Talk:Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire

Attempt to combine victims by origin country and ethnic/religious affiliation is unclear
"Most of the victims were recent Italian and Jewish immigrants" is confusing. For example, would Italian Jewish women be counted twice? Suggestion that victims should be listed in the article by one classification (e.g. "recent European immigrants"). Lexlex (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't overthink it The vast majority of Italian immigrants were Catholic and not Jewish. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So the line should be changed to: "Most of the victims were recent Catholic and Jewish immigrants"? Lexlex (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it should not. They were Italian and Jewish, that was their ethnicities, Judaism being both a religion and an ethnicity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "Italian" used here refers to ethnicity and not place of origin? If so, I would argue it fails WP:Relevance. (e.g. Why not also list their shoe sizes and favorite foods?) Lexlex (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. The wording is accurate and sourced Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit regarding causes of exits blocked
My edit about one of the causes of the exits being blocked leading to the deaths (to block union activists) was recently reverted by. Shearonink stated that this edit "Misplaced content, the lead is an introduction/summary of the article's important points, the "preventing union organizing" statement appears nowhere else in the article." I disagree with this reversion and feel that the reversion is incorrect. First, while correct that the edit was made in the introduction/summary section of the article, this was necessary for the structure of the article. In this article, the list of reasons why the exits were blocked are listed in the introduction/summary (and the reversion did not move the causes). Second, I added two separate, well-sourced references that discuss the causes of the exits being blocked. One of the references is a peer-reviewed general U.S. History textbook (Openstax), which gives a general, non-detailed overview of the event and list attempts to block unions as on the causes of the doors being locked. This demonstrates that this reason is in fact, an "important point." Third, if the other two causes of the blocking of the exits are in fact relevant, then logically, so is the one I added. Fourth, one of the causes left for the reversion is "unauthorized breaks." This reason is also not listed anywhere in the article, yet was left when reverted. Removing my edit of the one of the causes cause while leaving two other causes is capricious and arbitrary, and removes an important cause of doors being locked. Wikipedialuva (talk) 07:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - Thank you for discussing this issue here on the talk page after my reversion of your edit. A couple of points:
 * The "to block union activists" statement is in passing in *both* the sources you used.
 * If this statement is so then back it up in the body of the text. Mentioning something in the lead section that is not in the body of the article is against the Wikipedia MOS (see MOS:LEAD).
 * The "locking to prevent theft" is stated in the body of the article. The locking of the exit doors is prominently treated in almost every source I have seen about the fire - the reasons for doing so are important. Your two sources are the only ones I have seen that make the claim about union organizing.
 * The Smithsonian article is a statement from Anna Diamond's review of Bryant Simon's book on the 1991 Hamlet Fire. Does Ms. Diamond go into more detail on this issue elsewhere? Does Professor Simon treat the subject of Triangle, locked doors, and union organizing? Two single sentences that seem to have no supporting corroboration seems undue to me.
 * I don't doubt that it is indeed *possible* that the locked exit doors  could  have had some association with anti-union sentiments (but on the part of whom since the prosecution was somehow unable to prove that the Blanck and Harris even knew about the locked doors) but if this is so then those sentiments or knowledge should be stated in contemporary accounts dating to the Triangle Fire, such as interviews with survivors, the trials of Blanck and Harris (both their manslaughter trial and the subsequent civil suit), etc. Let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns; I now better understand what your intent is.
 * I will first address some of the points you made:
 * Yes, I admit that both of my sources mention this in passing, however, I would assert that both articles are "related to the principal topics" as required for passing topics in WP:RS. Additionally, both sources are valid and authoritative sources per WP:RS. Nothing in WP:RS prevents something that is noted in passing as in a source which would render the source unusable. Additionally, I have found many other sources that are valid per WP:RS that state the same basic set of facts that back up these sources (I will provide a list below). Additionally, due to the extreme specificness of the issue of what were the specific causes of why the exits were locked, I doubt there are many, if any, sources which are dedicated solely to that exact topic.
 * In this specific article the causes of the exit being blocked are listed in the Lead section, which is why I listed the I made my edit there. However, I have no objections and am fine with moving the causes of the exits being blocked down the Fire section if you would prefer.
 * Related to the second point, yes, there is no disagreement that the locking the doors to prevent theft is mentioned later in the article (specifically, the Fire section). A second cause of "prevention of unauthorized breaks" is also listed in the introduction with no other referenced elsewhere in the article as a cause and yet is left to stand.
 * Smithsonian magazine is a reliable source per the WP:RS policy and does not require that the author to have gone into detail about the issues elsewhere in order for it to be a reliable source. However, as I stated above, I am providing additional sources below.
 * I would also note that there is wide agreement and evidence that demonstrates that the factory had patterns and practices of being vehemently anti-union. According to The Shalvi/Hyman Encyclopedia of Jewish Women, their factory was the site of the “Uprising of the 20,000” organized by the International Ladies Garment Workers Union (ILGWU) in 1909. Even after this they still refused to negotiate with workers and discharged most remaining union members. This gives the factory every reason to try to block unions. However, even then I am also not necessarily claiming that Blanck and/or Harris had ordered or even had any personal knowledge that the doors were locked, in part, to keep out union activists. In fact The New Republic states that it was a foreman, not the owners, who locked the doors for this reason. All that is required for my statement to be correct is that *someone* in the factory locked the doors, in part, in an attempt to keep out union activists.
 * In summary, I stand firm in believing that there are many valid sources per WP:RS that support my statement about doors being locked to prevent unions. If you would prefer it be mentioned somewhere else in the article, or if you would prefer additional or different sources (such as one or more from below), I feel those would be reasonable requests.
 * Additional sources substantiating my claims (I would of course reference them in proper WP:REF for the article):
 * The New Republic- ”Factory foremen had locked the exit doors to keep out union organizers and to keep workers from taking breaks and stealing scraps of fabric.” https://newrepublic.com/article/85134/wisconsin-unions-walker-triangle-shirtwaist-fire
 * The Shalvi/Hyman Encyclopedia of Jewish Women- ”The employers had kept the escape exits locked to prevent theft and ‘stealing time,’ and to keep out union organizers and prevent spontaneous walkouts.” https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/triangle-shirtwaist-fire
 * Professor Benjamin Sperry of Case Western Reserve University-“Owners of the factory, the Triangle Waist Co., had fiercely resisted unionization and workers’ demands for safer working conditions Doors were locked at the direction of owners, supposedly to keep out union organizers” https://case.edu/lifelonglearning/sites/case.edu.lifelonglearning/files/2019-04/Sperry%20slides%20week%202.pptx
 * Law Student Connection (“The official blog of NYSBA law student members, published by the New York State Bar Association”)-”The doors of the factory were locked to prevent theft and keep out union organizers, leaving workers trapped, and bulky machines blocked exits as the fire quickly spread via yards of flammable fabric.” http://nysbar.com/blogs/lawstudentconnection/2013/08/from_triangle_shirtwaist_to_ra.html
 * Fragments from the Fire: The Triangle Shirtwaist Company Fire of March 25, 1911-“On the ninth floor, because the bosses had kept the doors locked to keep out union organizers, workers were forced to jump from windows.” https://bookshop.org/books/fragments-from-the-fire-the-triangle-shirtwaist-company-fire-of-march-25-1911/9781939044037
 * Flesh & Blood So Cheap: The Triangle Fire and Its Legacy by Albert Marrin-“This was not unusual, as employers often locked doors to discourage latecomers and keep out union organizers” https://misstomlinson.weebly.com/uploads/2/3/7/3/23737706/from_flesh___blood_so_cheap__the_triangle_fire_and_its_legacy.pdf
 * The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire Memorial (While it is a 501(c)3 non profit, I admit that this may or may not be considered a reliable source)- “The owners felt that the best defense against union infiltration was to lock the workers in… In an effort to keep the workers at their sewing machines and to keep out union organizers, the proprietors had locked the doors leading to the exits.” https://trianglememorial.org/triangle-history/
 * Wikipedialuva (talk) 05:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah. the Triangle management bunch were wildly anti-union, that's a fact. It's a fine point to parse but I think it makes a difference to find out if this locking-the-doors union-busting reason is mentioned in any of the contemporaneous reports about the fire - in the various trial transcripts, in the newspapers, in any published accounts from any of the survivors(both workers and management). Everything you've listed above that I've taken a look at is written by historians after the fact, not by the people who lived through the Fire, not by the people who had direct and personal knowledge of management's motives. To me the union-busting aspect of the doors being locked is written about by various reliable sources so that could/should be added in an appropriate place within the body of the article, something along the lines of "Various historians have also ascribed the exit doors being locked to management's wanting to keep out union organizers"..."to management's anti-union bias" (or whatever) [sources]. For instance, The New Republic article states "Factory foremen had locked the exit doors to keep out union organizers"...how did the author  know  that? Where's their original source for that statement? Same with the Shalvi/Hyman Encyclopedia of Jewish Women - "... to keep out union organizers,..." and so on.
 * I am not trying to be a jerk or a gatekeeper on this, I just want to know where this particular idea/motive/reason first appeared. It seems to me that unless some published source has a foreman stating this (since no one proved that Blanck & Harris knew about the locked doors - yeah RIGHT they didn't know...), in an interview or in one of the trial transcripts, that one of the reasons they locked the doors was to keep out union organizers, then this statement would seem to be a conclusion reached by historians and writers after the fact and could be added along with explanations/sources/information. Shearonink (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not feel you are being a jerk at all, quite to the contrary actually. I feel that this discussion has actually been quite civil and productive. I appreciate you providing a sample statement and think that "various historians have also ascribed the exit doors being locked to management's wanting to keep out union organizers" provides an excellent summary of what I was trying to get across. Unless there is any objection, I'll go ahead and post it in the second paragraph of the Fire section with citations from The New Republic, The Shalvi/Hyman Encyclopedia of Jewish Women, and book Flesh & Blood So Cheap. Thank you again for providing a civil and invigorating discussion. Wikipedialuva (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Shearonink (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Veep reference
Under Pop Culture references, someone should add:

In Season 6, Episode 1 (Omaha) of Veep, character Salina Myer says "I mean, whose balls did I twerk to end up here in Triangle Shirtwaist offices--I mean seriously, this is the worst place they've ever stuck an ex-president and I am including JFK's coffin." Mbsearles (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for that? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I watched it today and re-ran it until I got the words exactly right. But I don't have anything I can cite. Mbsearles (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really matter, it's a trivial reference and probably shouldn't be added at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)