Talk:San Diego free speech fight

message: 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)
thread_title: Bias

message: Seriously, the article is still orphaned. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does have a few links now.--Carabinieri 20:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Orphan status 

message: 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)
thread_title: Lead

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anarchist template 

message: "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)
thread_title:  POV this article sucks!! 

message: Just wondering where to fit this in; note the connection to San Diego.Skookum1 (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vancouver BC Free Speech Fight 

message: 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)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV