Talk:Victor Riesel

Conviction
Assuming this mob-figure was indicted for the attack, was he ever convicted? --AWF
 * Yes, the upgrade deals with this. - Tim1965 (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Not the Basis for Two Face
Two Face appeared in Batamn comics as early as 1942, over a decade before the Riesel attack, so Victor Riesel could not possibly be the inspiration for the comic book villian. I suppose it's possible the mob hoods were inspired by the comic... - RFrayne 18:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC) RFrayne

How can a 1956 event lead to a 1948 event?
I don't want to try to fix this myself because it's a complicated subject and I may not understand what's going on. But in the paragraph that begins "The attack on Riesel had significant implications for national American labor policy," apparently a chain of events is being described as flowing FROM this attack that happened in 1956, one of which is "This committee's investigations led directly to the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1948." HUH? How can a 1956 event then cause a series of other events that culminates in something that happened in 1948?? Unless I'm merely addled, something's wrong. 71.86.122.57 (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The redlink to "Boring from within"
Is there a purpose for adding the redlink to Boring from within now, or even at all? It can be added later, but policy states that they are engouraged only if they are relevant and helpful. I doubt it is relevant and helpful in this case; it's just a saying, and we don't link every saying in every article. Epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It is relevant and helpful because explaining to readers what "boring from within" means would add significant political context for the line in the article, "In the 1920s and 1930s, Nathan Riesel successfully opposed Communist Party USA attempts to infiltrate activists into the local union and turning its purpose to promotion of the party (a strategy known as "boring from within")." If the strategy isn't relevant, why is it even mentioned? The guideline says, "Create red links everywhere they are relevant to the context for terms that should exist in the encyclopedia. An easy example is a technical term that merits a treatment beyond its dictionary definition to play an important supporting role for its existing context." Aren't both of these true for this political term? djr13 (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes... so instead of leaving the link red, why don't you create the article, since it's such a popular term? Epicgenius (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I will probably soon end up creating a redirect to a glossary which describes it. Still, I know red links are unsightly, but they exist for a reason, and should not be removed simply because incompleteness is discomforting. Until the article is created, red links are helpful to other editors to know what topics are in need of expansion. "Relevant and helpful" are not the qualifiers for this, and aren't even mentioned in the guideline, but if they were, "boring from within" mentioned in a political context of conflict with Communist Party USA activists warrants a relevant and helpful red link for the needed improvement of coverage on that conflict. djr13 (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I see we will have the same arguments over at Ben Gold. - Tim1965 (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)