Talk:Knights of Labor

message: Eh? "Black workers were welcomed after 1883" and "associated with the KKK and strongly racist views"?  These don't seem consistent with one another.
:Need to mention that the KoL was racist against East Asians.
----
I agree. The statement that the KoL "The Knights of Labor had a reputation for being all-inclusive" and the later admission that "The Knights strongly supported the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Contract Labor Law of 1885, as did many other labor groups." Perhaps what is meant is that 'they prided themselves on being all inclusive (a little hypocritically)' or that 'they were very inclusive for their times'.
Starseeker shkm (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The KofL was a very large, national organization, so any such sweeping statements are innaccurate.  The article needs to be expanded and the chronology filled in.  As an organization supported the Chinese Exclusion Act.  There should be quotes from Powderly in his memoir which would substantiate that. However, I am unaware that the KofL consorte with or associated with the KKK.  The assertion seems chronologically improbable since the original KKK was disbanded around 1869.  The second Klan was organized after 1914, when the KofL was a largely African-American social organization.  At its height, the KofL was not complicit in Jim Crow.  It organized many African-American assemblies, and held an integrated convention in Richmond in 1886 (check the date).  This was all part an parcel of its ideological goal of uniting all producers in a single organization.  Structurally and politcally, the KofL was completely incompatable with the craft-based divisions of the AFL.  There was no integration of the two labor federations (although individual members of the KofL would join the AFL).  The (indirect) successor of the KofL is the IWW.  This is not a direct continuation, since the KofL was producerist in orientation, and the IWW is an industrial union.  I've long wanted to expand this article, maybe one day I will get around to it. DJ Silverfish 18:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Racism

message: This page for some reason seems to have become a target for various people to insert gibberish in various sections. not sure what should be done outside of continuing to revert their edits (this isn't the result of an edit war so not sure how useful locking the page would be - it's not a situation that will be resolved per se...). --Black Butterfly 12:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated vandalism

message: I think it's Uriah Smith Stephens 75.44.29.211 17:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uriah H.? or S.? Stephens

message: The article states:
:Bankers, doctors, lawyers, gamblers, stockholders, and liquor manufacturers were excluded because they were considered unproductive members of society.
However, A Pictorial History of American Labor, William Cahn, 1972, page 137, states that:
:the Knights of Labor was loosely organized (admitting even physicians and employers)
I realize that the organization was large and exhibited numerous tendencies. But these two statements appear to be mutually exclusive. Richard Myers 04:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Doctors admitted to the Knights of Labor, or not?

message: I'm confused about the meaning of a phrase in the top paragraph, which says the Knight believed in "cooperative employer-employee ownership of mines and factories", a phrase that links to the article on worker cooperatives. But a worker coop is self-managed by the workers - there is no separate employer. If this phrase is supposed to indicate joint ownership and management by employers and employees, I would change the link to something like co-determination, not to worker coop, and rephrase of "joint ownership and management of mines and factories by employers and employees". And if it's supposed to indicate worker cooperative enterprise only, I would change it to something like "cooperative ownership of mines and factories by the workers". -Father Inire 00:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "ownership" does not occur in the current version of this article. Why? Didn't the Knights of Labor advocate that those who worked in the mills should own them? If so, why is this important information not mentioned even in passing in the current version of this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-management or co-determination?

message: In the Resources section, vulgar additions are evident. Please revert to old version or whatever.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.21.179 (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I read somehwhere that the emblem was a political cartoon and insult against the KOL, as it is a pentagram pointing downward. Any idea on if this is true and this needs to be revised or not?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.66.197.131 (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is that the official emblem of the KOL? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Knights of Labor. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060907193135/http://libraries.cua.edu/achrcua/bibkol.html to http://libraries.cua.edu/achrcua/bibkol.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Knights of Labor had more motives behind their actions and they were not listed. It would be good to at least put some reason into the article as well as citing it. Also this group happened to play a great part within the Chicago Hay-market riot of 1886. This could have been useful information to be put into this article and could be written next to the groups decline.
It could also be added more reasons about the secrecy within the group, this part is big and would possibly push the article up.
I did notice that there was a Knights of Labor in Canada and adding something about this would not be so bad. Nturek7 (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  More information especially while playing major historical roles 

message: — Assignment last updated by FutureTeacher2026 (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: HIST 121 - U.S. History since 1877

message: 5/5/2023
Edited / Added to sections:
- Lead
- First few paragraphs of origins
- Racism and Wages
Added new section:
Haymarket Riot Ijrokusek22 (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions to existing article 

message: — Assignment last updated by Schnickelfritz66 (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: HIST 121 - U.S. History since 1877

message: First thing added will be some minor grammar edits and added a source to the first paragraph under Origins. I also made some minor grammar fixes to the second paragraph under Origins. Next I added a paragraph under Unskilled vs. Skilled Workers with a new source. As well as adding a paragraph and source Racism and Wages.  Triplejump35 (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to article 

message: I edited one of the paragraphs on the Knights of Labor. I added a media file because I thought it added to the sophistication of the piece. I edited and added a "demands" section to the article to give a little more of the history aspect of the federation. I edited as well as added to the decline section of the article by adding a little more on the Southwest railroad strike to give a little more knowledge as to why they started declining. Takeoutsushi (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits Made to Article