Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Jan 2006 - Jun 2006

Contents

[edit] 1969 police strike in Montreal

Timeline of Quebec history (1960 to 1981) has the only mention on Wikipedia of the 1969 police strike in Montreal. This should probably get its own article. Zocky | picture popups 11:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{union-stub}}

Further to the discussion above, are there any more thoughts on generalizing the wording of this stub so that it fits better on topics like bios and articles on terminology, concepts and laws?

Currently - This article related to a trade or labor union is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
One proposal - This article related to organized labour is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
My only worry is that changing the wording may bring the stub name to the attention of the stub-sorting project again. :) (If it does I promise not to jump up and down like last time...) --Bookandcoffee 20:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I guess my only concern is that conscientious users may have used the existing stub only for articles about unions. Changing the stub leaves these articles adrift in a greatly expanded category. Would it be helpful to expand the stub, as well as create a sub-stub just for stubs about labor organizations? The issue would be moot if someone did a little survey of existing articles with the existing stub and could show that users haven't been conscientious after all. (If that makes sense.) Tim1965 20:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I generally troll through there every month or two and move anything I see into the sub-stubs. Have a look - it's mostly general articles, and about 20 international union orgs. I don't think there would be much harm done in the change. But that's just me, I'm OK with whatever gets decided.--Bookandcoffee 01:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm satisifed. I say: Let's move forward on the broader language. Tim1965 14:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I like it how it already is. If you want to change the name, perhaps "This article relating to the trade union movement, or organized labour is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it". - FrancisTyers · 12:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Labour disputes by country

After some discussion with Tim1965 I left the following note at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories):

A couple of us at WikiProject Organized Labour want to sub-divide the Category:Labor disputes into Category:Labour disputes by country. I'm of the opinion that the wording should be in the format Category:Labour disputes in Canada, not of Canada. Is this a clear enough case that we can just proceed, or would you recommend a more detailed discussion?

Additional input would be great.--Bookandcoffee 16:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Union bug

Could someone add an article about union bugs? That means the little logos seen on publications printed at union shops, and maybe on clothing ("Look for the union label...."). Something about their history, their use/misuse/nonuse in political campaigns, the "union label" song (if that's what it's about), maybe some photos, etc. I'm sure there are colorful stories but I don't follow this stuff. Phr (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting article from www.lib.berkeley.edu/~lcushing/addpages/Bug_adds/UnionBug.html Berkeley on the bug.--Bookandcoffee 17:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's excellent, a very good reference to start from. - Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The "union label" song dates back to the ILGWU, and was specific to the union-made label on clothes. But yes, the "union bug" and other uses of specific labels indicating that a product is union-made could make a great article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV problems

There's a comment on the Talk page of the Cripple Creek miners' strike of 1894 article which challenges the neutral point of view of the article. Putting aside the complainant's ignorance of how Wikipedia cites sources, the comment raises an interesting question: Can WikiLabour articles talk about 'successful' strikes? Can labor ever be talked about as 'successful' or having 'won' a strike or having 'achieved' anything? I would argue that such terms are neutral, given that the subject is about conflict. By the commentator's argument, the statement 'The Allies defeated Germany in World War II' would violate NPOV. Additionally, Wikipedia guidelines say statements should be sourced. I, for one, cannot find pro-employer sources which would back up any statement I might make about the mine owners.

This issue, I think, affects not just this article in question, but a whole host of labor-related articles. Perhaps I'm being defensive, but I think the commentator raises an issue which needs some serious discussion here and elsewhere. Else, we'll never see any labor-related articles rising to Good Article or Featured Article status. Tim1965 17:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course a strike can be "successful", just as an effort to break a union can be "successful". - Jmabel | Talk 05:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] assessment department

WP:1.0 has a Work via Wikiprojects project that is assessing the quality of articles for print, DVD, etc. This assessment framework is already in use by a number of projects (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment for an excellent example) and I would like to setup a related department for organized labour. I have once again shamelessly stole a semi-standard opening page (User:Bookandcoffee/Sandbox) for starters. Feel free to have a look/change/comment on it. I’d like to start it sometime next week if no one objects.

There are two ranking systems, the first is "class" and it’s a pretty straight forward ranking of how developed the article is. The second ranking is "importance" and it’s more problematic - I think we would want to have a detailed discussion to develop useful criteria for that ranking, so I would only plan on implementing the "class" parameter for now.

The whole setup revolves around using the {{LabourProject}} tag on article talk pages. A bot then trolls through and sorts things into their appropriate categories based on what fields are passed on within the tag. Seems pretty useful to me, and it will help establish a organized labour presence with the WP:1.0 project. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 20:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Just be aware that it seems we'll have to have multiple fields for each nation. For example, see the Wiki World Music Project. Each nation gets its own class and importance category for articles. Which is good, but it can really increase the amount of stuff on the page. Tim1965 15:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Aren't those just national articles? (i.e. Music of Hungary) Specifically, I think they are the only national articles that have an A-Class or higher rating.--Bookandcoffee 21:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I started this today. There are changes to the {{LabourProject}} tag, as well as a new Assessment department. It will take a bit of time for the bot to recognize and setup some of the data pages.--Bookandcoffee 20:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance scale

So here's an idea for the importance rating scale for the assessment project:

I know this is a little vague - what's the difference between "major international articles" and "other general labour articles"? The definitions can be expanded - but I'm also of a mind that leaving it a little loose might be a good idea. There's no getting around the fact that these are subjective ratings, and I'd rather leave them open to interpretation. In the end this all just provides a snapshot/guideline to where we are at, so we're free to organize this however it is the most helpful.

Is this a start in the right direction? Ideas?

BTW, I think one of the things this exercise will show is just how large this topic is. Given that Trade unions in X articles are the only national article I would list as "Top", that will still produce 200 or so top rated articles... --Bookandcoffee 03:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds generally reasonable, although there are bound to be some exceptions. - Jmabel | Talk 03:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a first draft.--Bookandcoffee 23:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. Just as a test case: where would you put 1199: The National Health Care Workers' Union? - Jmabel | Talk 08:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, at first glance I'd say it's a historical piece about US unions (probably the SEIU most specifically). You make an interesting point that technically it's a "local" article - but the general thrust seems to be beyond local issues so I would consider putting it as a "Mid" rating.--Bookandcoffee 15:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I moved the draft over to {{Organized labour importance scale}}, and included it on the assessment page. The definitions are still very much open to discussion, and the {{LabourProject}} tag still has to be modified before ratings will be registered and displayed.--Bookandcoffee 02:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internationalisation

It seems that here we are collecting a lot of information about Unions. Could we possibly have some kind of database organised, that we could bot-create (Mass content addition) articles in other Wikipedia's? I know for example that currently the Tajik Wikipedia has no articles on Trade Unions. Essentially, we could bulk import many articles in a standard format, thus improving coverage, and helping smaller Wikipedias expand. You can see some of the work like this at the TG article on provinces of Vietnam. See further meta:Mass content adding. We could probably work with User:Soman/Lang-Help who is making articles on political parties. See User:Soman/Lang-Help-tg and an example of a not-finished one here User:Soman/Lang-Help-mk. - FrancisTyers · 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The first thing that comes to my mind is the {{Infobox Union}}. It's basically a database just sitting there. Wouldn't it be relatively straight forward to create a translated infobox and a category framework? You could then mass import the 800+ union articles with a canned stub that is conditional on what info exists in the box.
As for the actual labour articles - could we use the newly created, and soon to be populated Category:Organized labour articles by importance as a starting point? (I love it when a segue comes together.) Would something like an executive summary type stub for a core list be what you're looking for? Something that is easily translated?--Bookandcoffee 01:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this sounds like a good idea. I'll see if I can find a way to pull the information out of "Infobox union". - FrancisTyers · 20:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, the main issue will be translating the names I think. I'll make a subpage of here. - FrancisTyers · 21:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
so, I'm straying a little off topic here, but what do you think about a "Summary" for articles? (quick example) It would help with porting articles to other wikis because it would be a concise description that could be the start of a good stub in another language. Secondly, it would give a quick overview of the toplic for casual readers here. If this sounds interesting, I'd be willing to do a bit of leg-work to put the idea out...--Bookandcoffee 18:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The summary is good. That would make a good start for any page on trade unions. If we could get this kind of summary for the 'top priority' articles it would be good, we could then get the summaries translated and articles created in many languages. I'm not entirely sure what is in 'top priority' at the moment, but articles like Strike, Collective bargaining, Lockout etc. - FrancisTyers · 11:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stubs (again)

Once again there is a conversation on-going at the stub sorting project about renaming the labour related stubs. The conversation can be found at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/September/2. --Bookandcoffee 19:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

For basically technical reasons this discussion was closed, and has been re-open as Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/September/11. --Bookandcoffee 17:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is an "international" union?

i'm new to wiki and this projet and am happy to learn. i work in one of the GUFs and one of the things that i have noticed, and which the union movement does not help itself with a great deal, is what exactly is an "international" union. in north america an international union can mean a union with a branch in the US and Canada. in Europe, an international union can mean the ETUC, which is in reality regional. And beyond that the GUFs and the ICFTU/WCL or the WFTU are also called international unions. I have started editing List of federations of trade unions and renamed international unions as world-wide unions. i think this is actually clearer because the GUFs are not really international and the ICFTU is not really global. i know this might seem pedantic, but actually world-wide seems to capture the meaning of both better, than international.--Goldsztajn 00:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You've raised an interesting point, but I wonder whether your suggestion will help to clarify or confuse matters. Firstly, ICFTU/WCL/WFTU are not international unions but union internationals. The international unions in north America are unions in the proper sense of the word - whereas the other organisations you mention are federations. I always think there is a potential problem in trying to change how the world sees things through something like Wikipedia. I think it should be refelcting how things are seen by the world rather than the other way aorund. But I guess this might be a debating point. Whilst using the term "world wide unions" might seems clearer to you, if no one else actually uses this term or understands the precise meaning you have put to it then it might actually confuse matters. I think the important point is that the description "world wide union" is actually inaccurate becasue it suggests that these organisations are unions rather than federations. Although, having just looked at the List of federations of trade unions I notice that you seem to talk about World-Wide Federations rather that world wide unions - which shows, I think, how careful you have to be about the right terminology. But having said all of that, I've just started doing some work here so just see my observations as part of the debate. :-) Dave Smith 04:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internationalisation and Summaries page

Further to the Internationalisation talk above there are two new pages attached to the project. They are WikiProject Organized Labour/Internationalisation and WikiProject Organized Labour/Summaries. They are an attempt to provide a system for the easy transportation of English Wikipedia labour topics to our sister Wiki projects in other languages. In addition, the Summaries page introduces an {{Article summary}} tag to pages, providing a (you guessed it) article summary. See Strike action for an example summary.

These are new ideas, which have been put together by FrancisTyers and myself – and I think they have some real potential. Please take a moment or two to look at them. Your input and opinions will make a big difference to whether they succeed or simply fizzle. Thanks.--Bookandcoffee 17:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norman Tebbit as trade unionist

I don’t know British politicians very well, but it seems odd that Norman Tebbit is listed as a Category:British trade unionists. It is very similar to a previous listing of Margaret Thatcher as a trade unionist. Talk:Margaret Thatcher# British trade unionist.--Bookandcoffee 16:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose this raises an interesting point about categories. Norman Tebitt was a pilot and at one time an official of BALPA, the pilots union. So at one point in his life he could be described as a trade unionist. However, his main claim to fame (infamy if you disagree with Thatcher and her lot) would have been his role as a Minister in the Thatcher Government. Certainly, the British trade union movement would see his activities as a Minister as being fundamentally anti-union (a totally and unapologetically subjective view of course). So when we are categorising, do we use what someone is best known for, or the various things they might have been throughout their lives? - Dave Smith 00:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Categorisation, "[for sensitive categories:] Try to limit the number of categories to what is most essential about this person, something in the vein of: "give me 4 or 5 words that best characterize this person." :) I don't think he'd be best characterised as a trade unionist :) - Francis Tyers · 08:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly, we don't include an labor-related category for Ronald Reagan, who was president of a union at one point: the only union president ever to become president of the United States. - Jmabel | Talk 02:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
That's right, he was president of SAG wasn't he.--Bookandcoffee 17:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Reagan was indeed SAG head, from 47-52 & again from 59-60, initially nominated by Gene Kelly. If memory serves, he was actually okay about HUAC in the first place, but quite rapidly swapped his position.-- Belboid 10:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outreach

Well, in the last year or so we’ve managed to expand trade unions considerably, but now we have the ongoing problem of fleshing out that coverage. Articles like Confederation of Trade Unions (Albania) and Union of Workers' Trade Unions of Niger are likely to remain as stubs for quite some time. I think there are a couple ways of working on that problem, but they need some discussion first. I’d like us to consider contacting labour organizations directly for their input into the project. I realize there are issues with this – not the least of which is NPOV - but I think there are solutions as well. I’d like to set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Outreach to keep track of ideas, and ultimately, to record actual outreach efforts.--Bookandcoffee 21:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested. Expand a bit ... - Dave Smith 02:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Excellent idea. - Francis Tyers · 08:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Assuming Wikipedia continues to grow (not so much in size, but usefulness and access) I think it is inevitable that more organizations will begin to pay close attention to the articles about themselves. I’m sure this already occurs with many corporations and others with a sophisticated web presence.
However, unions in general seem to have a bit of a technological lag, and many unions worldwide are only beginning to have the kind of web access that most of us editing here take for granted. By reaching out to these organizations we have two opportunities. We can expand the articles about unions by having those involved update the information – but we can also take an important step in establishing what Wikipedia stands for, and what it does not.
If we ignore these organizations they will eventually show up here, but they will likely show up with the same problem we see right now – strong POV editing. On the other hand, if we approach them first, and say “hey, here is what you do, here is the discussion on POV, here is an example of what a good article should look like” then we stand a better chance of getting productive contributions from them.
Beyond the unions themselves, it would also be good to talk about ways to attract academics (er... that should read more academics. :). They would be very helpful, both for their knowledge, and for their ability to write. Hopefully they would be another moderating force.--Bookandcoffee 15:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Would you suggest something like a (broadly) boilerplate letter sent to Union press offices? With instructions on how to contribute? - Francis Tyers · 15:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, along with a developed set of tools here to guide them if they did show up.--Bookandcoffee 15:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
We could do with compiling a list of people/addresses. The Amicus one is "Catherine Bithell. Press Office, 35 King Street, Covent Garden, London. WC2E 8JG" - Francis Tyers · 16:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's a rough draft of a letter. I'm not suggesting that we rush off and do this immediately, but this is what I was thinking.--Bookandcoffee 23:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
That is a very good start. I think we have enough to work with here. Now, what should we include in the 'Outlook' section? - Francis Tyers · 07:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, here's a start. Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Outreach Feel free to modify at will, of course.--Bookandcoffee 15:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Quick question, is there a trade union article which is an FA right now? If not are there any candidates? - Francis Tyers · 15:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Sadly - none that I know of. Piotrus' work on History of Solidarity below is headed that way. Ustye is working hard on International Typographical Union, and there are a number of decent candidates, but none submitted, I don't think.--Bookandcoffee 15:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Solidarity

I am putting finishing touches to this article before I submit it to FAC. I'd appreciate any comments, and especially if a native English speaker could go over the article and polish it :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is not at FAC, comments are appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ICFTU - WCL merger

The ICFTU and the WCL have merged over the last few days. Dave Smith has started the new International Trade Union Confederation article and you'll want to keep the change in mind as you edit, as there are large numbers of links and references to both of the previous organizations. --Bookandcoffee 17:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I've removed the references to the WCL and ICFTU from the list of federations of trade unions as they no longer exist as seperate organisaionts. However there is still a bunch of stuff about the ICFTU regional blocks. I presume these are going to be replaced with ITUC regional blocks and new articles + updated references will be needed as this becomes clearer Nil Einne 09:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I haven't heard exactly how the regional networks are going to be structured/restructured so I've just been leaving them alone as well. There is a draft copy of the new ITCU constitution here, if anyone is looking for some light reading... :)--Bookandcoffee 17:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
As I believe I've remarked elsewhere: please, when working on this, be careful that your edits don't effectively throw half a century down the memory hole. - Jmabel | Talk 00:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree which is why I (indirectly) proposed above new articles be created for the emerging regional blocks rather then modifying the ITUC regional block articles Nil Einne 10:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Concerning the list of federations of trade unions, we could think of breaking up the list into 'current' and 'historical' which is something done for some countries in the list of trade unions. This way we could keep a reference to both the ICFTU and WCL. - Dave Smith 01:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the Regional structures of the ITUC, their web page says: "Currently existing ICFTU and WCL regional organizations for Africa, the Americas and Asia-Pacific are expected to be unified by November 2007." - Dave Smith 01:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Labor Historian

I chanced upon category:Labor historians today, a category that is just like it sounds. Although it's not been built up much yet, I wonder how or if we could incorporate it into our own little WikiProject. It's just an undeveloped thought I had at almost 2 a.m. in the morning. Tim1965 06:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strike action/Summary

I am confused by this project and this article. I was going to AFD this article but then read on the talkpage it was not an article. I am not sure what to do and followed a link on the talk page to here. --Banana04131 01:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of this can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour/Summaries--Bookandcoffee 05:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Child labor

This article has been tagged with {{NPOV}} for over a month. Maybe the people of this project could have a look at it? Circeus 14:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Woodcock

Hello everyone. I have noticed that the entry for George Woodcock (trade unionist) looks somewhat neglected. Seeing as the chap is from the same village as me (Bamber Bridge), and went to the same school, I thought that I would have a go over the coming weeks and months to expand upon it. Any one who wishes to help out is most welcome - I am a bit of a newbie and any help is appreciated! Charlie odd 21:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] categories

Hi -- I'm going through the Category:Organizations and there really needs to be a cat for organized labour orgs. I propose Category:Labor organizations -- thoughts? Is it better to use the UK spelling "organisations" ? Or is there another cat name altogether? --lquilter 04:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Others with more knowledge of cat-sorting should chime in, but I think the better, more acceptable term would be "trade union". Although that term has its faults (it tends not to capture the sense of what a "union" is in the U.S. and some other countries, may not include or emphasize white-collar work), it avoids the spelling problem that gives everyone a wedgie over on the category-sorting project. - Tim1965 14:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I wanted to also mention there is the Category:Trade unions, with its many geographic and industry-related subcategories. - Tim1965 17:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry I wasn't clearer earlier. I'm trying to figure out how to categorize other orgs other than unions -- like for instance Labor Relations Boards, Labor arts orgs, labor-oriented archives, and so on. So there needs to be an overall orgs structure. I think Category:Trade unions is fine as it is, and should probably be left within Labor cat and also a subcat within Labor orgs. But we need some kind of orgs structure to pick up non-union labor-related orgs. --lquilter 18:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to muddy the water, I want to raise the issue, too, of union-related enterprises, like banks, credit card companies, or investment funds (like the kind pensions invest in to create union construction jobs). They're not trade unions, either, but may be controlled by them (or not). And by the way, I absolutely agree there needs to be a nonunion-but-labor-related category. In the United States, these are called "pre-union organizations"; but this is a misnomer, as many are actually post-union (in the sense of post-modern) organizations. Others—like sex worker assistance groups, day-laborer organizations and workers rights centers—have no intention of becoming unions but are pro-worker and pro-workers' rights. I will try to give this some thought, but I am not good at Wiki categories. - Tim1965 22:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • How about an initial category scheme:

top categories: Category:Labor and Category:Organizations

Labor organizations (whatever spelling)
Trade unions (which should also be in the Category:Labor and in Category:Organizations because it is so central)
Union enterprises (e.g., union credit unions, and so on) (alternatives, "Union businesses")
Labor arts and culture organizations (e.g., labor cultural & history groups) (alternatives, "arts and research", "arts and history", "arts and culture" ???)
Worker assistance programs (e.g., sex worker assistance groups, day labor orgs, worker rights law clinics, etc.)
Labor-relations organizations (e.g., state labor relations boards, arbitration fora, etc.)

Spelling, alternative categories, or additional category suggestions? --lquilter 06:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I've learned from the battles Bookandcoffee has engaged in over at Wiki Category Sorting Proj. that we have to stay away from using the term "labor" (due to the Commonwealth's refusal to submit obediently to American spelling-and-grammar imperialism - ha ha). And we have to stay away from the term "union" all by itself (student union? political union? European Union? "union" has too many interpretations). :- Tim1965 16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The point about both labor (spelling) & unions (meaning) is well-taken. Still some container cat would be helpful to collect these labor-related topics. Other proposals: Category:Organized labor organizations (which is meaningful but, obviously, bad); Category:Labor union organizations (but that seems a bit too specifically tied to unions); Union and labor organizations (a little bit lengthier than I like categories to be but by including both terms makes the meaning plain, I think). The last is my favorite. --lquilter 16:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What about just Trade Union organizations?? I think it would help with the Category Sorting folks, because "Trade Union" is an established term already. An alternative would be Quasi-trade union organizations. - Tim1965 22:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with adding Category:Trade unions to the Category:Organizations hierarchy. Remember, though, that categories need not be branching trees, necessarily. It can stand on its own as a category without needing to "be under" Category:Organizations. :- Tim1965 16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a Category:Unions in the top category Category:Organizations, and it contains trade unions, student unions, and "monetary unions" (I guess that's credit unions)? --lquilter 17:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that's both a category sorting problem (things are going there which shouldn't go there) and also a terminology issue ("union" can mean anything, from African Union to trade union to student union). I don't want to get involved in sorting that out! (ha ha!) - Tim1965 22:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the wording of Category:Trade union enterprises. Should it be "business enterprises", though? I like "enterprises," but is that global enough in view? (I don't know, I'm just raising the issue.) :- Tim1965 16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You should like the wording, I think it was yours! "Business enterprises" I believe is too global, and would run the risk of getting mixed up with various non-labor-related businesses, like Category:Business organizations and whatever category actual businesses are in. The Category:Trade union enterprises (or variant name) should be classed both in our labor-related orgs cat, and in the various non-labor business cats. --lquilter 17:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the wording of Category:Trade union arts and culture organizations. :- Tim1965 16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest an alternative for non-union worker organizations: Category:Workers' rights programs. We need to be careful, because left-wing political terminology utilizes the word "worker" as well, but is often not about workers as workers but as a socio-economic class (if that makes sense). "Workers' organization" is too broad and vague. "Workers assistance programs" is...well, patronizing, I think (as if the program assists the worker, and is not run by or controlled by workers). And the programs we are talking about do not merely assist workers (with getting work visas, for example) but are about protecting workers' rights to self-organization (for whatever purpose), rights to health and safety, rights to dignity and respect, etc. So I want to put in my vote for "workers' rights organization." It also has the added benefit of language used in an existing stub, which would help us pass muster with the Wiki gods. :- Tim1965 16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That sounds good - I like your alternative. Unions will probably also get added to this cat even though it's elsewhere in the hierarchy. But that's okay; I think some useful redundancy is fine. --lquilter 17:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree: Redundancy is all right. Categories are not like trees, and one is not subordinate to another. I think it's fine if something gets placed more than one place; it makes it easier to find things. - Tim1965 22:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need a category for labor-relations organizations. There are existing categories for this (such as Category:Labour relations, various Category:Independent governmental agencies of the Insert Country Here and so on). :- Tim1965 16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm, well, labour relations might be the right thing, although I think it's broader than organizations. But "independent govtal agencies" is too broad and not labor-specific. But I won't touch this category until I've looked around it more and gotten a better sense of it. --lquilter 17:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the answer is to come up with a sub-category called Category:Trade union law of InsertCountryHere. I'd prefer to use the term "Labo(u)r Relations", but want to keep away from that due to spelling issues. The benefit here is that we could make it a sub-category of Category:National laws of InsertCountryHere as well as Category:Independent governmental agencies of the InsertCountryHere and Category:Labour relations. But it is also broad enough a category that we could put law as well as governmental agencies in the category. And national, regional, state and local law fits under there as well. Comments? - Tim1965 22:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that “nonunion-but-labor-related” is a very important area. In some ways it is unfortunate that we didn’t just call this project WikiProject Labour to reflect that the field is much larger than trade unions and their structures.

I’d like to toss out an alternative approach for you to think about. I think Tim is on the mark with noting that categories are very flexible here and don’t need to reflect a hierarchal tree – but to go one step farther, I’ve also run into difficulties (well, just realities really) when making category schemes. IMO, the problem shows up when there is a good category structure created, but not a lot of related articles to fill the structure. Others inevitably come along and consolidate or remove empty/small cats.

Perhaps consider rounding up all (or as many as you like) of the articles you think would benefit from these new categories (maybe in User:Lquilter/Sandbox? :) , and then see what you have, and which cats are worth making right now. There’s nothing to say that the cats can’t be expanded or renamed as more articles come along. Even if there is a larger restructuring down the road – it’s the decision making, not the actual renaming that consumes most of the energy.

I guess I’m just suggesting that you start with as few new cats as possible, and then after you’ve put everything into those cats have another look, and divide as needed.

The advantage is that when there is a conflict about the actual name you decide on (and there will be :) there won’t be much discussion about whether the cat is needed, just the name to be used. And both of you seem more interested about the content, and not overly invested in “getting your way” when it comes to the name… (which, incidentally, is another mistake I’ve made along the way :)

The disadvantage is that this takes more energy, and doesn’t work as quickly, but it also might show up new ideas or better directions. Just a thought.--Bookandcoffee 18:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Good ideas Tim1965 and Bookandcoffee -- I'll start working on it over the next week or so. (I'm a little backlogged.) If one of you is raring to go feel free to get started & I'll help out in your space, or wait for me -- whichever! --lquilter 00:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Articles

I removed the "older" new articles from before September 2006 on the New Wikipedia articles related to Organized Labour section. Everyone is doing a great job of adding info (most notably Tim1965, Warofdreams and Dave Smith... wow.) Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 17:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article for this project's inclusion - Joe Serna, Jr.

Mayor Joe Serna, Jr. was a key supporter of the UFW in Sacramento, CA for many years. He deserves to be a part of your project. Please place your project tag on his talkpage. Cheers, Ronbo76 04:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editting Dilemma, Bill Haywood Article

I have made some corrections to the Bill Haywood article. Am finishing his autobiography, about to start another book about him, so hopefully will have some contributions soon.

However, i have an editting dilemma with one particular point. The article states, within a reference, that "The WFM initiated a series of strikes to combat the brutal working conditions and starvation wages."

I believe this brief treatment leaves an erroneous impression; the strikes were intended to extend the union to new areas (specifically, the mill workers.) The strikers who became the focal point of the repression had been unionized; they were elsewhere-- in the Cripple Creek area; and, they were paid comparatively well.

Almost invariably, any historical account focuses on these miners, because that's where all the shooting and killing occurred. Thus, while "starvation wages" may be accurate in describing the not-yet-organized mill workers, it is innacurate in describing the miners of Cripple Creek, where their very militant unionism had greatly improved living standards for most of the community.

This situation is discussed in two other works, in Suggs but also in Jameson, which is considered the definitive account of the strike.

Since the existing text occurs inside someone else's reference, i'm reluctant to simply make the change. I could use another source to replace this one, but i'm not sure that's the best approach. Anyone have suggestions how to handle situations such as this one?

Mentioned briefly in Talk:Bill Haywood Richard Myers 20:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • It seems to me that it's merely a matter of clarification. How about this for a solution? "The WFM initiated a series of strikes designed to extend the benefits of the union to other workers, who suffered from brutal working conditions and starvation wages." - Tim1965 16:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I like that. I'm uneasy about adding text to someone else's referenced sentence, but that wording is pretty non-controversial, in my view. I think it will work. Thanks! Richard Myers 23:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible editing dispute brewing

I've commented on the talk page of a labor article that i feel has some passages with a conservative bias. There's nothing outrageous there, but i would like to see some changes in the wording of a few passages. Because these issues are both subtle and potentially contentious, i have not made any edits to the article, and have only made some observations.

The author of (at least some of) those passages has dismissed my concerns, recommending that i read a book by a conservative historian before complaining. I find that unhelpful-- i've read fairly extensively on these issues, and i have also been published in the subject area (labor strikes by coal miners.)

I wonder if a few others could look at my observations on the talk page and weigh in?

Talk:Coal_Strike_of_1902#Problems_with_this_article

I don't want to make a big issue of this, but i would like to see if anyone shares my concerns about how some labor articles are presented. Perhaps some proposals for more neutral wording would be acceptable to all. Richard Myers 00:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I will take a look. (I already cleaned up the terrible references section.) But, I would suggest slapping the {{NPOV}} (Dispute Neutral Point of View) tag on the top of the page to alert people that there is a problem. This will help draw the attention of other editors and help resolve the conflict. I think you are also right to discuss the changes on the Talk page. But "Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. ... Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community." And that you should "Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles..." (see Wikipedia:Five pillars)
I also want to point out Wikipedia's guideline on this at Tagging unsourced material. Not a dang thing in that article is sourced. And some of it is harmful or blatantly misleading. "If it is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it is as very harmful or absurd, in which case it shouldn't be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense." Feel free to remove and place it on the Talk page, and make him provide a citation. :)
You have pointed out language you feel is inaccurate. You have cited sources on the Talk page. The other individual is non-responsive. Go ahead and make the edits you feel are justified. Include in-line citations so that your changes are cited (making it hard for someone to remove or revert them without getting a charge of vandalism slapped on them).
I know the other person's going to come back with "Prof. Weirbe says..." But you can shoot right back with "But other scholars challenged Wierbe..." and provide six or 10 or 30 citations to prove Wierbe wrong. This other person is relying almost solely on Wierbe, and occasionally on non-labor biographies of Roosevelt (which don't really cover the strike well). This other person is giving undue weight to Wierbe. Point out the rules about undue weight, and challenge him. He won't be able to respond; he's got one, wacky source. If need be, we can get an Editor involved and do dispute resolution. But I bet this guy will give up long before then. - Tim1965 23:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the guidance and the helpful suggestions. I have applied the NPOV tag. However, while i have quite a lot of sources on strikes in western coal fields of the U.S. sitting on my shelf, i don't have so many about strikes in the east. Therefore i'll have to acquire some additional books. If anyone else wishes to initiate the appropriate revisions to Coal Strike of 1902, they are quite welcome to do so.
But also, i believe that some of the objectionable statements could simply be deleted, thereby removing some disputed and distracting material, without affecting the historical account at all. Richard Myers 04:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that one editor is a self-proclaimed Wobblie and while the IWW played zero role in the 1902 strike (it did not exist yet), he wants to impose a Wobblie attack on the leaders of the coal miners (esp Mitchel), as well as a deep animus toward the AFL. That is nasty POV and simply ignores the scholarly literature. Wiebe (spelled thus) has not been attacked by 30 other scholars. In addition to Wiebe the article is supported by 13 other scholarly books and articles. The critics cite zero scholarship. The Wiki rules are that we reflect the reliable scholarship, not the personal Wobblie ideology of one editor who seems to have read none of the scholarship. Rjensen 04:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
This "self-proclaimed Wobblie" spent 33 years as a member, officer, steward, and safety rep in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, an AFL-CIO union, for what its worth. Criticizing someone for the union they belong to is risky, especially if you do not know their history.
But none of this has anything to do with the merits of arguments concerning the POV status of the article under discussion. Richard Myers 04:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
My apologies to Richard Myers if I misrepresented him as a Wobblie, but he says on his own user page " I have also spent fifteen years as an Industrial Workers of the World supporter/member." His coments reflect a Haywood/IWW hatred of UMW (dating from a later episode after 1902). Much worse is he refuses to read any of the scholarship. Rjensen 05:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the idea that the article(s) are developing a pro-industry bias. For example, I see little to no mention of the Coal and Iron Police who between 1866 and 1933 essentially represented the coal and iron industry's private army. This is, incidently, not hyperbole on my part. I can cite several sources, such as Katherine Mayo's 1917 work Justice to All, with a foreword by Theodore Roosevelt referring to the "lawless capitalists who used the law-defying Coal and Iron Police." (page x) As someone who is in the process of reading coroner's inquest reports from the 1900s I would say at the very least the dangerous nature of the work needs to be stressed. It is not possible to understand the growth of the labor movement without sufficient context. Whatever the talking points of both sides, it cannot be questioned that the work could be lethal and a worker's death could mean leaving a family to be thrown out in the cold.

DeciusAemilius 04:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anna Lo Pezza article deletion

User:Richard_Myers/Anna_Lo_Pezza Someone deleted this brand new article relating to the Bread and Roses strike in Lawrence because the individual wasn't notable. Currently under deletion review. Please see what YOU think — and let me know... Richard Myers 11:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  • After reading the article, I think I would support the deletion. As your research points out, it was not the person who was important (I know how sick that sounds, but bear with me) but her death. The article contains no personal information about her, about her role in the strike (except for her death, which was not by her choice; her importance came after her death, so to speak), or her role in worker organization prior to the strike. It's an article about the Lawrence textile strike. You provided good research, and I would instead integrate that into the Lawrence textile strike article (as appropriate; the article is already quite long). - Tim1965 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Result of Deletion Review process — article returned to previous status, moved to corrected name: Anna LoPizzo. Thanks to everyone who supported preserving this labor history. Richard Myers 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please vote in the Anti-globalization and antisemitism article deletion debate

The deletion debate can be found here J.R. Hercules 05:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article: Violence in industrial disputes

Violence in industrial disputes offers examples of unions committing violence, yet without any citations or links. The article attempts to offer a balance on the question of violence in industrial disputes, yet fails to provide the rigorous documentation that is necessary for such a topic.

The article hasn't been edited very much recently, so these problems are probably long-standing. It would be great if someone could find the time to adopt this article and do it justice.

I think that a section on the history of violence in industrial disputes would also be a valuable addition. Richard Myers 08:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories -- labor leaders, union members

I will readily admit that i don't know everything there is to know about categories. But a fellow editor, User:CalJW seems to be changing the categorization of massive numbers of labor articles, some of them in a way that makes no sense to me.

I'll offer two examples:

Steve Adams (Western Federation of Miners) was a member of the WFM who happened to be tried on murder charges. Presumably because he's "notable" in that sense, User:CalJW has reclassified him into the category American labor leaders. But his description in the article as "a thirty-nine-year-old former Kansas City butcher and Cripple Creek miner" doesn't suggest leadership in any sense that i can fathom.

IWW member Eric Chester is described in the article about him as "an active member in the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW)" (emphasis added). User:CalJW has reclassified him into the category Industrial Workers of the World leaders.

User:CalJW has visited a lot of union related pages, always leaving the word (recategorised) in the description of his actions. Probably the majority of these changes are valid and helpful. But i'm wondering throughout all of the labor related articles on Wikipedia, how many notable union members are being turned into leaders, and why. These two examples may, of course, have been accidental — i haven't yet received an explanation. But fellow editors may wish to check their own articles for similar "recategorization" errors. Richard Myers 15:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Followup: check other categories as well. User:CalJW assigned the living persons category tag to William Trautmann, which would make the fellow more than 130 years old. User:CalJW's contributions may be found here, if you'd like to skim through for articles of possible concern: Special:Contributions/CalJW — Richard Myers 17:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Richard, have you asked CalJW to discuss this, perhaps inviting that user here? — coelacan — 20:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I was waiting for a response, which i now see at: User_talk:CalJW#Incorrect_categorizations
I'm a little confused — i don't see how the proposed solution will solve the problem(s), in fact i don't understand the problem as explained; but then i don't know the precise nature of the category structure. I'll explore this further, try to gain an understanding, then return here later. Richard Myers 21:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Eric Chester was already in the IWW leaders category, actually, and has been there since 11 July.[1] On Steve Adams, it looks like CalJW is trying to get people into "labor by nationality" categories, and there was only a "labor leaders by nationality" for some of them. CalJW is now proposing renaming of "labor leader" categories to "trade unionist" categories, which would catch both leaders and members. Seems like that would be okay, although I'm not 100% sure. Other opinions? — coelacan — 23:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] related CFR

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 3#Category:Labor leaders, a proposed renaming. — coelacan — 20:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] centralized discussion of category naming

Hi CalJW. Richard Myers has suggested merging both Category:Labor leaders and Category:Trade unionists to Category:Labor unionists (rationale here). Is that something you could support? — coelacan — 05:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, because its just as much American English as the existing version, and more confusing. It sounds like it is something to do with the Labour Party to my British ears rather than a trade union category at all. The furthest I could accept moving toward American English would be category:Trade unionists and labor unionists. CalJW 14:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Ahhh. Well, of course, we Americans don't have a functional labor labour party.
For me, the most inclusive category with a compound name would be category:Trade unionists and industrial unionists.
That would translate, in the American concept, to the equivalent of category:Craft unionists and industrial unionists. I don't know what it would sound like to British ears, but hopefully something similar.
One possible down side to that is, someone from France or Spain or Italy will then say, if we're accepting compound names, that it should be category:Trade unionists and industrial unionists and syndicalist unionists. But i suppose we need to draw the line somewhere.
This international union terminology is a sticky situation. Richard Myers 15:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Another issue is, assuming we find a suitable general category title, how do we best get there?
I'm not that familiar with the category structure, so please correct me if i'm wrong — we could do this as a two step process, leaving the current proposal as is, which would merge two categories under one name. The name "Trade unionists" is flawed from the American point of view, in that it would be acceptable to most American craft unionists, but it would seem to exclude American industrial unionists. However, after the categories are merged, we could explore a name change to a more inclusive category title under a separate, follow-up proposal?
Or would it be better to do it all at once? Richard Myers 16:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Between them Category:Labor leaders and category:Trade unionists are in Category:Labor, Category:Trade unions, Category:Activists and Category:People by occupation. If the merged category is in all those, I should think that will provide sufficient access routes. It is also possible to create all the category redirects you might think necessary by adding {{categoryredirect|Name of actual category}} to categories at the alternative names. CalJW 16:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(the above was copied from user talk:CalJW)

I think that "labor unionists" or "labour unionists" works fine. It's used in the USA, it's used in the UK, in Canada, and in Australia. It includes trade/craft unionists and industrial unionists. And if we want to get away from subdividing leaders and members (something I think is a good idea as the boundaries are not always clean-cut), it catches both leaders and members. Everyone's a labor unionist (or labour unionist). I've made this centralized discussion area and I'm inviting everyone who's commented in the CFDs so far, because I don't think that these CFDs are giving enough room and time to discuss what amount to fairly large changes. What's everyone's take on this? — coelacan — 22:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I think 'labor union', 'labor unionists', etc is the more general term while the other names are subsets of this term. This does not appear to be unique to American English, but even it were and other Foo English did not have such a general term, it would still be useful (nothing in WP says do not use American English). Compound names of these subsets would be incomplete and just have to get longer later as labor organizations evolve. Not good. Hmains 23:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Considering that the categories are not huge, do you think it's a good idea to have merged categories like "Canadian trade unionists" that would include both members and leaders, without subdividing those groups? I'm partial to this because it reduces work deciding about borderline cases. — coelacan — 21:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of a single category name, not compounded, for the reason that someone mentioned above. However, as i understand it right now, the single substantial objection to what we have so far is possible confusion in some nations between "labor unionist" and the electoral politician category, i.e., "labour party." Can anyone think of a term that would be more satisfactory, and is not a compound name?
As far as the division between "leaders" and "members" of unions, i really don't care too much whether there are separate categories or not. In one sense, the hypertext interlinking indicates notability. Someone who has a lot of links to their article is presumably more notable, and that seems to work pretty well for Google, so it would be nice to have such a status on Wikipedia become more transparent. (Not something we'll solve with a category designation, obviously.)
But assuming there are separate categories, i wish to note that "leader" connotes a particular functionality. A leader may be a member, but they also may not be a member, adding an additional complication.
Generally speaking i would prefer having (something like) "labor unionist" and "prominent labor unionist," or perhaps "labor unionist" and "notable labor unionist." Then, sure, there is still the question of which category is most appropriate. But the scheme is more useful, it seems to me, because some leaders seem a lot less notable than others. And particularly in organized labor, many are very notable who never really had a role that can be described as "leader." Joe Hill, for example, was very notable for several reasons, not one of which was "leading" a union organization. Richard Myers 00:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"Prominent" and "notable" in the title of an article is always removed, per WP:PEACOCK. Having either term in the title of a category actually can lead to the category being deleted. Everyone on Wikipedia is notable, per WP:N, or their article gets deleted anyway. So it's best to leave these terms out, especially in titles. I'm liking "unionist" even better now instead of "leader" and "member", because as you point out leaders aren't always members, so a "leaders" category can't be a subcategory of a "members" category. Yet another reason to combine the two and just note their actual status in each article. I'll try to think of something besides "labor unionist" that captures meaning right, however, if we don't come up with anything else I'm not sure it's a huge deal. The UK and Australia both have Labour parties and yet those links I gave earlier show people using the term "labour union" without any fear of confusion. The categories for Labour parties make the "party" explicit, such as Category:UK Labour Party and Category:Labour parties. — coelacan — 06:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I still think 'labor unionist' is best for the US with a subcategory of 'labor union leader'. I think this matches the reality of the US. Just 'unionist' should not be used--this term is used in history to denote people fought for or otherwise supported the 'Union'--the North in the American Civil War; other similar usage probably exists also. Various country's categories could be named 'F00 trade unionists' as they are now, if that is the predominant usage in the country. WP does not require consistency over clarity. As far as the overall supercategory for all countries, that could also be left as 'trade unionists by country' as there are more F00 articles of that name. Of more importance than these names is getting all the articles that are directly in the 'Trade Unionist' category into their correct country 'Foo trade unionist' or 'F00 labor unionist' categories. Hmains 01:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    Hmains, I shouldn't have said "unionist"; I wasn't proposing that, as I'm aware of the "North" association. It was shorthand; I meant just "labor unionist" (or "labour unionist"). I think the problem that Richard Myers mentions above is that "trade unionist" is being applied to people who are "industrial unionists" because a narrowly-named category is being applied to a wider range of people. — coelacan — 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
You may be able to find isolated examples of non-U.S. usage, but it is simply a fact that it is mainly a U.S. term and it is most certainly U.S. centric. Americans are not in a position to comment on this unless they have lived in other countries. Anyway, the spelling is also U.S. centric. Craig.Scott 01:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Craig.Scott, thanks for your comment. Let's put the spelling aside for the moment, as that can go either way arbitrarily. Do you have any suggestion for language that is inclusive of both trade unionists and industrial unionists? And please let's not make judgments on who is qualified to comment on what; we're all Wikipedians and we can all use WP:Verifiable and WP:Reliable sources to support an argument rather than assumptions of geography. — coelacan — 02:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Labour Portal

For anyone who missed the notice at 'New labour articles', Haus42 has started building the Labour Portal. It's at User:Haus42/Organized Labour right now and it looks great, but Haus42 is looking for input and ideas as well. Have a look. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 18:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I moved the portal to Portal:Organized Labour last night. There's also a doodad for "See also" sections {{organized labour portal}} which can be used like this. Cheeers. Haus42 12:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Disaster Management" of labor struggles?

An article that i've just re-worked has been tagged as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management.

Are there any organized labor editors involved with this project? Anyone have a sense of the likely impact of this project on articles in our project? And are they really concerned with "managing," resolving, or evaluating labor/management battles that occurred more than a century ago? ;-)

I know, i know, it probably has to do with managing the articles about such "disasters"... but i'm still just a little curious about what the impact will be, since i don't find anything about labor struggles on the linked page...

Oh... Could they have tagged this article because of the sentence,

The response to that violence, disastrous for the local miners' union, became the primary motivation for the formation of the Western Federation of Miners (WFM) the following year.

??? Hmmmm.... Richard Myers 22:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] specific labour related infobox?

My mom and dad are both active in the teacher's union so I'm going to try and make some edits to some unions and union leaders. My question is -- do we have a specific info box for leaders or should i just use a basic box? It's also the first time i've tried to add a infobox anywhere. If anyone can please look at Albert Shanker and tell me if i did the right thing. MrMacMan 00:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi MrMac. It's {{Infobox Union}}. It's in use a million places, off the top of my head: Sailor's Union of the Pacific is an example. Good luck. Haus42 00:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
My bust -- the fact that you were doing a bio didn't sink in. The one you used looks dandy. Haus42 00:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Um... any advice about the edits i'm going to make about teacher union leaders and their unions specifically... for example the New York State United Teachers is horrible. No sources... tons and tons of broken wiki-links... United Federation of Teachers has 1 reference... about criticisms against the organization... and somehow the AFT article got a B rating... even tho it looks like a huge block of text and has tons of broken wiki links. BTW, thanks for getting back to me so fast. MrMacMan 01:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Broken Wiki links aren't bad. They just show that an organization, date, event or person is important. I find them to be a useful guide in fleshing out Wikipedia (especially when it comes to labor union history and organizations). - Tim1965 17:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Oops... I just shot myself in the foot... you commented on AFT article i just mentioned about over Talk:American_Federation_of_Teachers/Comments... sorry for questioning your judgement. MrMacMan 02:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
My pleasure. I took a quick look at AFT and left some comments on the AFT discussion /comment page. Haus42 02:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
seems like i commented at the same time as you.. thanks for the input. MrMacMan 02:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

MrMacMan, you should have seen the terrible AFT and NYSUT pages before! the AFT page didn't mention UFT, and it read as if Albert Shanker were still alive. I fleshed out the history and added references, but didn't have time to footnote everything. NYSUT's page was just a paragraph or two. (If I'd had time and resoruces, I would have done articles on all those predecessor organizations, but I don't have either.) The UFT page was in a similar horrible state (just three or four sentences), and don't ask about the Sandra Feldman article (terrible) or the Edward J. McElroy article (nonexistent). I've added a few AFT sites along the way, as well as created a category for AFT articles. But I've only added items (such as Ohio Federation of Teachers or Tom Mooney) when someone dies or there is a big news event. More power to you if you can flesh this union's history and organizations out!! - Tim1965 17:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

hehe, yeah I saw your great work in the history section of the articles. Your doing great work. Hopefully my contacts to some of these organizations can provide some useful resources to review and mention. MrMacMan Talk 18:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
If I had the cash or a good library nearby, I'd check out these books which are good AFT resources: William Eaton's "American Federation of Teachers, 1916-1961"; Philip Taft's "United They Teach: The Story of the UFT"; Robert Braun's "Teachers and Power" (fairly anti-union, but lots of good factual stuff); Dave Selden's "The Teacher Rebellion" (awfully self-serving, but really detailed); and Steve Golin's "The Newark Teacher Strikes." Jerald Podair's "The Strike That Changed New York" and Jane Anna Gordon's "Why They Couldn't Wait" are excellent on the Ocean Hill-Brownsville strike. Sadly, I don't think there's anything on the AFT post-1970. When I tried writing articles on the United Teachers of New Orleans, the Florida Education Association and the Florida statewide teachers' strike of 1968, I couldn't find anything! I had to scrape around for stuff in the D.C. public library for weeks. There's almost nothing on the AFT affiliates, outside of the UFT. (Not even about the Chicago local. Go figure.) - Tim1965 00:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Organized_Labour_8446.html"