Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Here's a start to things, but clearly there is work to do in fleshing this out.--Bookandcoffee 06:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

To do:

  • Populate the Open tasks page with articles that are requested/need improvement.
  • List of articles related to Labour needs to be complied.
    • add the {{LabourProject}} tag to these articles.
  • Organize list of Union articles.
  • Consensus on how to structure:
    • Labour categories.
    • Union categories.

Contents

Labor in Mexico

I recently wrote an article about a labor artist. The article lists major labor actions that she documented, mostly in Mexico. I don't know if it will help, but it may be able to serve as some sort of reference for a Labor in Mexico article. I just bring it up because I don't really know of any other place where labor actions in Mexico are chronicled the way they are in the article. See if Rini Templeton helps at all. Thanks, --Rockero420 06:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Labour vs Labor

Well, this is bound to come up, so it might as well be right now. I started the project using Labour because I'm from Canada. That's how we spell it. :) I think the Manual of Style does a pretty good job of addressing the issue. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 17:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Me too. I certainly don't favour the usage labo(u)r that has recently been introduced. Mattley (Chattley) 21:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Me three. Though I think it's important that we set Labor_* up to redirect to Labour_* in all cases. Breadandroses 21:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Trade Union stubs

I have created quite a few articles on small, now defunct trade unions. Recently, quite a few have had stub notices stuck on them. This is understandable, as they are relatively short articles. On the other hand, they reflect the coverage that those organisations warrant in Wikipedia. Articles like National Union of Dock Labourers or Scottish Union of Dock Labourers are (I think) informative and concise. They are not obviously lacking in important details and they stay clear of cruftiness. I think they good examples of articles on obscure topics of quite specialised interest and I think it sends out the wrong message to mark them as stubs. I don't want to sound like I have a bee in my bonnet about this, but I'd like to know what others think. Mattley (Chattley) 21:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a "This is not a sub" tag is there? :) I know the {{Union-stub}} was created by Fcendejas just a few weeks ago, and there are now 300+ stubs, so I'd guess there was a bit of an effort (by the stub-sorting community or others) to tag articles. Perhaps after the flurry this won't happen too much, but you bring up a good point. I'm a bit wary of instruction creep, but would it be worth adding a guideline section to discuss what fits for articles: (such as)
  • Historical articles
    • Unions
    • Strikes
    • Politics
  • Current articles
    • Politics
    • National unions
    • Local unions
  • Inclusion in related articles
    • Business
    • Government

--Bookandcoffee 20:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't really need a "this is not a stub" tag because it is only of concern to editors. You can just write

<-- This is not a stub; there isn't a lot more to be said -->

Jmabel | Talk 08:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Jmbel. I'll use that. Mattley (Chattley) 21:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Stubbing is completely out of control. There are hundreds of thousand of stubbed articles and many of them are as long as the subject merits. I find it hard to see that stubbing is a useful enough guide to which articles really need expansion to be worth the huge amount of effort that is put into it. CalJW 23:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Email to organize?

Which is the best exposition on the use of email to help organize? I'd like to read one. James S. 16:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Try 'The Labour Movement and the Internet: The New Internationalism' by Eric Lee (1996; ISBN 0745311148). It may not be comprehensive, and it's certainly dated. But it's a start. Tim1965 17:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Tentative proposal of merger between Labour law and Employment law

Hi - anyone who knows anything about the formal distinction between these topics: help would be really appreciated, on the talk page of labour law. I've rearranged the article somewhat, but it's really hard to make it into anything at all without some idea of the correct definitions to work under. Cheers, Breadandroses 21:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

List of trade unions by industry

I have started work on a List of trade unions by industry. It is in my user-space at the moment and only includes UK and US organisations so far (plus a number of unclassified). I think a list like this, grouping unions by the sector or sectors in which they organise, would be potentially useful. There are lots of complications though. The categories I have used so far are arbitrary - I don't know whether there is some definite scheme we could use. There is also the problem of unions that have membership across territorial boundaries and occupations: the Transport and General Workers Union, organising in the UK and Ireland and having a very diverse membership, could end up listed under a fair few different headings. I gather there's overlap between the US and Canada too. Does anyone have any useful thoughts on how to organise this, and whether or not it is worth doing, given the potential complications? Mattley (Chattley) 21:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I would think this would be especially hard to do for US unions - there are many that are proud of their cross-jurisdictional organizing, e.g. Teamsters, or have who have a significant portion of their membership in non-obvious sectors, i.e., SEIU in both health care and building services. If we allow double posting, then maybe it would work ok? Fcendejas 23:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Or if you just list them in there core areas, plus a note that they are cross-jurisdictional. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I put a preliminary "Category Guideline" box below, but I don't know if it is any further along at categorising by industry. The more I look at it, the less I think it is worded right (or even close :). --Bookandcoffee 16:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Union

I whacked together (well, stole, really) the start of an infobox for individual unions. Unless someone objects to the idea of infoboxes, I'll put it up at {{Infobox Union}} in a few days. Hopefully we could work through modifications and improvements, and be ready to use it by March. For now it's sitting in my sandbox. (And the documentation is here.)--Bookandcoffee 22:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

{{Infobox Union}} started. Additions, modifications, and opinions would be a great help. --Bookandcoffee 20:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Category maintenance

I made a couple changes to Category:Trade unions. I collected all the countries together under Category:Trade unions by country. This is in line with the general structure of many cats. (see Category:Categories by country). I did the same for Category:Trade unions by industry. As with Mattley's List above, it would be worth establishing which industries should be included.

I'd also like to setup a detailed category structure on the natural lines of union affiliation. I put a general example on the project page at WP:UNION#Categories. If no one objects I'll start work on that in a few days (or feel free :). --Bookandcoffee 18:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking around at other Categories by country, and they generally appear to be of the "Economy of Canada" format, but Trade unions by country is "Canadian trade unions". Anyone want to comment on talking to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) and changing the format to "Trade unions in Canada" etc. ? (Not a big deal, but I'm working my way through the alphabet, and I'd rather change now after "A" than, oh, say "R" :)--Bookandcoffee 07:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I put a note at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)#Trade unions to start the ball rolling on making this change.--Bookandcoffee 22:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
You can vote or comment on this at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Canadian trade unions to Category:Trade unions in Canada for the next 7 days.--Bookandcoffee 05:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines

I think most of the International trade federations are now organized by category. I'd like to put something like the following notice above the category list on the project page to help keep thing organized. Does this make sense? Is this headed in the right direction?--Bookandcoffee 18:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Category guidelines for Trade Unions
These guidelines are intended to standardize the location of individual trade unions within the category structure. For further discussion, please comment on the project talk page.
National trade union federations:
Individual trade unions:
  • Individual trade unions should eventually have their own category, but generally not until/unless there are related articles such as local unions or histories, politics, and related unionists. Until that point they can be placed in the category of their affiliated National center. They should not be placed directly in Category:Trade unions by country or Category:Trade unions by industry unless they are an unaffiliated independent union.
Local unions:
Hmm. I could certainly imagine a worthwhile article on SEIU Local 1199, which is bigger than many national unions. [1] (275,000 members and retirees). - Jmabel | Talk 03:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Child labor

This article could do with some attention. Recently, some new material has been added reflecting a libertarian perspective. There is nothing wrong with having this material, but there is a problem with undue weight and NPOV as it stands. In particular, the section on child labor and the industrial revolution exclusively reflects the views of free market economists. It could really do with a more nuanced historical discussion of children's work in pre-industrial and industrializing societies. Sadly, this isn't something I know enough about (yet). Mattley (Chattley) 18:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Using footnotes for variant spellings

I suggest using footnotes for variant spellings in the first sentence of an article. Otherwise, the first sentence is cluttered, like: labour (or labor, in American English) movement. Or: labour movement (or labor movement in American English), which looks ugly. See Labour movement and child labour. SpNeo 23:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is that relegating one or the other to a footnote gives it much lower visibility and status. - Jmabel | Talk 03:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Category change

There is discussion going on at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 7#Category:Canadian trade unions to Category:Trade unions in Canada about changing the names of Category:Trade unions by country from (for example) Canadian trade unions to Trade unions in Canada. Please comment there if you have an opinion on the subject. Thanks. --Bookandcoffee 18:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I made a category change today. I didn't really think about getting agreement first, perhaps I should have. I combined Category:International union federations and Category:Regional union federations into Category:International and regional union federations. Many of the regional feds were created in the last month, and the separation just seemed artificial - especially considering that the internationals also have their regional divisions. I didn't put the two old cats up for deletion. If anyone has strong thoughts about this I can change it back. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 23:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

New stub type?

The main project page lists some labor-related stub types, including unions and activists. However, I've been unable to find an appropriate stub for strikes/labor actions/labor incidents. An example where this would be used is the Paterson silk strike of 1913. The best thing I could dig up was Template:US-hist-stub. Is there something better? Or is it worth creating a new stub type? I've though of adding more articles on some of the less well-known strikes/labor incidents... there are currently 73 articles in Category:Labor disputes, and I'm quite sure that quite a few more labor disputes have occurred in U.S. history alone. --JerryOrr 11:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

And I'd like to note that my example of Template:US-hist-stub (which has hundreds of articles already) would, of course, only work for labour actions in the U.S. Anything in another country would go in its relevant country's history stub. --JerryOrr 21:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The stub people say there should be 60+ stub articles (or 30+ if it's related to a wikiproject). Do you think there are that many? Given the red links just in List of strikes, I would guess the number would grow if someone is actively working in the area. You might want to think about sub categories as well Category:Labor disputes in the United States.--Bookandcoffee 02:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well there's 30 stubs from List of strikes and Category:Labor disputes. Bookandcoffee 00:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I put in a proposal for labor-dispute-stub. Thanks to Bookandcoffee for putting together a good list! --JerryOrr 02:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, it looks like I've drawn some negative attention to the existing union stubs. Apparantly, the powers that be are not fond of the use of labor in the stub names. There is a proposal to rename them, which you may or may not be interested in. --JerryOrr 14:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added {{labor-dispute-stub}} as a stub type, and I've provided a link from the main project page. Have at it! --JerryOrr 23:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

further stub

I added five more strikes--Flint, Haymarket, Great Southwest, Pullman and Homestead. I'm no category (categorical?) expert, but I think this goes beyond labor disputes. I'd kick in my two cents for a trade-union stub of some sort to capture articles not directly about labor unions or strikes. I have no clue what to call it, but the Labour Project is generating biographies of labor leaders, and articles on terminology, concepts and laws. Right now, they're either not grouped under a category (NLRA is nowhere to be found in any category about the U.S.) or grouped under AFL-CIO. Neither is really appropriate. Tim1965 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, since the creation of the geo-specific stubs, the {{union-stub}} has mostly the international trade unions and general labour stubs in it. What about rewording the text of the stub? Currently it says "This article related to a trade or labor union is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." Something like "This article about Organized labour is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." might expand its scope to cover some of the broader issues. There are a lot of two stub-tag combos out there, so maybe ({{union-stub}} + {{law-stub}}) covers the page as well as {{labor-law-stub}} would? But I'm not opposed to another stub-tag either - just tossing out ideas.
As for the categories, I agree things need to be clarified a bit. Should there be something like a Cat:Labour law both under Cat:Law and Cat:United States law? (Specifically concerning law, it would be worth coordinating with WikiProject Law) --Bookandcoffee 21:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think proposing a {{LaborLaw}} category is appropriate. It's a very common class offered in most law schools in the U.S. The only problem, as I see it, is that the WikiProject Law covers only common-law (e.g., English-speaking) law, and the Labour Project is much more international in scope. But one bridge at a time, I guess.
I like the idea of starting with a 'This article about Organized Labour is a stub...' As articles are added (or discovered), we could create sub-stub categories (the categories in the box at Labour movement may be a starting place). In fact, there may be enough to create sub-categories right now (the strikes come to mind). There are still some articles which don't fit any known sub-stub I can think of. For example, Jewish Labor Committee isn't a union, but an ancillary organization. I'm not sure I'd know where to put Communists in the U.S. Labor Movement (1919-1937), either. Tim1965 22:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Trade unions by country

Well, I'm back with this again. About 2 months ago I started a discussion about changing the naming format of this cat [2]. There was no consensus for a decision, so I wanted to continue the debate here instead.

I've created many of these cats in the last few months, and the longer I work on it the more I'd like the name format to be:

  • Category:Trade unions in **** (eg. Category:Trade unions in Botswana), as opposed to
  • Category:****ian trade unions (eg. Category:Botswanan trade unions)

The following list shows three reasons why.

There are names that don't fit well with the Category:****ian trade unions format.

  • Category:Antigua and Barbuda trade unions
  • Category:Trade unions in Trinidad and Tobago
  • Category:Trade unions in Côte d'Ivoire

There are names that would be very confusing with the current format.

  • Category:Trade unions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
  • Category:Trade unions in the Republic of the Congo

-

  • Category:Trade unions in Dominica
  • Category:Trade unions in the Dominican Republic

-

  • Category:Trade unions in Equatorial Guinea
  • Category:Trade unions in Guinea
  • Category:Trade unions in Guinea-Bissau

And this is a more general complaint about the format. I know these are countries, but they are also languages and it seems unnecessary to have this confusion.

  • Category:Chinese trade unions
  • Category:French trade unions
  • Category:German trade unions
  • Category:Japanese trade unions
  • Category:Norwegian trade unions
  • Category:Polish trade unions
  • Category:Swedish trade unions

In the end it is just a cat name, but I would like to see it consistent. For an idea of what has generally been done, you might want to look at Category:Categories by country and see what format is used by related cats such as Category:Economies by country. As well, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) has general guidelines and discussion.

One of the main points I focused on in the first discussion was that there are unions (such as the AFL-CIO) which cross over national boundaries, so it would be clearer to identify them as (for example) Trade unions in Canada, as opposed to Canadian trade unions.

And finally, I'll confess to nefariously naming a number of cats with the "in ****" format already. It just looks better. :)

If we can establish a consensus here, (either way) then I'll post it at WP:CFD.

Rename. As noted. --Bookandcoffee 20:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose If there is a change it should be to "Trade unions of" in line with the convention used for companies and various other types of organisation. Organisations are and should be categorised by where they are based, as some of them operate in more than one country so categorisation by country of operation would lead to category clutter. CalJW 23:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to [[:Category:Trade unions of X]] per CalJW. David Kernow 13:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per CalJW. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per CalJW Warofdreams talk 23:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. - FrancisTyers 22:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per CalJW. FWIW, I'd personally prefer all organizations, companies, trade unions etc. to use "in," but "of" is the established precedent and we should stick to it. The Tom 22:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment An alternative to "in" or "of" could be "based in x" for some organization categories (or "headquartered in", or another synonym). That could allow for the "in" format while avoiding the possibilty of category clutter stemming from organizations operating in multiple countries. This discussion of "based in" or "headquartered in" has come up at least once before to my knowledge at CFD, in that case it regarded multinational corporations. As a trade union example to compare: Category:Trade unions of the People's Republic of China, Category:Trade unions in the People's Republic of China, and Category:Trade unions based in the People's Republic of China. Kurieeto 22:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have copied this discussion to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 23 as a step toward closing the process. I placed it in today's date, and would expect it to wander through the usual channels for the next week. Further comment should be continued there.--Bookandcoffee 01:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The conclusion of this discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 23. In the end the decision was to change the categories to "Trade unions of X". The change has since been made.--Bookandcoffee 21:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Jobjörn goes on summer vacation!

My school semester ends on thursday next week. As a matter of fact I plan to dedicate a substantial amount of time to Wikipedia: participating in Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour, creatings the stubs of all Members of the Riksdag, and re-writing the article on Libertarian Socialism. I'll enjoy my summer!

Ah, summer vacation. (wipes dust off year book, turns yellowed page...)--Bookandcoffee 23:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Being old isn't easy. :P Jobjörn 14:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Trade unions in county infobox

I'd like to do a little work on the Labor unions in the United States type "country" articles, and I was thinking that an infobox (you can never have too many infoboxes :) would be a handy thing to have. I've put together an example at User:Bookandcoffee/Labour. I think it does two things - it gives quick info on an established article, but it also helps as a seed for beginning similar articles for the 160+ countries that don't have one yet. Any comments on what should or shouldn't be included would be great. I'm going to leave a note at the US page as well, as it seems to be fairly active. Maybe in a week or so it would be worth putting a non-template version on the article to get reaction/input.--Bookandcoffee 11:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well v.1 of this is at Labor unions in the United States. Have a look.--Bookandcoffee 01:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

AFL-CIO is a COTW nominee

AFL-CIO is a WP:COTW nominee. - Davodd 19:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

2006 TTC wildcat strike

I created this article (2006 TTC wildcat strike) a couple weeks ago, but I am being attack by anti-union elements. You are free to participate. I have situation under control but the extra backup would be helpful. --QajarCoffee 20:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

On This Day...

I just revamped the entire Homestead Strike page. It's very in-depth now. Because it is, I added the July 6, 1892 date of the key battle to the July 6 events page. (I hope everyone who is participating in the Labour Project will add the dates of key labor events to the correct events page.) I am trying to get the event added to the main Wiki page as part of the 'On This Day...' section. I then added the July 6 battle to the July 6 On This Day page. I hope I followed the guidelines correctly. Tim1965 15:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)