# Talk:Boston police strike

I thought that this article was very informative and did well to cite so frequently (it has been my experience that labor history can be a heated subject).  I only had one serious issue with the article and that was the line "Nevertheless, newspaper accounts exaggerated the level of crime and violence that accompanied the strike, which resulted in a national furor and shaped the political response." Is there any way this could be cited?  In conclusion, good work on this article. Timhud 05:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Timhud. That sentence comes from Fogelson and is included in the cite after the next sentence. bobanny 07:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
"1919-1920" – date ranges should have an en dash rather than a hyphen. Epbr123 16:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

done. bobanny 17:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I made several corrections throughout the article. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a good article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I plan to update this entry shortly. It lacks detail on the "chaos" during the strike. It lacks any quotes from local or national press. It says Coolidge hired a new police force, when Curtis did. It doesn't tell us that the State Guard was called in to maintain order. And it misses the role of Gompers in getting the police back to work. I think it also misuses Chamberlain's work as disinterested "history" when it's a history of the most anti-police of Boston's 5 newspapers and represents in 1930 its slant during the strike.
Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a POV Check tag since there's an overwhelming amount of text detailing the police's grievances (labor POV) compared to the public and government reactions to the strike (anti-labor POV). The article says that the public was strongly against the strike, but we don't find out about that until far later on. It seems everyone was against the union, but we wouldn't know about it from the way the article deals with everything from the police's point of view. The information provided in the grievances section is good but it ruins the balance of the article. If none of it is removed (and I believe it shouldn't be), then we need a lot more detail about who opposed the strike and why in order to balance the article. Slb1900 (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

There wasn't really a POV problem here, just excessive detail. To some extent that's inevitable. The union has a list of grievances and demands, while management only cares about the existence of a union and controlling costs. And of course the union background comes first because they get things rolling, they are the actors. We can't talk about management or public response until they have something to respond to. Yet the detail was clearly excessive, extending back over decades, as if this WP entry was a history of the Boston Police. All we need is enough background to understand the strike. I combined some bits, re-wrote some, and stuck a lot into a note for anyone who is interested.
We could still use some background on establishment view of unions, but it is interesting to note the Storrow Commission's ability to split the difference. I'll give this a rest and return to beef up the summary a bit. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The Rising at Roxbury Crossing - https://www.amazon.com/Rising-at-Roxbury-Crossing/dp/0983996059  Irish Melkite (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)