Talk:Molly Maguires

Can this be justified?

The Mollies "were largely responsible for the ultimate partition of Ireland." That needs a bit of evidence, I think. Frankly, I don't believe it.

I am a Wikipedia novice and whoever asked the question "what irish coal mining heritage is there?" is clearly an ignorant dope.

The Yost Murder Trial

Under the section about the trials there is discussion about the first Yost Trial which began in May 1876. What the original text omits is the fact that Mrs (Fanny) Kerrigan testified in the first trial which was declared a mistrial on the death of juror, Levi Stein. Two months later a second trial was held, but Fanny Kerrigan did not testify. If you are going to include the story of Mrs Kerrigan's testimony, then you really should tell a more complete story. My source? Yost Trial transcripts from the Miners Journal (Pottsville), Evening Herald (Shenandoah). Mark T. Major, Pottsville PA

'No Irish Need Apply' Myth

I am removing the passing reference to 'No Irish Need Apply' as such signs did not significantly feature in the United States, nor the Irish were not discriminated against in terms of applying for lower-class work. My reference is Professor Richard Jensen's article on this topic at http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/no-irish.htm - please do not reinstate the reference unless there is firsthand evidence to the contrary. Thanks. GimpChimp (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever looked through the NYT archives?

Jensen was roundly criticized and skewered for overstating his case. He said there was no evidence found in the US. Well you just have to go over to the "Anti-Irish" page on wiki to see an example taken from 1854 NY Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.81.97 (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia, so please excuse any informality errors, I have family in N.E. PA who remember these signs and these events, and vehemently claim to having witnessed this. Here is a link to a blog who has some image examples of news paper advertisements and the papers in which they can be found... </P

Better Editing, please

This article is silly. Keep this in mind so far as the lede is concerned: Who/What are the Molly Maguires? Why are they well known enough to have their own wikipedia page? Currently lacking in decent presentation of basic facts. People don't want to dig through graf after graf to find basic information that should be available in the first sentence of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.190.32 (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Puff piece

This article is not believable. It reads like the closing argument of a defense attorny who is grasping at straws. Adopt a more encyclopedic tone, please. Rwflammang (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It's extremely POV.173.16.252.154 (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Half of the 'sources' cited are from a single author. Why am I not surprised at the POV flag? Malkman (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"Half of the 'sources' cited are from a single author." Really? Here are the current sources:

Horan, 18

Kevin Kenny, 17

Boyer and Morais, 14

Anthony Lukas, 6

Dewees, 5

Joseph G Rayback, 4

William Cahn, 2

Morn, 1

Peter Carlson, 1

American Historical Review, 1

Amer. Law Review, 1

F. P. Dewees, 1

Gowen, 1

Pa. Legislative docs., 1

Friedman, 1

Richard Jensen, 1

I'd say that's pretty good balance among the top three cited authors. And 18 cites out of 75 for the most cited? That's lower than 25 percent. I think "half" is a significant exaggeration. Richard Myers (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Most historians up through history (pun intended), blatantly obviously so, come from a tradition, a class background, and a group of peers that lend little or no credibility to their assessing of workers actions. The Rockefellers and the Carnegies etc. established their own historians, their own "chairs", their own universities. So yeah, you can probably pile a mountain a mile high with your right wing historians defending whatever you want them to. They wont be hard to find, thats for sure. Nunamiut (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You're difficult to take seriously when a simple glance of your user pages lends one to think that you will just have a reflexive knee-jerk reaction against anything that isn't left of center. -not signed in on my name

Too many quotes?

This article seems to have a huge amount of quoted material in almost every section, and it might be making the article excessively long. Even the first section, Mollies in Ireland, quotes long phrases from the original source. The next section, Mollies in the United States, contains a large number of block quotes. One short subsection, Media attention, contains three quotes, with one quote (or should we say collection of quotes) that is 182 words long. Some quotes are even used in the middle of a sentence:

Frequently unable to read safety instructions, the immigrant workers,

   "...faced constant hazards from violation of safety precautions, such as they were. Injuries and deaths in mine disasters, frequently reported in the newspapers, shocked the nation."[18]

The subsection Union, Mollies, and Ancient Order of Hibernians has three quotes that are one hundred or more than one hundred words long. This, however, is nothing compared to James Ford Rhodes' account of the Mollies, which quotes a 1,300-word essay!174.131.82.113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC).