Talk:Bill Haywood

"At the invitation of CPUSA member Gus Hall, Idaho newspaper reporter John Chapple traveled to Moscow in late 1927"

This seems implausible. Hall was 17 years old at the time. (He was born in 1910.) Could he already have had sufficient connections to invite a journalist to meet Haywood??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.112.148.128 (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"Lenin's illness and death and Stalin's rise to power ended his role as an advisor to the Soviet [labour] movement"

Why would those two incidents end his involvement???

-G

Haywood's most active participation ended while Lenin was ill, and Haywood had little connection to Stalin, so the basic facts appear to be true.

Haywood and Lenin had a working relationship. Lenin had celebrated Haywood's arrival, and had private conversations with him. The two of them signed an agreement in November of 1921 that Haywood would help to develop an industrial colony in Western Siberia. Six months later, in May of 1922, Lenin had his first stroke. Lenin was paralyzed on one side, and became much less active in government. But Haywood's health was also failing. In 1922, Haywood left the colony in the harsh Siberian climate and returned to Moscow to continue his work at the project's office, hoping that his health would improve.

In December of 1922, Lenin had a second stroke, and in March of 1923, Lenin's third stroke left him bedridden and unable to talk. Two months after that-- in May of 1923-- Haywood resigned from the industrial colony project. Lenin died in 1924.

Although he spent time trying to learn the Russian language, Haywood never became fluent. He was therefore quite isolated except for occasional visits from exiles and IWW members, and he tended to stay out of the pervasive Russian pastime of politicking. He was quoted, "These Russians attach a hell of a lot to idealogical theory and mark my words, if they're not careful, they'll come to blows about it one of these days. Don't you know yet that most of them would sooner talk that work-- or even eat." This was, of course, quite different from Haywood's origins as a laborer and miner.

Haywood's writings during his Russian period referred frequently to Lenin, but almost never to Stalin. Haywood died in 1928, the same year that Stalin consolidated his power.

It seems likely that, in the years before his death, Haywood was depressed and disappointed that the U.S. government prevented his return to his own society and culture. He had asked to return after being in Russia for just three months, even if it meant some prison time, but his lawyer couldn't obtain favorable conditions.

In 1926 Haywood took a Russian wife, and communicated with her mostly in sign language. Little is known about their relationship, but it seems likely that he was responding to a deep-seated loneliness and disappointment that Russia wasn't what he had anticipated.

best wishes, Richard Myers 11:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Shouldn't an encyclopedia article about "Big Bill" Haywood tell the reader how big Haywood was? How tall was Haywood and roughly how much did he weigh? Can a Wikipedian add this information?

-- Andrew Szanton, October 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.119.164 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 October 2006

There's a nice passage in Bruce Watson's Bread and Roses (ISBN 0-670-03397-9), pg. 91: "And he was not as big as his nickname suggested. Newspapers had listed him "well over six feet," even "close to seven feet," but he actually stood five foot eleven. At 240 pounds, his expansive waistline earned him his nickname, but the moniker applied equally to his life." -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 20:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

To-do list

In order of priority (in the opinion of JerryOrr):

1. Elaborate on 1918 trial for violation of Espionage Act
   1. Expanded this section, though more content is welcome! --JerryOrr 01:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Expand Western Federation of Miners and Industrial Workers of the World sections, giving more details of specific labor events (such as the Lawrence Textile Strike) and his involvement in the Socialist Party
   1. Some information here
   2. An e-text on early 20th century labor, with some commentary on Haywood here
   3. Also interesting
   4. IWW timeline from the IWW site (could be a little biased, but a good starting point at least)
3. Give more info in Early Life
4. Expand Murder Trial section; seems brief, even rushed
   1. See Douglas Linder's research on the trial here
5. Find sources for the sections tagged with {{fact}}
6. Add a Legacy section, with discussion of praise and criticism of Haywood

After this to-do list is done, this article could probably be submitted for peer review, and perhaps continue on to good article or even featured article status. --JerryOrr 19:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is looking good. Bruce Watson's Bread and Roses (ISBN 0-670-03397-9) is all about the Lawrence strike and has a lot of information about Haywood (including his early life), though I haven't finished reading it yet. My main problem with the article as it stands is the "Labor philosophies" section, which seems a rump. If it's going to be in the article, it should at least mention industrial unionism, syndicalism and One Big Unionism, though some of that details may fit more comfortably in other articles. I'll see if I can add to it before too long. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 20:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added an industrial unionism section to the (slightly renamed) "Haywood's labor philosophy" section. Because this touches upon socialism, and upon the IWW, the article now has a couple of repetitive themes. I think it isn't too bad, perhaps even necessary to cover all the given territory, but some feedback on this question would be helpful. Richard Myers 01:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks good for the most part (all nicely sourced). I tried to clean up a few links (you don't need to worry about capitalizing the first letter -- that's taken care of automatically, so [[Craft unionism|craft unionism]] can just be [[craft unionism]]), but kept getting edit conflicts. (You can use the "show preview" button to get more done without having to save so often.) My main concern is that the tone of some of your additions may not be what one would expect from an encyclopedia ("General Bell, it just happened, was..." jumped out at me), but that can be corrected in time. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 06:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding a miniature, temporary, minutely-more-helpful intro while this is sorted out. 24.99.162.112 (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Mistakes in the Haywood article

The intro mentions,

"the Colorado Labor Wars (which culminated in the Ludlow massacre)..."

This is flat wrong. [NOW FIXED] The Ludlow Massacre involved the UMWA, which was not Haywood's union. Haywood was not in any way involved. (In fact, he had a long-running ideological dispute with the leaders of the UMWA, for they undercut the WFM on occasion, and were much less militant. In fact, after buying rifles for the Ludlow era strikers, as a response to Baldwin Felts agents machine gunning the Forbes colony-- even during the most intense days of fighting after the Ludlow colony was burned, the UMWA held the miners in check to the extent that they were able.)

The "wars" between Colorado miners and the Colorado authorities also did not "culminate" with the Ludlow Massacre; they "culminated" with the Columbine Massacre in 1927. Yet the expression "Colorado Labor Wars" as a specific term refers most often to the bloody struggles of the WFM from approximately 1903 to 1905.

I will remove the Ludlow reference. Richard Myers 01:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Under section "Western Federation of Miners involvement" we find:

"The WFM initiated a series of strikes to combat the brutal working conditions and starvation wages."

This is actually not true [AND STILL NEEDS ATTENTION]. The Cripple Creek miners certainly faced dangerous conditions, but they were far from starving. They had the most powerful union organization in the country at that time, and their wages were quite respectable. The strikes were actually called for the purpose of extending WFM membership to the mill workers who processed the ore. Richard Myers 01:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC) [REMOVED "starvation wages" FROM ARTICLE, HOWEVER, THIS IS WITHIN SOMEONE'S REFERENCE, SO I HAVE NOT ADDED EXTENDING WFM MEMBERSHIP TO MILL WORKERS] Richard Myers 19:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In the section "Murder Trial" we find:

"After Darrow's final summation (which moved some jurors to tears), the jury acquitted him, along with Pettibone..."

This is an error. [NOW FIXED] Haywood and Pettibone had separate trials. Both were acquitted by their respective juries. Darrow defended Haywood, but Pettibone was defended by Judge Hilton of Denver after Darrow withdrew due to illness. Richard Myers 12:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC) [CHANGES MADE TO THE ARTICLE] Richard Myers 19:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I considered adding a citation for this text:

Foundation of the Industrial Workers of the World

Late in 1904, Haywood along with over 30 other prominent labor radicals, met in Chicago to lay down plans for a new revolutionary union.

However, my quick research suggests that this information is wrong. In "The I.W.W.: Its First Seventy Years", by Fred Thompson, i find that there were six men at the November 1904 conference, all named on page 6 of that book, and none of them were Haywood. Big Bill did, however, attend the January 1905 meeting, along with 22 others.

I check Haywood's autobiography, and it does not mention a 1904 conference (other than that for the WFM,) and does mention the January conference, but states that about 30 were invited to that. So i'll plan to change these details later. But if anyone in the meantime has a source for a gathering of 30 in 1904, with Haywood in attendance, please let us hear about it so we will know to get additional confirmation. Richard Myers 04:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I added that statement, though it may have been there when I started reworking the article. I'll see if I can track down a citation for it, but if your souce turns out to be better, then feel free to change it. --JerryOrr 13:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I did a little digging, and I did not put that section in there. It was in the entirely unsourced version of the article, before I started working on it. I didn't want to remove it because I didn't have evidence otherwise. I just looked through my sources again, and didn't see anything about it. Since you have no evidence of that either, I'll remove it! --JerryOrr 22:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow!

I've been on a bit of a Wikipedia hiatus, and now I see that my pet article has grown quite a bit! Thank you to everyone who has helped improve this article; I've been imploring the Organized Labour project to help out, but it was a one-man show for a long time. I eventually just ran out of steam (I'm not a professional writer, as you can probably tell). I'm glad to see this article is getting some work, because I think Bill Haywood is greatly underappreciated. I'll try to provide what input I can as you continue giving this a facelift... --JerryOrr 13:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

I've nominated this article for Good Article status. I see that as a first step before peer review, then Featured Article nomination. Just thought I'd let you all know... --JerryOrr 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Article on hold

I like this article a lot, but I'd like to see more in-line citations, particularly in the opening paragraphs. "Never one to shy from conflict ..." ought to be cited or it could be seen as original research, for instance. Someone in one of the bios must have expressed that opinion so you can cite a page number. For a featured article, there really should be an inline citation after pretty much every sentence. If some of that can be fixed, I'll gladly pass this as a GA.--Bookworm857158367 15:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added a little detail, and provided inline citations for much of the industrial unionism section. Will look at the following section soon. Richard Myers 07:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have also finished with Haywood's revolutionary imperative. These are the two sections that i've added to this article, and which i have essentially completed on my own (aside from someone re-formatting references.) I've worked just a bit on the last section, but it is mostly someone else's work. Richard Myers 09:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've also added a few more citations for the sections I've worked on. It doesn't exactly have a citation "after pretty much every sentence", but I think it's pretty well cited. Is this ready for GA? --JerryOrr 16:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've passed it for GA. It looks good right now. Very interesting article. --Bookworm857158367 16:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine-tuning the article

I note that Boyce is introduced twice, with somewhat similar text. Does this seem redundant, or is it OK considering that some readers will jump in to the article at different points?

Also, the section Socialist Party of America involvement needs some attention.

This is part of the original text:

However, the aggressive tactics of Haywood and the IWW, along with their call for the overthrow of capitalism and existing governmental institutions created tension with more moderate members of the Socialist Party. Haywood and the IWW focused on direct action and strikes, which often led to violence, and were less concerned with political tactics.[7] In a party opposed to violence and dedicated to respectability, Haywood baldly advised socialists and workers to practice sabotage and risk imprisonment to foster revolution. This conflict eventually led to Haywood's recall from the National Executive Committee in January of 1913;[8] thousands of IWW members left the Socialist Party with him.[7]

I have made a slight change, and anticipate another:

However, the aggressive tactics of Haywood and the IWW, along with their call for abolition of the wage system and the overthrow of capitalism created tension with more moderate members of the Socialist Party. Haywood and the IWW focused on direct action and strikes, which often led to violence, and were less concerned with political tactics.<reference Siitonen> In a party opposed to violence and dedicated to respectability, Haywood baldly advised socialists and workers to practice sabotage and risk imprisonment to foster revolution. This conflict eventually led to Haywood's recall from the National Executive Committee in January of 1913;<reference Zinn 341> thousands of IWW members left the Socialist Party with him.<reference siitonen>

In spite of the common assumption, the IWW actually did not call for the overthrow of the government. In fact, the IWW has been criticized by Marxists and others because it has ignored government in its official statements, preamble, and constitution. This is a curious circumstance, considering that overthrowing the government would seem a necessary precondition for overthrowing capital. But that's the way it is, the idea of changing the government is implied by other announced goals but never officially stated as a goal.

The socialists who were part of the IWW for the first three years had believed that they could capture the government at the ballot box. When the workers in the IWW, disgusted with the machinations of the socialist politicians (particularly Daniel De León) during that three years, eschewed political action in the preamble and constitution at their convention in 1908, thus effectively expelling the socialists, they were determined to focus on industrial struggle rather than political struggle.

However, the IWW did specifically advocate abolition of the wage system in the preamble, and they were always anti-capitalist.

Now, all of this is complicated a bit by the fact that in his private and public pronouncements, Haywood sometimes went beyond what the IWW's official position was. He was persuaded that the Bolshevik revolution was "the IWW all feathered out!" But that was several years after he had left the socialists. So i opted to change the statement about government, rather than remove IWW from the statement and let it stand as Haywood's own view. I haven't read Siitonen, so i cannot absolutely verify the change matches the source, but i do know that the change i've made is historically accurate.

The other change that i'd like to make involves the sentence,

Haywood baldly advised socialists and workers to practice sabotage and risk imprisonment to foster revolution.

I don't think that is worded very accurately, nor well. But i need to think about how to fix it, and also check the given reference (if i am able.) Richard Myers 22:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "Haywood openly advised socialists...", which might be a little better? --JerryOrr 22:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a quote from Haywood at the end of the Haywood's revolutionary imperative section. I think it's an important quote, though I'm not sure if I've incorporated it very well. Any thoughts? --JerryOrr 23:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've incorporated that quote, smoothing the chronological transition with some slight re-arranging. It is a good quote, interesting, and i like the addition. I have, however, shifted the emphasis slightly back toward direct action, for that was what animated him the most ever since the failure of the 1903 strike. Haywood openly criticized DeLeon's philosophy of socialism in his autobiography. Of course that was the SLP, and Haywood always felt closer to Debs. On the other hand, he mentioned a couple of times in his autobiography that Debs didn't seem to "get it" ("it" being the concept of revolutionary industrial unionism), either.

See what you think of my rearrangement... Richard Myers 00:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I like how you rearranged it; I was trying to put it in chronological context, but I didn't like finishing the section on that note. Much better now... --JerryOrr 02:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

An interesting side note to Haywood's participation with the Socialist Party-- from the period 1908-1910, the IWW constitutionally prohibited any support for any political party by the IWW. Of course, this didn't rule out private participation on the part of members that was not in the name of the union. But, officials of political parties were also banned from IWW membership. (Not sure what year that became part of the IWW constitution.) Richard Myers 00:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to clean up some of the references/inline citations (because I know that's something they'll point out in the peer review), and I was hoping I could get some more complete information for a couple of the sources. I would appreciate it if whoever used the references listed below could fill in more of the information (publisher, ISBN, etc). Or even just tell me the ISBN of the book; if I have that, I can fill in the rest myself (I don't mind).

• Haywood, William [1929]. The Autobiography of Big Bill Haywood, paperback edition.
  • I ask because I don't know the specific edition or publisher, which makes a difference when referencing pages
• Jameson, Elizabeth. All That Glitters: Class, Conflict, and Community in Cripple Creek. University of Illinois Press.
  • same reason as above
• Lukas, 1997, pp. 233.
  • this one doesn't even have a book title

Also, if you know the ISBN of any book that is missing it, that improve the references.

Again, the main reason I'm picking on this is that I know it will come up either in peer review or FAC. --16:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Autobiography of Big Bill Haywood ISBN 0-7178-0011-3 (pbk)

Carlson/Roughneck ISBN 0-393-01621-8

Jameson/All That Glitters ISBN 0-252-06690-1 (pbk)

Each of these double-checked.

Richard Myers 17:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I've updated those references. I also added the reference for Lukas... I'm assuming it was his book Big Trouble. I wondered why I recognized the name, and now I realize why... I actually read that book! I also went on the assumption that the page referenced was from the hardback edition, since that was published in 1997 (as the original citation said), and the paperback was published in 1998. --JerryOrr 18:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

I'm putting this article in for peer review, as the next step towards getting Featured Article status. Let's keep up the good work on this article! --JerryOrr 02:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill Haywood quotation about capital

"I've never read Marx's Capital, but I have the marks of capital all over me."

"I've never read Marx's Capital, but I have the mark of capital all over me."

"I've never read Marx's Capital, but I have the marks of capital all over my body."

What a delicious quote, in all its variations.

Michael Smith attributes it to Haywood, here:

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/May05/Smith0503.htm

Smith offers sources, but not footnotes.

It is also here:

'Who Can We Shoot?' Democratic Elitism, Marxism and American Progressivism By John F. Manley, Department of Political Science, Stanford University 1999

This essay originally appeared in the International Review of Sociology—Revue Internationale de Sociologie, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1999 (pp. 183—195)

(quoted in Lukas (1997, p. 233))

http://www.iefd.org/articles/who_can_we_shoot.php

And, it is in unattributed quote files on the web.

Ahhh, well, i think Lukas is likely to be our best source. Lukas would be:

Big Trouble: A Murder in a Small Western Town Sets Off a Struggle for the Soul of America, by J. Anthony Lukas, New York, Simon & Schuster, 875 pages, $32.50

However, i don't have that text handy. It is in nearby bookstores, and i could verify this. But does anyone else have quicker access?

Richard Myers 18:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, this is delicious

Bill Haywood on detectives:

A detective is the lowest, meanest and most contemptible thing that either creeps or crawls, a thing to loathe and despise. ... That you may know how small a detective is, you can take a hair and punch the pith out of it and in the hollow hair you can put the hearts and souls of 40,000 detectives and they will still rattle. You can pour them out on the surface of your thumbnail and the skin of a gnat will make an umbrella for them.

When a detective dies, he goes so low that he has to climb a ladder to get into Hell— and he is not a welcome guest there. When his Satanic Majesty sees him coming, he says to his imps, "Go get a big bucket of pitch and a lot of sulphur, give them to that fellow and put him outside. Let him start a Hell of his own. We don't want him in here, starting trouble." <Carlson, 146-7.> Richard Myers 19:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

About "Haywood's revolutionary imperative"

I have revised the last couple of paragraphs of this section. Richard Myers 19:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

reverted for possible copyright violation

Someone (User_talk:Malplaquet) added the entire page from this website:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/haywood/HAY_CHRO.HTM

to the Bill Haywood article. I have reverted for inappropriate content in this article, and probable violation of copyright law. Richard Myers 06:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

About "racial unity"

I admit that i'm not fond of the title "Racial unity," because it doesn't describe how Haywood viewed racial unity, or why. I haven't come up with a good replacement, but something like "Haywood's belief in the unity of the working class," or "Haywood's belief in the racial unity of all workers" seem to me to capture the essence of the text better. Thoughts? Richard Myers 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree; when I added the section, I mainly just wanted to get something in there. Haywood's view on racial unity was enlightened at the time (and sadly, still more enlightened than many people today), and I had some good quotes, so I wanted to make sure it was noted.

I like where you're trying to go with those section titles, but I think the suggestions are too long. The next level up, "Haywood's labor philosophy" takes care of the first part of your suggestions, so how about something like Racial unity in the working class or Racial unity in the labor movement? --JerryOrr 00:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, Richard, I'll go with Racial unity in the labor movement for now. If anyone thinks of something better, they are more than welcome to change it! --JerryOrr 01:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ed Boyce & exclusion of foreign workers

I've requested a specific resource citation for the Boyce statement, here: User_talk:Tim1965#Ed_Boyce_resource

The original statement is in the Ed Boyce article:

Ed_Boyce#Public_service

I know that Jameson covered this territory — that the WFM (at least in the Cripple Creek area) had a heritage of Asian exclusion — but she doesn't tie it directly to Boyce in her book about Cripple Creek, All That Glitters.

Jerry, i like both of your suggestions about the Racial unity section title. Richard Myers 00:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully we'll get a source regarding Boyce; I think you are correct in not using All That Glitters as a source for Boyce's thoughts on racial unity. By the way you describe it, I think it would constitute original research to state that Boyce was adverse to racial unity due to the WFM's exclusion of Asian workers. If we can't get a source for Boyce, we'll just have to make the statement more general. --JerryOrr 02:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Trial of the Century

Interesting to see Haywood's history promoted this way:

2007 Marks the 100th Anniversary of the “Trial of the Century”

http://www.idahohistory.net/Trial_century.pdf

Richard Myers 00:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That is interesting; good link. I'll have to read it when I have the time. --JerryOrr 02:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed this edit

I removed this edit because it was not a proper edit. I have not explored whether the info is valid:

because Tyler M. Shillings of Indiana's Senatorial staff arrived during the second half of the trial with evidence disproving the charges. Are You Going To Hang My Papa?]]

Richard Myers (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Better image

There's a great photo of Bill Haywood on Flickr here. Kaldari (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review.

The article is in a good shape, but some parts could still need references, including one "citation needed" tag. The "See Also" in the "Murder trial" section is out of place, it should be incorporated into the text, put in a footnote or placed in the general "See also" section at the bottom. One picture needs a caption, if anyone can dig up any information on it, and another one is used twice. Lampman (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)