Talk:Los Angeles Times bombing
- Did you know... that although an Iron Workers union member planted the dynamite in the 1910 Los Angeles Times bombing, the 21 people who died in the explosion and fire were all workers and not managers?
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
May Day vs. Labor Day
[edit ]Just FYI: May Day is not generally celebrated in the U.S. The American holiday is Labor Day, celebrated the first Monday in September. They are not synonymous in the U.S., and never have been. The article should say Labor Day, and point to Labor Day (United States). - Tim1965 12:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
Zeehandelaar
[edit ]"The next morning, unexploded bombs were discovered at the homes of Otis and F.J. Zeehandelaar, secretary of the M&M...." is part of the list of unexploded bombs that were found on October 2. Did Otis and F.J. Zeehandelaar live in multiple homes (i.e., Otis lives in one house and F.J. lives in another)? Were they both the secretary of the M&M? If so, shouldn't that read "secretaries?" What is the relationship between Otis and F.J.? Are they brothers, which would explain the "homes"? It's written like F.J. could be the wife of Otis. Jtyroler (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
No, Otis is the last name of the LA Times publisher, not a guy's first name. Pretty sure they had separate homes...Boogerpatrol (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
Neutrality
[edit ]POV text and weaselry rv. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
- You added a neutrality tg. If you feel there are remaining issues, then you need to point them out here so that they may be fixed. Barring no discussion here, the tag should be removed. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
POV text suggests bombing was either a justified action or carried out by individuals or parties against whom there is no evidence or proof other than speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.116.34 (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
- That doesn't mean it is POV. Perhaps they were convicted on circumstantial evidence. That's entirely legal. For it to be POV, the article would have to explicitly have ignored sources that discussed the physical evidence of the trial. Identify those sources, and you have an argument it's POV. - Tim1965 (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
Vanderbilt Cup
[edit ]I restored those words concerning the preparation of the Vanderbilt Cup extra because it explains why there were so many people in the building at that time. Without it, there would have been far fewer casualties. Motorsportmemorial.org is not a personal Web site (in particular, it is not mine), and it is respected as a well-researched site among the auto racing community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Cornutt (talk • contribs) 21:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
Incomprehensible
[edit ]Why not include the motive behind the bombing? Why isn't this basic information already covered in the current version of this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC) [reply ]
- It is covered. Read the whole thing. Anastrophe (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC) [reply ]
- Wikipedia Did you know articles
- Selected anniversaries (October 2014)
- B-Class Crime-related articles
- Mid-importance Crime-related articles
- B-Class Serial killer-related articles
- Mid-importance Serial killer-related articles
- Serial Killer task force
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- B-Class Death articles
- Low-importance Death articles
- B-Class organized labour articles
- Mid-importance organized labour articles
- Organized Labour portal article of the day
- WikiProject Organized Labour articles
- B-Class California articles
- Unknown-importance California articles
- B-Class Southern California articles
- Unknown-importance Southern California articles
- Southern California task force articles
- WikiProject California articles