Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 9

Rock Springs massacre

Rock Springs massacre, a GA class article within the scope of this project and tagged by this project on its talk page, is currently at featured article candidates. See its nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rock Springs massacre. Read the article, compare it with the featured article criteria and voice your opinion. IvoShandor 12:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, this article was promoted. I was quite happy. IvoShandor 18:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! Very nice work IvoShandor.--Bookandcoffee 18:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Kudos. It's something everyone works for, but only a rare few achieve. - Tim1965 00:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

SEIU Local 1.on

This article has been the subject of a low-grade editing battle for the last few weeks. There was a very long, very WP:original research, and very un-sourced collection of charges against the union and its leadership. I have edited it down, however the original poster has become increasingly focused in the attempt to re-introduce the material. Myself and Hamster Sandwich have been keeping an eye on it, but if anyone else would like to have a quick look, and add it to their watchlist it would be appreciated. Cheers, --Bookandcoffee 05:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Acronyms

So this isn't a big issue, but I was going to mention it some time ago and I forgot. Trade unions (more than most) seem to have a fetish for acronyms. I put an "Acronyms" box on the bottom of Trade unions in South Africa because, frankly, it's damn confusing to try and keep track of who's who. Is there any interest in formalizing this as a useful tool? I'm just thinking of another(!) simple infobox to make it easy for data entry and standardization.--Bookandcoffee 21:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

  • My first thought was a list of acronyms somewhere. Every country listed, and acronyms for unions with in that country listed. An infobox is intriguing, but if that route is chosen then I'd push for a format similar to the box ("Trade Unions in Africa") already at the bottom of the "Trade Unions in South Africa" article. Another way to do it might be to have a box somewhere near the top of the page: "Unions Mentioned In This Article" (which then lists acronym and full union title). These are just ideas; I'm kind of neither here nor there about the usefulness of such a box. (I'm sure once my early-onset Alzheimer's kicks in around December, I'll think differently.) - Tim1965 01:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • (Stock up on that vitamin D - never mind the cheeseburgers and deodorant.) Yeah, it's certainly not a burning issue. I was just reminded of it when I ran across a paper by the Botswana Federation of Trade Unions.[1] I was thinking a simple format like this:
{{acronym-header}}
{{acronym|COSATU|Congress of South African Trade Unions}}
{{arconym|FUSA|Federation of Unions of South Africa}}
... etc
{{acronym-footer}}

This would build a box just like the one in "Trade Unions in South Africa". I think I'll tinker around with it for a bit and try to build one in my sandbox... unless I get lazy and forget about it for another six months! --Bookandcoffee 08:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a fetish. When you are talking about, say, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employes, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, Its Territories and Canada, it's a heck of a lot easier to just say "AFSCME" and "IATSE" respectively. --Orange Mike 14:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC) (AFSCME; NWU/UAW; IWW; married to a AFSCME and IATSE member)
True, definitely a mouthful! --Bookandcoffee 18:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
And then there's the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union—or USPFRMEAISWIU for short. Or, as we call it, "Uspfremeeaheyesweeyou". - Tim1965 23:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia ads

So? What do you think? It's a pretty simple little banner, but I put it in the Template:Wikipedia ads rotation. It's the first banner I've ever made, so if anybody wants to tweak/completely change, feel free.--Bookandcoffee 20:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha, thanks. Just mucking about. I saw the WP ad thingy, and thought we might as well poke our noses in there too.--Bookandcoffee 20:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Nice. I want one too ... - Dave Smith

Union bug?

A search turned up no matches and no helpful results for 'union bug'. Does this page not exist — and if not, shouldn't it? I'd be willing to start work on it, even though I'm not a member of the project. (yet?) -- Scartol 14:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

See what I've done with union label, which was formerly a redirect to the AFL-CIO Union Label Department article. --Orange Mike 15:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Very nice. Thanks. If I weren't knee-deep in Balzac, I might expand that stub of yours. Alas. -- Scartol 16:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Cripple Creek miners' strike of 1894

I just finished a significant revision of Cripple Creek miners' strike of 1894. Perhaps it's ready to be re-nominated as a Good Article? -- Scartol 22:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

  • And I see it just passed muster by the Wiki-Gods, and is now a Good Article! Good Going! - Tim1965 20:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you, thank you. I'd like to thank Jebus and Spongebob. Next up: Lowell girls. – Scartol · Talk 21:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Project userbox

I also couldn't handle the black-background userbox at Template:User OrgLabour, and I wanted something which links to the project (and says so in the 'box). So I made my own at User:Scartol/Userboxes/LaborProject. (I don't have a good grasp of templates yet, so I'm still doing them on my own user page.) Feedback welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scartol (talk • contribs)

This user is a participant in
WikiProject Organized Labour.



Looks very nice. The black userbox is a fairly recent event. The older version looked like this: [2] Personally I preferred the older version, but then I would... :) However, I like this version even better! --Bookandcoffee 05:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Labor Template

I feel that the navigation box at Template:Labor is a little uninspired. I like the series templates at Template:Anarchism sidebar and Template:Libertarianism sidebar; perhaps we could do something a little more full and with a snazzy graphic at the top? I'm willing to work on it, but I don't want to step on any toes. -- Scartol 11:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I did a revision of the {{Labor}} tag. I don't want to barge right in with my version, so I've put it up at User:Scartol/LaborRedux. Please have a look and tell me what you think. (If no one objects, I'll make the switch in a couple of days.) -- Scartol 23:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, is that ever red! :) Nice job on reworking the tag, I think you did a great job in grouping related articles. Just thinking aloud, but I wonder about changing the title from Labour movement to Organized Labour. Articles like Child labor, Labor rights and Labour (economics) might make the point that they shouldn't be "claimed" by organized labour.--Bookandcoffee 01:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. As for the name change, I think it's best to make the name match the portal it's linking to. You may have a point about which pages we're "claiming" (you've been active on WP much longer than I), but if {{Christianity}} "claims" creation and theology, it seems fair for us to include those articles which pertain directly to OL. Besides, I don't know that Labour movement is very different from Organized Labour. After all, look at where the latter redirects. -- Scartol 04:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a good point. However, although creation and theology are listed on the {{Christianity}} tag, the reverse is not true, and the tag is not placed on those particular pages. In the case of the child labor, for example, the link travels both directions.
I'm not sure what the right answer is. Maybe the new template is used on the articles directly associated with OL, and the old series continues to remain on those other articles that are important to, but not direct sub-topics of OL?
I just know more than one editor of a Libertarian nature which may be fairly vocal about the link between organized labour and some of these topics. There is, after all a school of thought which feels that OL's efforts have impeded progress in the reduction of child labor#Defense of Child Labor et al, and I'm not relishing more arguments! :) --Bookandcoffee 06:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
From child labor#Defense of Child Labor: "Friedman believed that the absence of child labor is a luxury that many poor states cannot yet afford. To prohibit it is to prevent the economic growth necessary to relieve a society of the need for child labor." That's insane! Working the kids to death so their kids won't have to work? WTF? As if there weren't enough wealth on the planet to eliminate all child labour tomorrow if we put our minds to it. What a [very bad word] that MF was. I'm sure he would have felt quite differently if it were his kids who had to work.
Oh, right. The infobox. I don't feel too hot about having two different templates — maybe we could change the header to "Part of a series on Labour Organization"? Or we could subtract pages from the infobox which are likely to cause a stir with the Libertarian editors? -- Scartol 20:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've known one of his kids since 1971; he thinks his dad was the greatest thing on earth, and a great, under-appreciated visionary. (And, no, they didn't have to work; but dad insisted they earn some of their own tuition, etc., as a lesson in how the Real World works.) --Orange Mike 21:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC) (still a social democrat, same as in 1971)
I said I'm not relishing more arguments - I didn't say I felt like being pushed around by L sensibilities! :) Definitely don't take any articles out. You know, I re-read the above, and looked some more at the tag, and the more I think, the more I like it. I still think putting it on the Child labor article will provoke a reaction - but maybe that just means it gets removed from the article. There's one way to find out! (I'll try to find a couple more worldwide "Famous Organizers" as well). --Bookandcoffee 21:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks for finding more global organizers; I felt like a doofus when I could only come with the ones there. Since we appear to be consensus-ing, I'm going to go ahead and replace the old with the new. But just to be safe, I'm going to put the old one at {{oldlabour}}. Thanks, everyone. (I assume it's okay if I add the new box to pages that don't have it?) -- Scartol 02:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Nice navigation box. Can I suggest the addition of Industrial Relations as an academic discipline? - Dave Smith 17:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Done and done. Thanks for the feedback. -- Scartol 20:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, one more thing about the use of the tag. Is there a standard procedure for dealing with two infoboxes on a short article? International Workers Association already has {{Anarchism sidebar}}, so adding {{labor}} would make it look weird. What's an editor to do? -- Scartol 04:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to do about the IWA, sorry. But I was thinking about the 'Famous Organizers'. I left a note on the template page, but maybe here's better. Would it be possible to set-up a random rotation (like the DYK tidbits on the portal) so that we could cycle through a larger number of organizers, still showing several of them at a time? I think it would be possible using {{rand}} and the case structure (but my coding skills fit on the back of a beer coaster). --Bookandcoffee 18:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. It's a great idea but I've never toyed with that sort of thing. If it's possible (and apparently it is), I'll figure it out and set it up. It'll have to wait until I feel better. (The stomach's not too well today.) I'll post back here when I've got something to report. — Scartol • Talk 19:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Someone was goofing around with the {{Labor}} template today. I reverted the template to the version dated October 9, 2007. Maybe these people were sincere in editing the code; maybe not. But the code now works. If the edits were good-intentioned, please fix them (as I'm a noodlehead when it comes to infboxes and the like). - Tim1965 00:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed speedy deletion of Bruce Nelson (historian)

Some....person...is trying to speedy-delete Bruce Nelson (historian), the article about the labor historian who wrote Divided We Stand: American Workers and the Struggle for Black Equality and Workers on the Waterfront: Seamen, Longshoremen and Unionism in the 1930s (one of only a handful of histories about the 1934 West Coast Waterfront Strike). The user has a history of tossing speedy-deletes around haphazardly, appears to be purposefully obtuse with Wiki editors, and is using name disambiguation pages to find articles to harass. I encourage you to throw your own two cents on the Bruce Nelson talk page (one way or the other, whatever your feelings). - Tim1965 20:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Totally bogus. Looks like Spa toss had an article about atheists who support evolution which was deleted and s/he was a bit cross about it. User:Night Gyr suggested:

"Your behavior indicates that you either don't understand a lot of things about wikipedia yet or you're being deliberately obtuse. I'd recommend you refrain from nominating articles for deletion until you've read up further and/or discussed with other editors"

Maybe the Bruce Nelson (historian) article was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe this person is guilty of WP:POINT. -- Scartol 21:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Labor Template Organizer-Go-Round

That last discussion was getting messy, so I started a new one.

After lots of tweaking and then finally throwing some CSS in there, I got it to work. I haven't set it up into the template itself yet, because I'd like to get all the names set up first. I pulled most of the ones off the current template, but – in the interest of gender balance – I found some other names on this page and added them. (And made a note to myself that many of the women on that list don't have WP pages and that I'll make them myself just as soon as I have some free time which will be December since I have to start teaching again in just over a week.)

Anyway, please have a look at the Organizer-Go-Round I've set up in my sandbox. (It's kinda messy, so direct your attention to the big red box on the right side.) Please note that it apparently only randomizes every time WP generates the page; so reloading (even hard-reloading) won't randomize the list. You can edit and then save or do a preview.

Here are the names we've got on the list so far. Give me others and I'll add them (or, if you feel comfortable, DIY — see directory info below). Please note that this is a very US-centered list at present.

First line (User_talk:Scartol/sandbox/Organizers)

  • César Chávez · Rose Schneiderman
  • Norma Rae · Joe Hill
  • Ken Saro-Wiwa · Walter Reuther
  • Sidney Hillman · Jimmy Hoffa

Second line (User_talk:Scartol/sandbox/Organizers2)

  • Jane Addams · Samuel Gompers
  • A. Philip Randolph · Agnes Nestor
  • Mother Jones · Sonja Davies
  • Norman Hill · Utah Phillips

For those who care, here's how it works: The template pulls two sets of two names each (line 1 and line 2). To find these names, it goes to (template directory)/Organizers and (template directory)/Organizers2. (In this case it's User_talk:Scartol/sandbox/Organizers and User_talk:Scartol/sandbox/Organizers2. When we set up the actual template, it'll be Template:labor/Organizers and Template:labor/Organizers2.

Each of these Organizers pages, then, pulls from one of four (so far) sub-pages, one level in: User_talk:Scartol/sandbox/Organizers/1, User_talk:Scartol/sandbox/Organizers/2, User_talk:Scartol/sandbox/Organizers/3, User_talk:Scartol/sandbox/Organizers/4 and likewise for Organizers2.

So we can add as many as we like, so long as we do it in pairs. We'll want to make sure the two pages have equivalent numbers of sub-pages.

Why not just do four templates? Because then we might have the same person repeated in the {{labor}} infobox, and that would be yucky. (Conceivably, we could have the same name four times!)

Comments, questions, suggestions, names of international organizers please. — Scartol • Talk 05:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You could add James Larkin and A. J. Cook as prominent trade union organisers. The first from Ireland and the second from the UK. If I can think of more I will add them. Some of the current entries are a bit weak though. - Dave Smith 10:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Another thought (they happen occasionally!) - we could have a section on trade union quotes of the day. I was thinking of the demand from A. J. Cook during one of the big miners strikes when the owners wanted cuts in pay and increase hours: "not a penny off the pay, not a second on the day". This is well quoted and quite famous (at least in the British TU movement). - Dave Smith 11:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I like the rotating quote, but that's definitely something for the portal itself and not the template. I've added Larkin and Cook. — Scartol • Talk 12:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for alternate ideas, I built a different approach to this in my sandbox. Basically it's just a switch that puts up different names depending on the day of the week. It could be set to the hour/minute/second instead (or {{rand}}), but I couldn't get that excited. (Although that would work better with large numbers of names.) The only hitch I can see is that the template doesn't actively read the date, so it's just going to sit there with the cached date - so I added a purge button on the bottom. I like this because it keeps everything in one page, and anyone can simply add more names to any of the 7 values without traveling to sub-pages. (Right now I just left the orginal names in place). The drawback to this idea is that it always returns the same "group" of people instead of randomly mixing them up. That could be solved by repeating the #switch but that gets ugly quick.--Bookandcoffee 19:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I very much like the idea of keeping it all on one page. Very much. From a design standpoint, the "purge template" link at the bottom isn't too welcome; I can't imagine anyone not in the Project will know/care why it's there. Any way to do this behind the scenes? A <noinclude> tag, perhaps? A link somewhere else that does it? Some way to automate it? Provided we can clear that link off the template somehow, I definitely vote for B&C's method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scartol (talk • contribs) 20:09, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the purge button is definitely a bit ugly. I'm nervous of putting it elsewhere, as things tend to get lost - but you're probably right that no one else will update it. We could also change the text to something friendlier like more names(done) and set the switch to random(done). That should work every time they pressed the button...--Bookandcoffee 20:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of creeping, if we agree that there should only be 4 lines of organizers at any time, then it would be simple to use four #switches - one for each line, and just add names in a balanced fashion (two per random component), increasing the Rand number for any line as needed. Without doing this it is possible that any particular group could be longer than 4 lines (or shorter).--Bookandcoffee 21:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Just an observation on including the IWW in the list of trade unions ... I am wondering if we are inviting problems by just singling out one particular union - no matter how colourful its history. - Dave Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by TriniSocialist (talk • contribs) 00:27, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right, TS. I was just pulling ideas out of a hat by that point. I'll take it off. As for the suggestions from B&C above, I'm okay with either one. (I prefer the second, as it sound like we can get rid of the extra link at the bottom.) — Scartol · Talk 02:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I built (well, stole from User:SmackBot really) a "rotation button" for updating the tag from afar. I also moved the purge link up into the names as a "More names" link.(have a look User:Bookandcoffee/Sandbox3) If that's cool I'll wedge it all into the tag in a day or two. (Minus the bogus organizer names of course.)--Bookandcoffee 04:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. You might also want to add as a "famous organizer" the Lowell girls. I just did a big revision of that page so it is now something of which we can all be proud. — Scartol · Talk 11:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. I added the rotation code, and a few more names. I also change "Famous organizers" to "Trade unionists", but feel free to change it back. I also added a big green button to the project page. Not really that important to rotate the names (I'm sure few people will notice) - but it was a cool button! There is also a bit of a hidden WP:ASR issue with the "more names" link I added, as it takes the reader into the template namespace, but I've got to say I'm a little talked out about this tag for now! Cheers,--Bookandcoffee 17:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that was a poorly worded sentence. I'm happy to talk about the tag, I'm just not too compelled by the Avoid self-references issue at the moment... --Bookandcoffee 18:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. Maybe that button could be made a bit smaller? (Takes up quite a bit of room on the page for what is, truth be told, a somewhat minor function.) Also, I hope you don't mind but I abbreviated Isaac Theophilus Akunna Wallace-Johnson to I. T. A. Wallace-Johnson so the box stays nice and slender. — Scartol · Talk 13:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah - we can make the button any size you like... it was just such a cool button! (Sad, I know.) It is a pretty minor function, I'll trim it down. --Bookandcoffee 17:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Labor history categories

Hello, fellow editors: I just discovered & joined this WikiProject -- right on the heels of spending several hours on improved categorizing of labor history articles & categories. I finally spotted the Project template, and promptly dropped what I was doing to check it out.

Anyway, I thought it would be good to let everybody know that I've just remedied a major gap in the Labor category scheme with the creation of Category:Labor history. I've already populated it with quite a few articles & subcategories. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Regards, Cgingold 03:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, just noticed your reply (I didn't have this page watchlisted). Yeah, I saw that category -- in fact, I adjusted its parent categories so that it's now a subcategory of Category:Labor history by country (one of the batch of new cats I created in order to construct a full-blown array of nested labor history categories). It should probably be renamed so it's in alignment with it's siblings (that's on my "to-do" list). Cgingold 06:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I meant to ask about adding this info to the Categories section on the Project page. Does anybody know why there are no editable section links visible? Cgingold 03:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cgingold, welcome to the project. Excellent to see your work on the categories. As for the missing [edit] tabs - I always thought they weren't there because of the __NOTOC__ at the top of the page... but then I realized that I actually have no idea! I can't remember when they disappeared. Anyone else know?--Bookandcoffee 08:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I went back to February 2007, and there are no edit tabs there, either. But there were, because the History tab shows sub-categories being edited. Perhaps it is in the way Wikipedia treats templates? Some over-arching way Wikipedia does things that we had no part in? It could be that the *ahem* "borrowed code" we used could be affecting how earlier histories of the page look (but how can that be?). I'm not enough of an expert to know. :( - Tim1965 12:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
You never get section edit tabs, when you're looking at older versions of a page. But why there are none on the current page baffles me as well.--Carabinieri 00:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox problem

I added an infobox to American Federation of Labor. There's clearly a problem with the box, but I have stared at those few lines of code for hours and can't figure out what the problem is. Can someone else do so, with a fresh pair of eyes? Thanks! - Tim1965 00:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

By comparing the code to that of the infobox in AFL-CIO, I was able to determine that there was nothing in the "dissolved_state=" line, which meant that the following line ("merged_into=") represented itself strangely. I think the template then makes the title of the box askew to indicate something structural needs attention. I fixed it. — Scartol · Talk 01:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Pulaski Skyway

I reorganized and partially rewrote this several-year-old featured article, and would like comments on whether I did a good job. Please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pulaski Skyway/archive1. --NE2 01:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

International secretariats

I've been working on an expansion of the Education International article. I did my best, but I couldn't find jack squat about this group's predecessor organizations. (For example, the IFFTU supposedly was formed in Europe in 1928 and reorganized by the ICFTU in 1951. But I can't find any mention of the predecessor organization's name, much less its history or the IFFTU's founding and early years.) There is quite a bit of information about EI's policies and actions on the Web (and little in Western news sources), but most of the information comes from EI itself rather than neutral third parties. I'm so weak on international affairs, any help is appreciated! - Tim1965 19:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

just a note on key people in the GUFs, should always record the General Secretary, the President is a titular position in the GUFs.--Goldsztajn 01:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Importance of Sarah_Bagley

Rather than edit war over the importance of this article, we should talk about it here. Bookandcoffee rated it Low, and Durno11 switched it to High, with the edit summary: "Sarah Bagley is one of the earliest labor activitist in the United States."

I don't have a horse in this race; I just want to deal with it in the form of dialogue and reason. – Scartol · Talk 15:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with any rating choice, but I would wonder about "high". If we agree with the rating scheme at Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Assessment I would think the article should be no more than "mid" - but I don't have a good enough grasp of America history to have too strong of an opinion.--Bookandcoffee 16:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I feel like I do have a decent grasp of it, and while I agree that she's important (and probably less well-known that she ought to be), my worry is about the distinction between her popularity vis a vis her importance. The project criteria says High is reserved for "Major international articles, activists, strikes and movements" (my emphasis). So I would support Mid – seems like a fair compromise. – Scartol · Talk 16:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not what I or Durno11 thinks about her importance, it is (first of all) about the verifiability of her importance. While there are five published citations about her, they are all by the same three people. A quick Google search indicates a number of additional sources (some by respected authors such as Eric Foner, Philip Foner, David Roediger, etc.; some in peer-reviewed journals), but unless they get cited in the article it doesn't matter. I would argue there is not enough verifiability of the article's "High" importance. Second, I would argue Bagley is no more important than other (women) reformers of the time such as Huldah J. Stone, Leonora Barry (she led the Knights of Labor's research division) and so on. For example, Stone and Barry were written about by Eric Foner and Philip Foner (none of whose work about Bagley is cited; Phil Foner's "The Factory Girls" is a classic work on Bagley, and he was her champion in historians' circles), but they place Bagley as one among equals rather than someone who conceived a movement, led it nationally, had a national impact, or was successful. Third, the article fails to link Bagley's efforts on the 10-hour day to the national or regional shorter-workday movements or to the history of the movement. One would think, if she were that important, that she would be recognized as "the founder of" or "ahead of her time" or "her views influenced" or whatnot. There may be no connections, or it may be that the article doesn't mention them. Regardless, absent any links, I would argue the article does not deserve "High" status. Fourth, the article does not show that Bagley had anything more than a local effect. That makes her a local leader (it's a reach, but she might be a regional one), and that does not qualify the article for "High" status. Fifth, while there are inline citations, there is only one cited source for each paragraph. Many important claims go uncited (noticeably the claim that the 1845 state legislature hearings were the first of the kind in U.S. history) or under-cited (e.g., only that one cite at the bottom of the paragraph). Given the large number of sources about Bagley which go uncited in the article, I would argue that not enough proof of her "High" importance is offered. - Tim1965 17:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate this discussion, it gives me perspective. I am very new to wikipedia, so perhaps because historians and students contact the Center for Lowell History so often regarding Sarah Bagley, I have over rated her importance. However, among labor historians, there is no question Sarah Bagley is an important early female labor activist. Bagley is seen as the one who formed the LFLRA and as president led the organization in the early Ten Hour Movement in Massachusetts (which for women was the first organized action for the Ten Hour Day in the country.) Within the LFLRA and the Ten Hour Movement, Bagley is much more imporatnt then her friend Huldah Stone.Durno11 14:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Bagley's writing.

  • "Pleasures of Factory Life," Lowell Offering, series 1 (December 1840): 25-26.
  • "Tales of Factory Life, No. 1," Lowell Offering, 1 (June 1841): 65-68.
  • "Tales of Factory Life, No. 2: The Orphan Sisters," Lowell Offering, 1 (October 1841): 263-266.
  • "Sarah G. Bagley's Speech at the New England Workingmen's Association, May 27, 1845," Voice of Industry, 5 June 1845.
  • Letter to the Lowell Advertiser (10 July 1845).
  • "Sarah G. Bagley Defends Her Speech," Voice of Industry, 17 July 1845.
  • Letter to the Lowell Advertiser (26 July 1845).
  • "Voluntary?" Voice of Industry, 18 September 1845.
  • "To Our Friends and Readers," Voice of Industry, 7 November 1845.
  • "Introductory," Voice of Industry, 9 January 1846.
  • "What Was Omitted in the Report," Voice of Industry, 9 January 1846.
  • "The Ten Hour System & Its Advocates," Voice of Industry, 16 January 1846.
  • "The Ten Hour System & Its Advocates," Voice of Industry, 24 January 1846.
  • "Ten Hour System & Its Advocates, Again," Voice of Industry, 16 February 1846.
  • "Report of the Lowell Female Labor Reform Association to the New England Workingmen's Association," Voice of Industry, 10 April 1846.
  • "To E. R. L.," Voice of Industry, 24 April 1846.
  • "To E. R. L.--No. 2," Voice of Industry, 6 May 1846.
  • "To E. R. L.--No. 3," Voice of Industry, 8 May 1846.
  • "To the Editor of The Voice and Ourself," Voice of Industry, 15 May 1846.
  • "A Pledge," Voice of Industry, 15 May 1846.
  • "How the Corporations Procure Help: Chapter I," Voice of Industry, 22 May 1846.
  • "To the 'Circle' for Mutual Agreement," Voice of Industry, 29 May 1846.
  • "The Introduction into the Mill: Chapter II," Voice of Industry, 12 June 1846.
  • "The Improvement Circle," Voice of Industry, 12 June 1846.
  • "Some Incidents of My Journey," Voice of Industry, 11 September 1846.
  • "To W.E.B., Correspondent to the Dundee (Scotland) Warder," Voice of Industry, 18 September 1846.
  • Letter to the Voice of Industry, 23 September 1846.
  • Letter to Vox Populi, 20 November 1846.

In addition to Foner, other publications regarding Sarah Bagley.

  • Foner, Philip S., ed. "The Factory Girls." Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1977.
This isn't really about Bagley, but I wanted clarification on a point you made, Tim – I was always under the impression that the importance rating was about the importance of the subject of the article. When you said: "Regardless, absent any links, I would argue the article does not deserve 'High' status" this makes me think that the rating concerns what the article has shown about the subject's importance. Whereas I always saw it as an assessment of what the project understands about the subject's importance, with a goal of quickly improving articles (esp. stubs) about subjects which are considered by us to be highly relevant (even if the article doesn't make it appear so).
Am I making sense? Have I been wrong? Or am I misreading your comments, Tim? – Scartol · Talk 13:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You make total sense. I'm just unclear... I've always interpreted Importance as a combination of two elements. The first is the "real" importance of the article. (I'll be hoity-toity and say, "the ontological importance of the article.") Stub or Featured Article or anything in-between, an article may be "really important" and so rate "High" Importance. For example, William Green is a stub, but the article is High Importance. But even a stub needs to do more than assert High Importance. I've always assumed a stub should assert in the text why the person is important (e.g., "although only a local union leader, she introduced concepts of collective bargaining that influenced the national union for the next 20 years" or "is an integral concept in French labor law"). And a Stub should cite at least one reference which helps support the assertion. I don't think an in-line citation is needed, but there needs to be a References section and at least one newspaper article, journal article, or book there (preferably not a Web link, as Wiki frowns on those). Otherwise, Assessment becomes personal opinion, an I-said/she-said thing.
I think a Stub or Start-class article could get by, for a time, with a note on the Talk page asserting that more information and citations are coming, which is fine. And what if that reference really doesn't support the article's High Importance (or Mid or Low importance, for that matter)? Well, I think that—in the short run—no one will challenge the reference or Importance rating. But if the reference is challenged or the Importance rating changed, then I think it's up to any subsequent contributor to expand the article, provide more references (preferably in-line ones), and provide support (in text and on the Talk page) which changes the Importance rating. Ultimately, the text of the article supports the Importance rating in the long run.
Assessment, I think, relies as heavily on verifiability as does any claim in the main text of the article. But I may be way, way off course here and have made my own assumptions. I'm very open to other views. - Tim1965 14:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Images category?

I'd like to propose a new category for images which relate to unions and labo(u)r. The problem is that images relating to unions are not well-categorized or easily located. I spent an hour trying to find that image for the Los Angeles Times bombing article. And I've come across unused images which are so poorly captioned that they'll rarely be found, and yet which would do really well on various articles. Wikipedia has a category scheme for images: Category:Images by subject. However, there is no labo(u)r sub-category. What do others think? I want to see what sort of discussion emerges here before prostrating myself before the Category Gods. - Tim1965 23:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, but I wonder if the small number of items in that cat list is an indication of specialized focus, or just no one adding anything. Is this something that should be done over at Commons? – Scartol · Talk 13:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia Commons has no category either. I don't care where the category ends up (Wiki or WikiCommons), but just that a category gets started. (Maybe I'm blind and just not seeing a category?) - Tim1965 14:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This makes good sense to me as well. I don't spend much time over at the Commons, but a lot of the older photos would end up over there wouldn't they. Does it make sense to just organize the photos here inside Wikipedia first, and then worry about moving them to the commons later?--Bookandcoffee 17:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Many images on Wikipedia aren't on Commons, for good reason (they are fair use, not free). But whichever place they get organized first, I think we're agreed we need a category. Am I right? (I was hoping I was missing that category, but I guess not, and now it means tagging a boatload of articles...) - Tim1965 20:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Royal Mail lingo?

On the CWU page, it mentions 'scab' mail. What does that mean? Maybe it should be clarified in the article. Thanks.  Jack Blueberry (t) •  13:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Winnipeg General Strike name change

Please see this debate and leave your feedback. User:Nightstallion is convinced that this and all general strikes should be lowercase and has changed all general strike article titles. Just like other significant conflicts, the Winnipeg General Strike should be treated as a proper noun and capitalized accordingly. bobanny 08:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A plea on behalf of articles

I have been adding dates to the Organized Labour Portal's pages for "On This Date in Labour History" pages (here's an example: December history.) It's easy to add labo(u)r people's dates of birth or death. And thanks to the WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court Cases and WikiProject Canadian Law, many important court case articles have specific dates in them. But many of the articles about unions themselves lack important dates; years are often given for foundings, mergers, dissolutions, etc., but it's tough to find an actual day and month. The same goes for strikes (beginning and ending dates), labo(u)r-related legislation (date of enactment? date it went into effect?). My plea: That contributors really strive to try to pin down exact dates of events while writing articles. It helps with the Portal, and it helps editors and others when they want to put labo(u)r-related items on the "On This Day..." section of the Main Page, etc. (If no one speaks for the articles, who will? Me, that's who!) - Tim1965 17:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you for speaking for the wee articles, Tim. Let's keep this in mind, people. – Scartol · Talk 18:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC) PS. Anyone have any thoughts on 1998 Puerto Rican general strike? It failed the GA review, and I have no idea how we could expand it. See my comments for more info.
I'd suggest nominating it for a peer review and then GA again. I personally didn't agree with the reasons for failing it, and suspect many other editors would've passed it. bobanny 23:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Strike/labor dispute infobox

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour/Templates. Thanks.—Twigboy 22:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please help, Labor Spies article attacked

The Labor spies article provides some vital history about a phenomena that isn't widely documented on the World Wide Web. As such, i believe that it serves an important function. That said, the article can certainly be improved. Some sections could be trimmed, and the intro needs to be reworked.

The article has been tagged to indicate that it needs attention, and some gradual improvements have been made.

However, someone has just hacked 45K out of the article, removing entire sections. This person has repetitively deleted massive sections of the article after these drastic changes have been challenged and reverted. A lot of research and hard work have gone down the drain with these changes.

I do not consider this vandalism; the other individual appears to have made a lot of contributions to a great number of articles in the brief time that he/she has been on Wikipedia. It is, rather, a dispute about the best method to improve the article, with the other person essentially disregarding Wikipedia policy. For example, a Major Edit should follow a recommended procedure:

Before engaging in a major edit, a user should consider discussing proposed changes on the article discussion/talk page... A major edit should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors.

The other editor did not discuss the changes on the TALK page before unilaterally making them, although she/he has since responded to my comments there.

I support improving the article, but not wholesale butchering. Please take a look and see if you believe such massive deletions are the best way to improve the Labor spies article.

thanks, Richard Myers 15:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

State militia protecting strikers?

I'm trying to ascertain the validity of the first paragraph, here:

Cripple Creek miners' strike of 1894

Question: are there other clear examples of a state militia being called out specifically to protect strikers from an armed force that sided with company interests?

thanks, Richard Myers (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you post this to the article's talk page? Questions like this should go there first, and then if you don't get an answer post on various WikiProject pages. But the Good Article review passed that paragraph. I did a lot of the legwork on that article's first draft, and will try to find a source. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Anti-union editor

This individual User_talk:Ndriley97 has been exhibiting red-baiting tendencies and anti-union bias on a number of articles over the past week or so. Some monitoring may be in order if it continues. thanks, Richard Myers (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Organized_Labour/Archive_3&oldid=1137370237"