Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour/Archive 1

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Badbilltucker in topic Wikipedia Day Awards
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

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.

Labor in Mexico

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

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?

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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)

New stub type?

Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

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 Category:Labour law both under Category:Law and Category: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

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion

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:

The following list shows three reasons why.

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

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

-

-

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.

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)

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!

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

2006 TTC wildcat strike

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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...

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

1969 police strike in Montreal

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

{{union-stub}}

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

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)

Labour disputes by country

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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)

Union bug

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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)
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)

NPOV problems

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

assessment department

Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

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)

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)

Internationalisation

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Stubs (again)

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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)

What is an "international" union?

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Internationalisation and Summaries page

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Norman Tebbit as trade unionist

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

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)

Outreach

Latest comment: 18 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

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)

History of Solidarity

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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)

Project directory

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

ICFTU - WCL merger

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

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)

Labor Historian

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Strike action/Summary

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Child labor

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Organized_Labour/Archive_1&oldid=1066813380"