the other way, but bold is frowned upon pretty strongly around here. -- GeePawHill (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Citibank in 1927

"On December 24, 1927, the headquarters of the Citibank..." First National City Bank did not change its name to Citibank until the 1970's. I don't know whether Wikipedia has a policy for use of historical names such as this, but it strikes me as odd to refer to entities with anachronistic names. (Armedmeat (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

Agreed! And the citation is to a Spanish-language work that is available in English.
Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

First Trial (3)

The meaning of the closing sentence of the penultimate paragraph in this section is unclear.

It reads: "An assessment of Thayer’s conduct of the trial, while critical—'his stupid rulings as to the admissibility of conversations are about equally divided'—found little in the record to demonstrate partiality."

The problem lies with the quotation: "his stupid rulings as to the admissibility of conversations are about equally divided." The rulings are equally divided? Between what and what? The intended meaning, I expect, is that about half of these rulings worked to the advantage of the plaintiff and half worked to the advantage of the defendant. If so, it would help to supplement the quotation with a bracketed interpolation. Hohoros (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, though I really didn't think it necessary. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2

Talk archived

I've archived the discussions on this page. Most were long out of date. Others were debates about this contentious subject that had little to do with the content of the entry. The existence of such debates just invited more contributions that don't belong here. I hope no one feels anything of value has been lost. There's a link to the Archive above as well as a way to search that archive. I've never archived before, so if someone can improve the display or access or anything at all, I hope you'll do so. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Detail needed

I want a detailed account of the two murders. I think one of the guards was running away when he was shot. As he was running away, he was not much of a threat to the robbers, as a witness or as an attacker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The reluctance to put in the details of the shooting dead of the two guards is caused by a need to avoid thowing a very bad light on the shooters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.119.12 (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Parmenter was the one who was shot in the back, after already being shot in the chest. There were a further three men in the car, making a total of five. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.119.12 (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Berardelli was shot the fourth time when he had already collapsed on his knees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.119.12 (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
My previous argumentation has been dumped in the Archives, with no reply to the point. It is still available to the public.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.147.102 (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thayer partly gave Vanzetti favourable treatment in the first trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.147.102 (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

recent edit

I don't have a resource handy to verify this anonymous IP edit: [1]

The history of edits by the IP address is mixed (some good faith, at least one vandalism). Richard Myers (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I restored the 16th, because the passage is "On April 16, one day after the robbery-murders" and the crime in question occurred on the 15th. The mixed record may reflect the fact that different people make use of this IP address. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Somebody has substituted "Rachel Baucom and Christie Parker" for every mention of Sacco and Vanzetti.204.126.132.241 (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The vandalism was reverted by Leoadec.--JayJasper (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Recently Discovered Upton Sinclair Letter

Anyone want to take a stab at the update? A private letter reveals that Sinclair as having doubts about their innocence and their lawyer confided in him that they were in fact guilty. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5245754 208.115.153.106 (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead badly contradicts entire Later Evidence and Investigations section

The lead states "critical opinion has overwhelmingly felt that the two men were convicted largely on their anarchist political beliefs and unjustly executed."

This utterly unequivocal statement is backed with precisely two references, one of which is from 1960 and doesn't even cover the new evidence and the other which is extremely equivocal and concludes either man's guilt or innocence is impossible to establish and therefore they didn't deserve to be executed.

The Later Evidence and Investigations section has 11 references, all but two strongly assert Sacco's guilt.

How is this allowed to stand? The lead is not even remotely accurate and yet it's not even tagged as controversial. Court Appointed Shrub (talk) 04:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

They mostly don't just assert Sacco's guilt, but Vanzetti's as well (on the basis that in law all participants in the robbery were guilty of murder, regardless of who fired the shots). But the statement of which you complain (which I agree is misleading and in need of amending) may well be technically correct that most expert opinion thinks the trial and conviction were flawed (which many experts as distinct from lay people might well then argue means they were technically executed unjustly and as a result of prejudice rather than proper evidence even if one accepts that later evidence strongly suggests they were guilty). This means that as a layperson I think the think badly needs amending, but I wouldn't dare amend it myself due lack of expertise. Is there anybody out there with the expertise to amend it properly? Tlhslobus (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Third paragraph in the Robbery section

The third paragraph in the robbery section seems out of place. It does not use proper style, it is not objective and does not even deal with the robbery and seems to contain some original work. This paragraph should either be removed or moved to a more appropriate section with improved style and references cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.123.130 (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Abandoned draft version of this article

Whilst clearing up a category, I came across User:GPa_Hill/SandVWorkInProgress which appears to be a version of this article intended to be an update back in 2008, though has had 3 updates since. It may have some useful content for this article. Banak (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Good find, Banak. It is certainly worth a look, and may be useful towards the betterment of this article. Thanks for providing the link.--JayJasper (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Possibly of interest to some here

This is such a good article, kudos. When I look at the article about the 1891 mass lynching of Italians in New Orleans, I wonder why that topic hasn't been covered as thoroughly, and the info is rather oddly presented. See Talk:David Hennessy#Confusion. Rosekelleher (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence in section "Motions for a new trial"

The sentence: "In response, the controversial[88][89]" is obviously incomplete. Please fix. shrao (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sacco and Vanzetti. 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) 03:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sacco_and_Vanzetti/Archive_1&oldid=1173899899"