Talk:1992 United States railroad strike

Requested move 16 December 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved . (non-admin closure) Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

1992 United States railroad strike → 1992 United States railroad lockout – This was not a strike but a lockout. Members of one union on one railroad, not joined by other unions, struck. In response the railroads instituted a nationwide lockout of all employees. Referring to it as a strike is highly misleading. Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The fact remains that the lockout was triggered by the strike action, though it was indeed an isolated strike. Sources widely call the event a strike . I would support 1992 United States railroad strike and lockout or the more general 1992 United States railroad labor dispute as alternative titles. This source also states that while the strike was limited to roughly 20,000 employees, another 200,000 were expected to refuse to cross picket lines and therefore stop work in solidarity. It is false to claim the article is "highly misleading" - you see plenty of coverage of those who disagreed with the industry and government response within the body. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * "This source also states that while the strike was limited to roughly 20,000 employees, another 200,000 were expected to refuse to cross picket lines and therefore stop work in solidarity" - so in other words, the strike was limited to 20k employees. A threat of a strike is not a strike. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're being disingenuous. The events covered in this article began with a strike, and that's not in dispute. For that reason, the article should not simply be "lockout", as that implies the railroads launched a lockout unprovoked. So, put me down as opposed to the requested move. I would support the alternatives I listed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "For that reason, the article should not simply be "lockout", as that implies the railroads launched a lockout unprovoked." But this is a nonsense claim. Does calling the article "strike" imply the union struck unprovoked?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have tried to compromise with you, but unfortunately you seem to have no interest in compromise. Now, unless you can show that a majority of sources refer to the events as a lockout, this move request is dead on arrival. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are putting words in my mouth. While I oppose 1992 United States railroad strike and lockout as it implies the strike and lockout were equivalent, I would prefer 1992 United States railroad labor dispute to the present title. Also, WP:COMMONNAME is not the only naming policy.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 03:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasoning by Trainsandotherthings.  Cards   84664   16:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For clarity, do either of you have an opinion on moving the article to 1992 United States railroad strike and lockout or 1992 United States railroad labor dispute? Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Having thought about it for a while, I think the 1992 United States railroad labor dispute title is a good one, as this matches the 2022 United States railroad labor dispute article. There's also the 1991 events, which I haven't gotten around to writing an article on yet. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.