Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Organized Labour (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

RfC[edit]

Hello there! There's an ongoing RfC concerning Paul Singer and WP:NPOV in a broader sense, that you might care to comment on. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Labor-related political violence in the United States[edit]

A few days ago I opened a CFD discussion regarding this Category, focused on a simple rename to Category:Labor-related violence in the United States. The discussion has now broadened out, with an alternate proposal to rename to Category:Anti-union violence in the United States. My sense is, that would be somewhat problematic (for reasons I elaborated in the CFD). However, I would really like to hear from other editors who are knowledgable in this subject area -- so please join the discussion! Cgingold (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Scranton General Strike[edit]

I have posted a RfC that may be of interest to this project. The article is new and doesn't have many eyes on it currently. Any input is welcome. TimothyJosephWood 12:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

List of political parties named "Labour Party" or similar listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of political parties named "Labour Party" or similar to be moved to List of Labour Parties. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Proposal: Industrial Unionism Task Force[edit]

This is a proposal for some sort of task force as a subsidiary of WP Organized Labour, intended to focus on industrial unionism: its theory and principles, historic strikes, and individuals and organizations which identify or have identified as proponents of industrial unionism, or organizations which are structured as industrial unions. This would include organizations such as the Congress of Industrial Organizations, Industrial Workers of the World, Workers' International Industrial Union, and others. The task force would appropriately connect articles on industrial unionism as a specific movement within the labour movement and provide much-needed coordination in this regard, which would help clarify the overall WikiProject's work. I welcome any and all comments in this regard in the hope of building consensus toward this or a similar task force. Julius177 (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It could be interesting and useful to have something aimed at the evolution of labor movements, highlighting the strategic and historical divisions of guilds, craft unions, industrial unions etc. Really just focusing on one of these implies a regular practice of defining each in relation and contradiction to another. As it is, the labor movement is often presented as one homogeneous mass, with one union being neutrally interchangeable for another, or alternately presented as internecine fights between peers, when in truth historically these battles were deeply economic and cultural life or death fights.

But what would a task force do other than just agree on the need for attention to this history and political evolution? This Wikiproject has that too, an agreement on a need for coverage of labor, which affects nearly every topic and history, but coordination of this has been quite thin. djr13 (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

There is the Jewish Labour Bund Task Force, just as an example, which is a highly specific task force. I'd argue that in the long run there should be task forces for strikes, union organizations, biographies of prominent unionists/union organizers, etc., but given the seemingly low level of activity, things should be taken one step at a time. Right now I see the biggest problem being that there's a lot of content that needs to be more cohesively organized and I think task forces can do that. Given that industrial unionism is a coherent and specific part of the labour movement it seems very plausible to create a task force for it, with a well-defined scope. Other task forces could exist alongside of it or be defined negatively in relation to it (general unions, guilds, craft unions, etc.) The key with an industrial union task force is that it would combine articles about people, events, ideas, and organizations, rather than simply being a substitute for, say, a "history of unionism" or "concepts in unionism" task force. If you can think of a better way of doing it I'd like to hear it but to me the way to get a handle on the content and organize it better is to start with task forces with clear and logical scope. -- Julius177 (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting there's a "better way of doing it," I'm just asking what it is it would do. djr13 (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and the first part of the response wasn't a critique, I was actually agreeing, having something on EG industrial unionism implies that this would also have to cover to some degrees the other categories it differentiates itself from. djr13 (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it would necessarily have to cover the categories it differentiates from, but a similar argument could be made, for example, in favour of a task force on craft/trade unionism which covered the evolution of trade unions from guilds, the relationship with professional associations, and the nature of organizations which exist at least in some part to regulate the practice of a particular trade. I'd welcome someone creating a task force for it but personally my focus is on industrial unionism at least for now and I suspect industrial unionism has more active support that might form a viable task force than craft unionism does. In terms of what the IU task force would do, I've outlined that below, but in short I'd be in favour of putting together an article series and outline. This is something that could be done by individuals in the WikiProject, similar to how WP Socialism has article series on, say, Marxism and Syndicalism, but I think the scope of industrial unionism is potentially larger given that it also would cover biography, concept, organization, and event pages, whereas Marxism really only covers biographies, concepts, and some organizations. -- Julius177 (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone give a sense of the scope of work? My sense is that a few people have been working really hard on industrial unionism behind the scenes, although not recording their work much on this WikiProject. Are there a lot of missing articles? Or is it a matter of missing bios? Is categorization a real issue? - Tim1965 (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't worked much actively on this area (I've mostly focused on Canadian material and general housekeeping) but I intend to. I'd say the scope is large but specific, since it mostly applies to specific organizations and individuals, which as a group comprise a large part of the (historical) labour movement. The main issue I see is a lack of something connecting these together in a way that would make it understandable for the average reader. I'd like to see something like an "outline of" page and potentially an article series on industrial unionism which connected the political/organizational theorists, their ideas, and the organizations and people who put the ideas into practice, as well as the history of industrial unionism as a movement and its relation to the general labour movement. I think this is an appropriate scope because it's broad enough to justify a task force to build and maintain it, but not so broad as to be incoherent or muddled. Right now, for example, De Leonism is not connected at all to WP:OL, even though Daniel De Leon was in the intellectual leadership of a major union, his political movement (De Leonism) is based on unions as a political strategy, and his party (the Socialist Labor Party) had its own union wing. As well, industrial unionism as a concept is mostly contained within a single article, when it might be more helpful to illustrate by example when conflicts between industrial and craft unionism strategies arose and unions had internal debates on them (for example, the Journeymen Tailors Union of America, which briefly reorganized itself as an industrial union), which poorly conveys what kind of impact these ideas had and how it concretely affected different sections of the labour movement.
While industrial unionism needs much more material on Wikipedia, I would say it's not any more lacking in material than the labour movement in general is, and sometimes it has more. Article-wise, what mostly needs improvements, I think, is articles on actual organizations and events -- the article on theory covers it fairly well. Overall, it's just poorly organized and there's nothing that conceptually draws these pages together. The only actual category specifically referring to IUism is Category:Industrial unions, which is just a highly incomplete category for industrial union organizations. There's very little concretely connecting the theory and practice of it and that's what I think should be primarily focused on. -- Julius177 (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for Contributions on The Jeremy Corbyn Talk Page[edit]

A RFC has started on the Jeremy Corbyn talk page regarding which image should be used as the Lede image of the article. Over the last year the image has been frequently changed by various editors, and the have been a few separate discussions on the talk regarding it. It would be good if you could help resolve this ongoing dispute.-- BOD -- 08:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Categorization of Presidents of the New York State Federation of Labor and/or all labor leaders in a particular state[edit]

Which categories would you support adding to Category:Presidents of the New York State Federation of Labor?

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you looking to add subcategories to [[Category:Presidents of the New York State Federation of Labor]]? Or are you looking to help categorize [[Category:Presidents of the New York State Federation of Labor]] itself? (Forgive my being incredibly dense today...) - Tim1965 (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd like both, but I was referring to the subcategories for the category in question. I've also started Category:Presidents of the Wisconsin State Federation of Labor.--TM 19:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd say these are already quite small and specific categories, and should not be further sub-categorized. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC) (Pres., Wisconsin AFSCME Local 91)
The category is quite specific, perhaps even too specific, and unless one of those presidents have a category in their name I can't think what else would go under it but articles. However, the category appears strangely isolated from others, is this state federation a unit of a larger organization? AFL-CIO perhaps? djr13 (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
State Federations of Labor were originally units of the AF of L, but generally merged with their CIO counterparts as part of the AFL-CIO merger, often retaining their old names. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC) (member, Wisconsin Labor History Society)

Scranton General Strike listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Scranton General Strike to be moved to Scranton Strike of 1877. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Nomination of Big labor for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Big labor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big labor until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Graham (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of Walmart listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Criticism of Walmart to be moved to Controversy around Walmart. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Upcoming editathons include Women Labor Activists[edit]

Florence Nightingale headshot.png
Rose Winslow of New York 158010v.jpg
You are invited...
Women in Red logo.svg

Women in Nursing editathon & Women Labor Activists editathon
Hosted by Women in Red - September 2016 - #wikiwomeninred

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)--Ipigott (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Feedback on proposal to revise "Debt Bondage" article[edit]

Hi, I am a student at Rice University and would like to make significant additions to the current "Debt Bondage" article. The link to my proposed revision with references can be found with the Google doc link. Please feel free to post on my user page or here if you have feedback. Thank you! https://docs.google.com/document/d/18xT2kXUKJYmPqeDNZYEekGy2CRR16wVUbUyC5CGRyGA/edit?usp=sharing Sa49 (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Suitable infobox template for articles such as Tolpuddle Martyrs[edit]

In short, I can't find one. Like the Winnipeg general strike it's a series of coupled historical events rather than a union organisation or one of the other objects that the existing templates seem to cater for. The Martyrs talk page does ask for an infobox. Are there any clear guidelines? SewerCat (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

There really isn't a good template for Tolpuddle Martyrs, and as far as I know there aren't any guidelines for use, either. The one you've chosen is probably as good as it gets. For example, the Molly Maguires in the U.S. were in a similar situation, but that article has no infobox whatsoever. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Tim1965: Thanks for responding. The article you mention exemplifies further difficulties. We seem to need a new template but I lack the experience with wikipedia that would be necessary to do a decent job of that. SewerCat (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Move request at Talk:UK miners' strike (1984–85)[edit]

Please comment on the requested move at Talk:UK miners' strike (1984–85)#Requested move 26 March 2017.--Nevéselbert 13:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

South African Federation of Trade Unions[edit]

For those interested there is a new federation in South Africa, which now claims to be the second largest in the country, various pages need updating, shifts in affiliates etc. --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Whitefoord Russell Cole[edit]

Is anyone here is interested in expanding Whitefoord Russell Cole please?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

UK miners' strike 1984-85[edit]

Hello. I see that this WikiProject considers the article UK miners' strike (1984-85) to be high importance. I would like to do a thorough re-organisation of the article, but I thought that I should consult before doing this. The article is currently long and has changed much over the years.

If you look on the talk page, there have occasionally been concerns raised about bias, usually to the political left. I fear that it is hard to get a NPOV on this topic, as the majority of papers/books on the subject are clearly on one side or the other. I personally don't think that the current reading of the article is strongly biased, but some might disagree.

I think that the main problem is the messy structure. There is a fairly brief description of the main sequence of events, and then several sections on the various issues in the strike. I think that the sections "Issues" and "Response to the strike" could be incorporated into the sequence of events. The "Analysis of the situation in Nottinghamshire" might be better in the "Historical assessments" section.

This might be a matter of personal style, but I find the prose in the article very awkward. Some sentences seem to be written with as few words as possible.

Please let me know your thoughts. Epa101 (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

New proposed article for review[edit]

Hi! I'm wondering if WikiProject Organized Labour editors might be interested in reviewing proposed the new draft article for New-collar worker, which is based on articles for similar concepts, and intended to be a companion to the Designation of workers by collar color article. In full disclosure, I'm here on behalf of IBM via agency Vianovo as part of my work at Beutler Ink. My hope is that an uninvolved editor (or editors) can review my proposed draft, make any edits as appropriate, and move the draft into the main space if it looks good. Thank you in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Update: This is article is now live, at New-collar worker. Now that there's a standalone article for it, I wonder if editors here would be willing to look at my request to add mention of this type of worker at Designation of workers by collar color? Previously, an editor had declined the request at that page, citing that they thought it was too similar to "grey collar"; I've explained the difference between the two, and the editors who responded again suggested more discussion might be needed. Can anyone here assist? Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 12:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)