Talk:Eugene V. Debs

message: After a while, you can only laugh at the way anarchist editors swarm every Wikipedia article related to anarchism. Eugene Debs' relationship with the Socialist Party of America is reduced entirely to the conflict with the anarchist I.W.W., and indeed we must know this was bad, bad, bad. So much does this single episode consume the anarchist mind that a reader has little idea what role Debs' even played in the party.
No reason to even try to put lipstick on this pig. Read a Debs bio, not Wikipedia. AECwriter 00:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is for improving the article, not for this sort of rubbish. -- 72.205.126.89 (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  P.O.V. 

message: Moved from the article:
:Hey the Vonnegut book you are thinking of is actually "Jailbird," not "Hocus Pocus." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.173.88.39 (talk • contribs) 14:20, October 23, 2006.
Reading the associated articles for each work, it appears that the article's original text was correct. Slambo (Speak) 20:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vonnegut book 

message: Removed from article:
: By the end of the strike, 13 strikers were killed and 57 were wounded. 
This image and sentence implies that soldiers opened fire on strikers (which would usually be unethical); that the soldiers murdered a dozen men on the orders of a pro-capitalist government.
It sounds awfully one-sided to me. Is it meant to conjure up the image of Kent State student protesters being shot by National Guard in 1970? The latter is a clearcut case of overreaction (guardsmen committed manslaughter at best, in my opinion as a former US soldier). 
Overreaction?  That is how you describe murder?  Sure, they wouldn't have killed the protestors if they weren't sent there, but you can't be holding an automatic weapon, use it on someone unarmed and claim self-defense.  It is murder, but not pre-meditated murder.  76.180.61.194 (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: These opinions are not relevant to Wikipedia. -- 72.205.126.89 (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

text: This opinion is not relevant to Wikipedia. 72.205.126.89 (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violent Pullman strike 

message: *The reaction of the strikers to the appearance of the troops was that of outrage. What had been a basically peaceful strike turned into complete mayhem. The mayhem began on July 4, with mobs of people setting off fireworks and tipping over rail cars. The workers started to tip railcars and build blockades in reaction to the presence of the federal troops. ... At this time in the Chicago vicinity, there were 6,000 federal and state troops, 3,100 police, and 5,000 deputy marshals. However, all this manpower could not prevent the violence from peaking when on July 7, national guardsmen after being assaulted, fired into the crowd killing at least four (possibly up to thirty) and wounding at least twenty. 
Here it seems that (1) the guardsmen were assaulted, and after that (2) they fired into the crowd.
We can compare this to the incident in Iraq (dramatized in the Samuel Jackson film Rules of Engagement). A crowed of Iraqi civilians, including some armed men, opened fire on coalition forces. U.S. Marines returned fire. The press accounts at the time discounted or entirely ignored the order of events; or directly denied US reports that the first shots came from the crowed. In both the movie and the real incident, the propriety of the US forces shooting into the crowd depended on whether they were "shooting back" or "opening fire" - two distinct ethical categories. --Uncle Ed 13:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This opinion is not relevant to Wikipedia. 72.205.126.89 (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The strike turns violent 

message: The article states:
:Yet Debs was equally uncomfortable with the apolitical syndicalism of some within the Industrial Workers of the World. While he was an early supporter of the IWW, helping organize it in 1905, he was later appalled by what he considered the IWW's irresponsible advocacy of direct action, especially sabotage. He quit the group in 1908.
Taken statement by statement, it is all somewhat true. However, it is also very misleading.
Debs quit the IWW for a very different reason than his being "appalled" at the IWW's use of sabotage. The real reason is alluded to in the first sentence. In 1908 the Wobbly "overalls brigade," what DeLeon referred to as the "bummery," used their numbers to rewrite the constitution to forbid direct participation in electoral politics as an IWW method of action. The overalls brigade were lumberjacks who had tired of political infighting between the two socialist factions, and wanted an "industrial action" union (which the organization remains to this day.) DeLeon and Debs both got the hint, and both left the IWW in 1908.
The IWW didn't begin to consider sabotage as a tactic until 1910. At that time, the IWW press <in their first mentions of the terms "sabotage" and "direct action," according to Fred W. Thompson, in The I.W.W.: Its First Seventy Years, page 46> praised a group of strikers in Chicago who had used "sabotage," which at that time was still defined as "malingering or inefficient work." <Thompson, page 81. For more, see sabotage.> The broader definitions of sabotage didn't come until later, and <Thompson states,> were brought to public notice by the fight over section 6 article 2 of the Socialist Party's constitution. 
But the disagreement that resulted in Section 6 article 2, and caused Haywood's expulsion was most likely a more direct result of a speech that Haywood gave in which he called for "overthrowing the capitalist system by forcible means if necessary." <Roughneck, Peter Carlson, page 158.> A number of Socialists were getting elected, and this speech embarrassed them.
In his autobiography Haywood did describe disappointment with Deb's criticism of the IWW's tactical polemics, and argued that Debs, DeLeon & O'Neill were criticizing tactics that the IWW had never adopted. 
But i think that the paragraph in the Debs article appears to suggest that Debs quit because of this issue; in fact, that isn't the case at all. 
I also believe that in its use of the word "appalled," the paragraph overstates Deb's opposition to what the IWW was preaching. Haywood said that in spite of criticizing the IWW for being "anarchist," Debs had previously been friendly to the organization, and was friendly to the IWW afterwards. <Haywood autobiography, page 279>
At the time of Haywood's being thrown out of the Socialist Party, Debs used language such as,
:I regretted to see Haywood's recall but it was inevitable... I should not have put section 6 (article 2) in the constitution but it is there and put there by the party and Haywood deliberately violated it.  
But he also declared in the same letter,
:Certainly I approve of some of the practices that go under the name of sabotage, for almost everything goes under that name. The answer is the same as to law-breaking... I must know what the circumstances are... <Debs letter to William English Walling, March 5, 1913>
These excerpts are a little out of context, but serve to illustrate my point. I contend that Debs was opposed to how far Haywood and the IWW pushed the question of advocating sabotage. I contend that Debs was not "appalled." A more accurate descriptive term, then, would be "opposed." And the sentences need to be re-arranged to introduce some clarity about the timeline of events. Richard Myers 10:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very misleading paragraph in article 

message: I'm in the middle of a project right now for history, but it seems to me that the math doesn't quite add up when it comes to his life and age, in particular the part discussing his early employment at the age of fourteen.
Greylance 23:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This needs some fact checking. 

message: "...he underestimated the lasting power of racism" but at the same time denounced it more than any other important public figure in American Socialism? Seems to contradict itself to me. VanTucky 19:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also doesn't mention this Adversary in the House, namely that his wife hateed his socialistic activities. Trevor GH5 11:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradict 

message: Don't add up... maybe I'm misreading this but it appears to say that 3.4 percent in more than six.
--No it doesn't. 6% in 1912 meant less votes than 3,4% in 1920 due to the increasing of voters.
Debs got a higher percentage in 1912, but more votes in 1920.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.91.88 (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote Numbers 

message: Isn't it POV to say that Debs underestimated the lasting power of racism? I happen to agree with that statement, because I think racial issues are more fundamental in explaining some racial phenomena than class issues are. But surely this issue is a matter of opinion, one on which scholars disagree. Some scholars do remain convinced that economic factors like the ones Marx pointed to are much more fundamental, and thus they would think Debs was correct to focus on economic issues, with problems of racial disparity being solved by resolving class differences. That's still the standard Marxian view, even if many on the left and the right disagree with it. At any rate, it doesn't come across as encyclopedic in tone. It comes across as opinion-laden commentary. Parableman 13:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Worry 

message: In the section "Leadership Style", the final paragraph ("He was sent to the Woodstock, Illinois City Jail to avoid being killed in the city for his radical involvement in the Pullman Strike.") just doesn't belong. I'm not familiar enough with Debs' bio to know where this sentence belongs, but it sticks out like a sore thumb where it is now. You'd think it belongs in the Pullman Strike section, but I have no way of knowing whether this Woodstock imprisonment happened during that strike, or years later as a result of enduring bad feelings. Additionally, if it does belong in the Pullman Strike section, it needs to be harmonized with other statements in that section. I don't want to delete this offending sentence and lose a valuable piece of information, but hope that someone reading this comment may be able to do the requisite surgery.
Douglas Barber (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm currently in the midst of a page over-hall, but I'm only on the early portions of the page.  When I get to that section, I'll see what looks good. Mastrchf (t/c) 00:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Leadership Style" section includes non sequitur 

message: *Archived review
=== GA passed ===
Congratulations!  This article is a Good Article.--ragesoss (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article review 

message: Congratulations!  This article is a Good Article.--ragesoss (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA passed 

message: It's unfortunate that the article does not address what platforms and "planks" Debs put forward in his presidential campaigns.
We get a good general impression of his background and spirit, as a person, and his attitudes and overall commitment.  But we don't learn what his policy or program directions would have been, had he and his running mates actually been elected in any of the campaigns.
I've heard that many of Debs's ideas, from the early portion of the 20th century, eventually have been adopted as U.S. federal policies & programs.  But this is a vague assertion (not mentioned in the article), and the article does not in any way attest to this or contradict it.  Essential things are left in the dark.Joel Russ (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These are very good ideas for if the article ever makes a push to FA.  Even if not, I'm sure the article could benefit from the addition of these items.  As long as it's verifiable fact, I say go for it! Mastrchf (t/c) 16:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes — well, somebody who has the knowledge should "go for it."  I came to the article wanting to learn something, and I did.  But not about Debs's program or policy ideas, or the legacy of those ideas.  That aspect left me disappointed.Joel Russ (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than some nebulous notion 'for the good of the working class' called "socialism," does nobody know what Debs wanted to do and proposed to achieve?  I mean, for gaud sakes... the man ran for president of the U.S. more than once!  There are books about him, aren't there?Joel Russ (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  As president, what would he have done? 

message: I have changed this a couple times and somebody keeps changing it back.  I have even reviewed actual photos of the event at the Indiana State library in Terre Haute.  While the 1912 rally in Chicago was very large and numerous photos of it exist, the famous speech that Debs gave in Canton was small in comparison and no photos of it are known to exist.  See the OTHER PHOTOS link I added to the Debs page.  There are pictures of Debs at a gazebo that may have been the Canton rally, but that cannot be proved of verified.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.141.247.28 (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo from a rally in Chicago not Canton 

message: Why is there nothing in this article about his citizenship?  Somewhere along the line he lost his citizenship, since there were two bills in the 94th Congress (H. J. Res. 780 and S. J. Res. 127; I can't figure out how to link them directly, but they're at the top of these lists: House and Senate) aimed at restoring his citizenship posthumously.  129.79.38.107 (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizenship 

message: The Eugene Debs page misquotes a source in [35] saying that Wilson 'later called Debs a "traitor to his country."' according the quote to the book, "Lies My Teacher Told Me..." but it is not there in the 1995 edition of this book as is presumed. 
The quote however appears to be mentioned later in the Wikipedia article in source 44, stating '"While the flower of American youth was pouring out its blood to vindicate the cause of civilization, this man, Debs, stood behind the lines sniping, attacking, and denouncing them....This man was a traitor to his country and he will never be pardoned during my administration."' in a book by Burl Noggle.
So, I think source 35 should be removed and replaced with source 44.
Thanks
76.183.193.166 (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: - thanks for spotting the error--JayJasper (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 5 July 2013 

message: Richard Myers above gives some useful information. Debs quit paying his dues to the IWW in 1908 long before the sabotage business came to head in the SPA. His differences with the IWW were, yes, over its stance against political action, but also his feeling that the IWW had failed to form a real alternative to the American Federation of Labor. Debs had hoped that the some existing industrial-organized unions would form a stable membership for the IWW --especielly the United Brewery Workers and the Western Federation of Miners. This didn't pan out and he didn't see the organization growing because it wasn't playing the part of a typical union, e.g. signing contracts. Here are some citations:
"Debs joined the IWW in the hope that it would organize the unorganized and become a socialist-oriented center for the existing industrial unions. He was disapointed in both expectations. Not even the Socialist-led, industrially organized United Brewery Workers Joined the IWW; instead it returned to the ranks of the AFL in 1908. At the same time the IWW failed to build stable locals and a growing membership because of its refusal to bargain collectively during strikes or to sign time contracts when victories were won. This, aggravated by the growin tendency to reject political action and to indulge in factional squabbling, prompted Debs quietly to drop his membership around 1908." (Weinstein, James The Decline of Socialism in America, Monthly Review Press 1967 p.33)
"The membrship of the IWW was centered in the western states, where many working men scorned the establihed principals of trade unionism. This tendency had been held in check by the influence of the Western Federation of Miners, which founded stable local unions, signed contracts with employers, and fought for control of working conditions in the factories and workshops. The imprisonment of Haywood for fifteen months and the involvement of his supporters in his defense compaign permitted his enemies to capture the Western Federation of Miners. They promptly withdrew it from the IWW. Having lost its membership among those workers with stable employment, the IWW ceased to function as a trade uion. Its' ranks held a select corps of organives and strke leaders but not a single business agent. It becmae an organization which was geared to meet crises but which did not offer guidance to the workers on a stable, day-to-day basis.
	"This new trend was simply nonsense to Eugene Debs, who well understoodthe value of collective bargaining." (Ray Ginger, The Bending Cross: A Biography of Eugene V. Debs, 2007 Haymarket Books --originally 1947, Rutgers-- p.255-6)
Debs didn't publicly criticize the IWW until later 1912-15 when he felt that their tactics were undermining the UMWA and WMF. (Weinstein p. 33-5)
Hopefully, I added this correctly. Apolagies if not. I've never meddled with Wiki before.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.153.1 (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  additional sources for IWW split 

message: Was Debs left handed? I have herea quote that describes him as motioning with his left hand. I think that should be mentioned. --The Dracommunist (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think this should be mentioned? For the sake of a truly awful pun? Because it's the most trivial and irrelevant thing you can dredge up? TheScotch (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handedness  

message: Recently someone changed the act that Debs was convicted under from Espionage Act of 1917 to Sedition Act of 1918.  These are two different articles and both say that he was convicted of violating the act and sentenced to 10 years and released after President Wilson commuted his sentence.  Was he convicted of violating one or both?  I am leaving a message on both talk pages directing them here.  -- GB fan 19:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which is it? 

message: The section of the article on his "early life" says he was born in 1855. It goes on to say that he dropped out of high school at 14. Next sentence states he worked for "Vandalia Railroad (1905-1917) and then mentions 1871.
Am I the only one to see a certain inconsistency here?
Philologick (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalia Railroad 

message: I thought I had left one of these already, but I'm not seeing it. I just wanted to link up my real name, Tim Davenport, with my WP handle, Carrite, here. I'm the lead editor of the six-volume Debs Selected Works project and thus have at least the appearance of a distant COI on the matter. For the record, I receive no royalties from sale of volumes in this series, with the non-commercial, non-profit, volunteer-run Marxists Internet Archive the designated recipient of any royalties that may potentially ever accrue — although that outcome seems distant, ha ha! In short, I have no real financial connection to the topic but wanted to make this statement anyway, in the interest of transparency. I will also note that I am the creator and operator of the www.marxisthistory.org website, which was cited here in at least one footnote. Again, this is a non-commercial, non-profit, advertising-free, small site and there is no commercial benefit to me from any traffic there. I again make the statement here in accordance with WP best practices. Thanks. —tim //// Carrite (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, just spotted my previous declaration above. Duh. Now removed. It is in the history if anyone wants to see it. Carrite (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure this really qualifies as a conflict of interest, but thank you for disclosing anyway. --MarioGom (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro forma COI declaration

message: All the literature confirms that Debs attended business classes, which I don't question. It is unclear which business school he attended. The article currently states that Debs attended "a local business school at night" circa 1875. This was most likely Demorest Business College, Terre Haute, though there was also a "Terre Haute Commercial College" in townhttps://www.google.com/books/edition/American_college_and_public_school_direc/D_UFAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=terre+haute+business+college&pg=PA80&printsec=frontcover. Kenneth Burr Fouts' 1968 Eugene V. Debs: Champion of Free Speech identifies the school as "Garwin's Business College" (p.63)https://www.google.com/books/edition/Eugene_V_Debs/0uQkAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=garwin%27s. Mitchell K. Hall's 2018 Opposition to War: An Encyclopedia of U.S. Peace and Antiwar Movements also states that he attended Garwin's Business College between 1872 - 1873 (p. 201) https://www.google.com/books/edition/Opposition_to_War_An_Encyclopedia_of_U_S/iDFEDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=garwin+and+%22eugene+debs%22&pg=PA201&printsec=frontcover. I can only find three references to a "Garwin's Business College" in all of GoogleBooks and only two references to Demorest Business College.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.172.15 (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education 

message: I am so bad at wikipedia, but i have an interest in eugene debs as i ak related to him and one of his ancestors, however i lack the ability to properly figure out how to add a voice file to his wikipedia infobox, could someone please help me or add the audio file i have for me?
https://historymatters.gmu.edu/audio/2034a_MSTR.mp3 2601:1C2:1C80:C50:B00D:C7E5:D4E0:8371 (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please provide the webpage which contains this file, as opposed to just a direct link to the file? –Vipz (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , the webpage seems to be . As it indicates, this was a reading of a Debs speech by Len Spencer, not Debs himself. Curbon7 (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voice