Talk:Matewan

POV
POV text moved here:
 * Somewhat of a hallmark in films about labor history, but never widely renowned. Lee M 20:15, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Good point. However, the critics will speak about this! Best-  Luigibob (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

change: gun thugs to strike breakers
I won't disagree with anyone who challenges "gun thugs" as POV.

However, replacing gun thugs with "strike breakers" is not a perfect fit, in my view. Gun thugs are indeed strike breakers, but replacement workers who may never pick up a gun are more frequently described as strike breakers. Therefore, the POV term "gun thugs" has a very clear meaning, but using "strike breakers" as a replacement confuses the issue. Richard Myers (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Silly me.

After seeing Wikipedia's "administrator" Orangemike substitute "guncarrying" (one word) for "armed" I should not have attempted to explain my objection to the use of the term "gun thug" to a dedicated member of the IWW, or anyone else. HOUNDDAWG (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A belated afterthought: There were no "unarmed strike breakers" in the film if one discounts the already labeled "scabs". (They were there primarily to work and earn money and for whom breaking the strike would have been incidental. In fact, the longer the strike lasted the longer the replacement workers-who were more frequently described as "scabs" rather than "strike breakers" would have work. The one unrecognized "agent provocateur" has already been labeled so there's no reason to confuse his character with the strike breakers, and there's no reason to refer to either by different sobriquets on the Wikipedia page.)

Neither of the aforementioned could be reasonably confused with the armed Baldwin-Felts agents I referred to as "strike breakers". Therefore, it would be difficult to "confuse the issue" of armed strike breakers with non existent people. No one was carrying a Bible, handing out leaflets or otherwise peacefully resisting the unionization or the "commie, Red, pinko takeover" of the WVA mines.

There were no "incidental unarmed strike breakers" not already accounted for (and pigeon-holed as "scabs"- in the interest of balance shouldn't pro union miners have been referred to as "mob extortionists" or worse?) in the film. And no characters (with the possible exception-and it's a stretch-of the pastor who criticized godless Bolsheviks from the pulpit) whose arguable "primary purpose" was to break the strike through peaceful means.

Also, because the striking miners, their women and the hill people in sympathy with them were also armed, reserving the term "gun thugs" for "paid anti union agents" could best be described as a knee jerk, politically correct response. I mean, "everybody knows that armed, out of work miners, presumably with pro-organized labor angels perched on their shoulders couldn't possibly be thugs, right?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by HOUNDDAWG (talk • contribs) 11:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Battle was not the strike
The so-called Battle of Matewan was not "a coal miners' strike", but the assassination of the private detectives who had just evicted mine company workers from their rented homes.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matewan. 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/20120614054932/http://blairmountainmuseum.org/ to http://www.blairmountainmuseum.org/

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) 14:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)