Talk:Progressive Miners of America

Why the name change?
Why was the title of this article changed from Progressive Mine Workers of America to Progressive Miners of America? As one can see from the reference titles, Progressive Mine Workers of America is the official name of the organization. I have in my personal collection a small pamphlet titled "Constitution of District No. 1 Progressive Mine Workers of America" (District No.1 covered Illinois). Article I, Name and Objects, Section 1, reads: "This organization shall be known as District No. 1 of the Progressive Mine Workers of America." Please make an argument for this change, or I will request the change be reversed. Dwalls (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The argument for the change was WP:COMMONNAME, as given in the edit summary. That states Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. It was also the name already used (by others) in the lead and the infobox. The recent Time magazine source I added also uses it. 'Progressive Miners of America' seems to me to be the common name, but perhaps I'm wrong. -- Trevj (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Recent Time magazine source? It's dated Dec. 27, 1937.  No typo, that's 1937.  Subsequent to that we have two studies, definitive up to their dates: Dallas M. Young's "Origins of the PMWA" from the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society (1947), and Harriet D. Hudson's The PMWA: A Study in Rival Unionism (Univ. of Illinois, 1952).  This was such a small and inconsequential rebellion against the UMWA that the rare contemporary observers appear to have called the group by a number of names.  UMWA dissident John Brophy in his autobiography A Miner's Life (1964), variously refers to it as the "Progressive Miners of America,"  the "Progressive Miner's Union," the "Progressive Miners" and the "PMA."  But he is speaking about the period from 1931 to 1937.  Whatever name it may have taken at first, or been called by others, it is very clear that by the post-WW II period its official name is Progressive Mine Workers of America.  As the organization has been defunct since 1999, there is no longer a "common name" for the group.  In the future, people looking for information on the PMWA will look under its official name (the one made clear in its official documents and by the leading academic studies by Young and by Hudson).  Doesn't it make sense to list this historical organization by its official name?  Dwalls (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For "recent", please read "recently added". I did indeed note the 1937 date, which I included within the citation template. Maybe you're right and the common name is "Progressive Mine Workers of America", rather than "Progressive Miners of America". In this case it can simply be moved again, leaving a helpful redirect from an alternatively used name (which wasn't in place beforehand).
 * My move was made in good faith based on the article content and other instances of the term.
 * The official name you cite, Progressive Mine Workers of America, is currently a redlink. The article was moved from, not the longer name you cite.
 * If you want to move the article back (and that move is in accordance with policy, i.e. it is the common name, which takes account of what it has been called by others) then you can simply use db-move at and refer to this discussion.
 * I will not object to such a revert if it is in accordance with policy.
 * You could even just move it to Progressive Mine Workers of America, if that's the common name, or you have a strong argument for using that official name in place of the common name.
 * In doing any such move, per WP:LEADSENTENCE, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence (with alternative titles also stated per MOS:LEADALT), so the article will need updating to reflect that.
 * I hope the above is helpful. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: I've just invited participants in WP:UNION here. -- Trevj (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no skin in the game here. I will say that a quick Google Books search of the name "Progressive Mine Workers of America" came up with 270 citations.  A search of the name "Progressive Miners of America" came up with 330 citations, about 22 percent more.  "Progressive Miners Union" (or variations thereof) came up with just 110 citations.  Twenty-two percent is substantial, but not a blowout.  Rather than do a coin toss, I'd tentatively suggest the more cited name.  But that's a very dirty, rough guide.  Many authors use nicknames for unions ("the Plumbers") or acronyms ("SEIU"), in part so that the narrative they are writing is not so repetitive and in part because it's easier.  A far better survey than my five-minute one is needed, perhaps. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad to have Tim1965, a true authority on labor, weigh in. And Trevj, I'm sorry if my comments got excessively argumentative; I assumed, of course, that your move was made in good faith.  Further research reveals that both of our positions have some basis in history.  The breakaway union formed in 1932 was named the Progressive Miners of America (PMA).  Taking advantage of the 1937 split between the United Mine Workers president John L. Lewis and the American Federation of Labor (AFL) over the formation of the Committee for Industrial Organization, the PMA obtained a charter from the AFL as the Progressive Mine Workers of America (PMW).  So they were the Progressive Miners of America from 1932 to 1937, and the Progressive Mine Workers of America after that.  Sounds like a toss-up.  People interested in the period from 1932 to 1937 would look for the Progressive Miners of America.  People interested in the period after 1937 would look for the Progressive Mine Workers.  As long as both names end up at this article, I guess it doesn't matter which title the article goes by.  I withdraw my suggestion the name be changed back (unless other labor writers clearly favor PMW).  It would be more productive for me to work on editing the article and adding some material on the post-WW II life of the PMW, with its single contract in Kentucky at Benham in Harlan County, and its move to organize 5 or 6 mines of companies in Wyoming and Montana in the 1960s and 1970s. Dwalls (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've created a new redirect at and updated the lead accordingly. The two official titles could be swapped if need be, but as the current title is shorter, it may be preferable for use as a link within articles. -- Trevj (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Bias
In no way is this article WP:NPOV. It is obviously anti-UMWA, pro-MWA. 2600:1004:B141:C848:60C8:159F:C7F8:797E (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Now fixed, I presume. I have boldly removed the year-old flag. Carrite (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)