Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour/Archive 4

Naming convention
Hey folks, I'm about to create an article for a Spanish union called Solidaridad Obrera (Workers' Solidarity), but wasn't sure what to name it. Is it standard to use the original name, or the English translation? There's already an article for the periodical Solidaridad Obrera, and there was a union of the same name back in the early 1900s, so i don't know what kind of qualifier to tag onto the end of the name if I go with the Spanish name. Any ideas? Murderbike (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Titles of articles with names in languages other than English (this applies only to English Wikipedia) should be translated to English, immediately followed by their official Spanish name in italic. There are some exceptions:
 * The subject matter is a work of, or theme related to, art. This includes paintings, music, dances, books, poems, etc.
 * When the Spanish name has no literal translation to English (for example, tembleque, the coconut pudding).
 * The subject matter is known almost exclusively by its Spanish name, even in English speaking countries (for example, Tren Urbano).
 * I shamelessly stole these guidelines from WikiProject Puerto Rico. If you go ahead with calling the article "Solidaridad Obrero," I would put the word "union" in parantheses after it to distinguish the union from the newspaper. - Tim1965 (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

New type of template -- do we need one too?
There is a new anarchist template. It is one line only, but expands to approximately fifty lines, with links to everything that you ever wanted to know about anarchy.

You can see it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Free_Speech_Fight#Footnotes

This template has been added to the article in spite of the fact that there is already a link to anarchism in the body of the article.

If you follow a link in the template to here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Anarchism2

...it becomes apparent that this template is intended for "articles that are not directly related to anarchism such that (the larger anarchism template) would give undue weight to anarchism..."

In fact, the use of the anarchist template in this article raises some questions. I don't have a problem with unobtrusive links to additional information. However, this article is more a labor history article than an anarchist article. Thus, i'm uneasy with the template AND the anarchist link, particularly in light of the fact that now the minimalized template is likely to appear in every labor article that mentions an anarchist.

One of the issues is, this template doesn't take them to another page, it opens right in the article. Therefore, the Organized Labor Portal link is not really equivalent.

Can we expect continuing (if subtle) encroachment of this sort on organized labor articles, with the apparent result that Wikipedia will appear to be pushing anarchy where that is only incidental to the topic?

Or maybe there's an alternative. I wonder if, rather than challenging the anarchists for putting their collapsed template in articles where even it might "give undue weight to anarchism", we might come up with an equivalent template for organized labor? That way many readers will see that there is a choice of templates to expand, and those interested in organized labor will be able to click on the one they want.

Looking for feedback. Richard Myers (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I think placing the anarchist template in that article is entirely inappropriate. As far as I can tell, anarchy is only tangentally related to the subject, and placing that template there (even though it is unobtrusive if not expanded) is giving undue weight to anarchy. I think it should be removed.


 * As for creating a similar template for organized labor, I think it's a good idea; I would not, however, consider having it in addition to the anarchy template to be an acceptable solution. --JerryOrr (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That is persuasive to me. As a matter of further interest, the communists have developed a structurally identical template to that now in use by the anarchists. In at least one example, they've used this new template to replace their portal in the same article, making the presence less obtrusive.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_aristocracy#See_also


 * (The portal had once been at the beginning of the article, where it dominated, but was subsequently moved downward, to be replaced by the current template which is near the bottom).


 * The difference between the two articles discussed here: i think the communist template is more appropriate because there is an entire section of the article that relates the subject matter to communism. (I note this even though i am personally more philosophically inclined toward anarchism...) Richard Myers (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Without getting involved in the appropriateness of the anarchism footer on that page (I always worry that we're getting into Judean Peoples' Front territory with this sort of thing), I'd be happy to make up a similar footer for organized labour; We can copy most of the code from the BalzacFooter which I designed. – Scartol  •  Tok  14:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As the creator of the Anarchism footer, I believe I should make a few comments. First, I would like to say that I've also been concerned with the overpopulation of links on the vertical anarchism template. The extensive listing of links on the footer is a mirror to this problem, as the footer was originally intended as a replacement for this broad based template in articles which had a great deal to do with anarchy, but would not allow for the vertical template, due to layout constraints. A perfect example of this would be the Haymarket affair article. As a possible upside, I had intended for the footer to also replace Portal links, as was noted the Communism footer had in Labor aristocracy. You will note the prominent appearance of a circle-flag next to a portal link in the anarchism footer -- proof that there was, at least, some thought given to reducing the number of anarchist related templates to be found in an article tangently related to anarchy.

I recognize a need for a smaller template with fewer links, for use in articles where the subject has a secondary connection with anarchy. An example of this would be the elimination of the "culture" section, and replacing it with a template specifically dealing with appearances of Anarchy in cultural symbols and mediums. A possible example would be the Scientology in popular culture template. I also agree that some articles, such as San Diego Free Speech Fight, do not perhaps deserve a template, or at the very least, should have one dramatically reduced in presence. This discussion has been linked to the Anarchist Task Force talk page, and I'll raise my personal thoughts there and work to implement a new alternative. This may involve altering the current footer, or creating a new template.--Cast (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm editing here to correct a formatting problem in my earlier entry (above), but i also want to say thanks to all for the explanations and efforts. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

FAC
The article about the Free Association of German Trade Unions is now up for WP:FAC. It would be great, if you could comment.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

FLOC edit problem
Someone keeps changing the Farm Labor Organizing Committee article to remove cited material. I've had very serious discussions with some editors who (in my opinion) have an anti-FLOC agenda to push and have edited the article accordingly. My suspicion is that one of these individuals (using anonymous I.P. address 205.240.46.11) is removing the sourced material so as not to endanger their Wikipedia account (in other words, sock puppeting). I can't prove it, however.

More to the point, I wrote the FLOC article. I feel uncomfortable continuing this tiny edit-war with this individual, as the person could claim I've got a conflict of interest (as the article's primary author). I would appreciate any assistance in this regard anyone feels like offering. I believe I will have to stop undoing this person's vandalism, simply to avoid a conflict-of-interest accusation. This will leave the article open to vandalism, and I would hate to see that. Thanks! - Tim1965 (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I put it on my watchlist, though I'm not super familiar with the union, so I'll mainly just be able to prevent removal of cited material. Murderbike (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've also watched it, and I'm also unfamiliar with them (aside from what I'm reading now in the article). Keep us posted in case we miss anything. – Scartol  •  Tok  02:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Portal submitted for peer review
I've submitted the Labour Portal for portal peer review to see what kind of feedback we get from the community. Please feel free to involve yourself as much as you'd like. You can follow the action by watching this page or checking in on this post from time to tome.

Cheers. H aus  Talk  02:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles with summaries
What a great idea! One that I will surely steal some day.

Just to let you all know, CfD has, in its infinite wisdom, reorganised the way the summaries and articles with summaries are categorised. See here for the discussion. Basically the articles which have a summary are now in Category:Articles with article summaries. For want of a better idea I have put the summaries themselves in the Category:WikiProject Organized Labour category, but you may want to create a subcategory for these. If so, it should be called Category:WikiProject Organized Labour article summaries or something else that identifies what they are. All the very best and please don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance re SEIU vs. CNA/NNOC conflict
An editor with a clear POV favoring the SEIU has made a series of edits in recent weeks that I came across recently and felt obliged to revert in the interest of NPOV. I have no personal agenda vis-a-vis the organizing conflict between the SEIU and the CNA/NNOC. (Another editor (an anon. IP) had also reverted his edits.)

At present, the situation is as follows:

1. The article on Union busting was locked down for one week due to the insertion of material about the conflict. A discussion has been initiated on the talk page. My position here is very clear: inter-union conflicts should not be labelled as "union busting", regardless of any editor's partisan views about the unions involved in the conflict.

2. The pro-SEIU editor has proposed merging National Nurses Organizing Committee into California Nurses Association. (See either talk page.) I personally support retaining separate articles, but I recognize that a case can be made for merging.

It would be very helpful to have other disinterested parties (besides myself) join these discussions and offer their perspectives on all of this. Thanks! Cgingold (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Unions can bust other unions, but the only situation I can think of is during strikes. (It was quite common in the period 1860-1930 for unions to scab strikes against one another.) But I would argue competition during organizing campaigns is hardly union-busting (if that's the case, SEIU itself is a most egregious perpetrator; see its fights with AFSCME over home care and home child care workers). I also would be amazed to find a mainstream or even labor press article which calls CNA's intervention in Ohio "union-busting"; merely holding a contributor with an agenda to the standards of citation should help eliminate interpretation problems (because this is a matter of interpretation, possible: Is CNA's intervention competition, or union-busting?).
 * I, too, think NNOC should be merged with CNA. NNOC is merely an organizing program of the CNA, and is not independent of it (CNA funds it, they have interlocking boards, CNA controls and staffs it, etc.). If there's a case to be made for NNOC having a separate article, then each division of every American union should get their own article, too. I'm not sure that that case can be made (do we really want an article on the UTU Research Dept., even if it got mainstream press coverage and passed notability standards?). But merge rules should be clearly followed and notability standards upheld, no matter what side a person comes down on. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tim. I'm copying your comments to those other talk pages. I don't think this editor is going to give up on the "union-busting" POV easily, so it would really help to have more input, from other editors. I guess this amounts to an RFC of sorts. Cgingold (talk) 07:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured Portal Candidate
The Organized Labour Portal is now a candidate for Featured Portal status. Anybody who is interested is invited to put a watch on Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Organized Labour or follow along below:

Cheers,  H aus  Talk   00:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Decision to make
It seems that if we remove the "Article of the Day" and replace it with snippets from our GA/A-Class/FA articles, then we'll have a featured portal pretty soon. It also seems that if we keep the "Article of the Day", then the portal won't be featured. I'm very much on the fence about what to do -- does anybody else have any feelings? H aus  Talk  12:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as is - Having the AOTD be a synopsis of the article creates stagnancy on the Portal. It requires a great deal of work to replace AOTDs with synopses. A synopsis is not updated when the article is updated. When an existing synopsis is replaced with a new one, the old synopsis is lost—whether the Project participants want it to be or not.  Synopses do not show off the work of the Project contributors; they only show off the work of synopsis-writers. We have solved our problems (it seems) with AOTDs creating too-wide pages and their imagery interfering with the rest of the Portal page.  In other words:  Our Portal is dynamic, low-maintence, and depicts the actual work product of the Project rather than some blank, unWikified, boring synopsis. I vote for dynamism and low-maintenance over static-but-looks-good. (Bias acknkowledgement: I filled out most of the AOTD fields.) - Tim1965 (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Burke Group
Can people all help out and rate this article for the Wikiproject on a union busting firm, and/or provide some more information? In its original form, it was complained about and deleted, and I'm trying to make sure it's neutral. I expect the people from the firm will be watching, and almost certainly complaining again.  Wik idea  13:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ I assessed it as start-class/mid-importance.  As for providing more information, isn't there enough information for a B-class article between the 7 external links and and dozens of pages at http://www.tbglabor.com/?   H aus  Talk   14:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a huge footnoted research paper on them, covering every major and most minor campaigns they did in from 1995 to 2004, and some research on their 2004-05 activity. Full cites and everything.  I'm slam-bang in the middle of two big article, but would be happy to give you the paper. How could I get it to you? - Tim1965 (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. I think, Haus, you're the man to do the ratings if you wanted to make it a B class - as the person who established the Wikiproject, isn't that part up to you? And if you could register any views you have on the discussion page about whether the article should be deleted, that would be much appreciated too. Here's the link.  Wik idea  14:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A few quick items: 1) I didn't start the wikiproject, 2) anyone can rate articles up to B-class, 3) my own personal feeling is that the article has some WP:MOS issues, particularly as regards WP:CITE/WP:V and WP:LAYOUT that keep it squarely in the start class. Cheers.    H aus  Talk   16:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's all fine: it was just a suggestion. I can't remember what I read that made me think you started the Wikiproject. Doesn't matter though. Yes, I suppose everything you say about the style of the page is right: it's also quite a short article, and things usually need a lot more before they can become rated more highly.  Wik idea  16:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Unions in country
We have a number of articles about the trade unions of a particular country. Some of them are called "Labo[u]r unions in [Country]" (Labor unions in the United States), some "[country] labo[u]r movement" (Australian labour movement), while most are called "Trade unions in [country]" (Trade unions in Germany).

Being a big fan of maintaining consistency throughout Wikipedia, I think we should standardize the article names. My favorite would be "Trade unions in [country]", since that would avert the labor/labour problem. However, one might also argue that "[country] labo[u]r movement" is a bit broader, since it includes non-union labor organizations, possibly even labor, socialist, or communist parties that were spawned by the labor movement.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that this would be a good thing to standardize. I think that the "(trade|labo[u]r) union" problem is as bad as the "(labor|labour)" problem.  There's another one about "trade union" vs. "trades union" vs. "trade unions" vs. "trades unions" which people have gotten very worked up about in the past and happens to make my brain bleed.  For these reasons, in addition to your point about generality, I would lean towards "Organized labo[u]r in Country."  Cheers.   H aus Talk 01:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Help save Litigation involving Tesco
Can interested people please go and say something against deleting this page here? As a lawyer I think each case should have an article, and this is a convenient grouping with some valuable information.  Wik idea  22:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm not persuaded that the initial statement at AFD is incorrect; I don't see why these are all so notable that they need a page. (Maybe there are some which do deserve a page, but the list seems extraneous.) Given the existence of the criticism page, this list doesn't strike me as necessary. I don't have a very strong opinion about it one way or another, so I won't comment at AFD. Perhaps other folks will be able to provide more worthwhile feedback. – Scartol  •  Tok  22:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

John L. Lewis speech reference
I'm hoping to find a better reference to a Lewis speech ("Future of Labor") transcribed at the History Channel site. If anyone knows of an online collection of Lewis' speeches which would include that one, or an academic paper on the subject, I'd be grateful. I want to reference the speech in an article, but I'm not quite comfortable with the web site and I'm not sure I can track down the encyclopedia it references. Thanks! Cretog8 (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 3009 articles are assigned to this project, of which 408, or 13.6%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-07-14.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Fiddling with Template:Labor
Every now and then, someone without an account logs in and fiddles with Template:Labor. Today, someone did that, and added a couple things. While maybe Anarcho-syndicalism belongs on the template, 35-hour workweek did not (I thought), as it was not historically important and certainly not global in nature. Additionally, some changes did not use the proper format (using URLs rather than Wikilinks). I assume good faith, but if I assumed bad faith these would nearly be vandalism.

The changes raise an issue: Shouldn't changes to the template be discussed on the template's Talk page first before occurring? I can see where minor changes to code (to make the template work right) are appropriate and do not need discussion. But substantive changes, it seems to me, need to be discussed. The Template is a global one, yet most of the labor articles on Wikipedia tend to be from the U.S. It's easy to overload the template with American stuff, and that needs to be avoided as much as possible. Anyone have any other thoughts? - Tim1965 (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
There is a merger of the IWW slogan (An injury to one is an injury to all) to the IWW being proposed at the talk page for the IWW (here). I would love to get some voices from the project on this merger. Preferably, some sources could be found and the slogan can be retained as an individual article, but I'm disinclined to do that without sources. Please comment at the merger discussion as I probably won't watchlist this page. Protonk (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Photography page has been populated
I've created and populated the Photography Category page. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE consider reviewing the page, adding text and links, and helping discuss the page on the Photography Talk page! Thank you. - Tim1965 (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

2 articles from this Wikiproject are up for deletion
They are Timeline of the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike and Reaction by actors to the 2007-08 Writers Guild of America strike, just to let you know. Dalejenkins | 13:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Organized labour
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Labour History Category?
I've been doing some editing to the Rose Schneiderman article and was wondering, is there a Jewish labour category? Is there anything which would act as an all encompassing category for Jewish involvement in the labour movement? I did have a quick scan of things, but did not seem to find anything completely appropriate.--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't look like it, but it seems like it would be appropriate to create one as a subcategory of Category:Jewish activists and Category:Trade unionists. Cheers.  H aus Talk 02:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

index error
greetings all,

kinda weird, trying to click on the link to add myself to the organised labour participants list but the page instead attempts to download an index.php file. Clicking on the discussion link for this page does not return the same error.

Any suggestions how to fix?

I have a screengrab if it's any help?

thanks,

jason

avaiki (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh. When I was on the Project Page, I could use either the "Participants" link in the Contents box or I could scroll down to reach the list of Participants.  Using either the "Edit" link in the upper-right hand corner of the Participants box or the "Add Name" link in the top-center worked for me.


 * When I used the "Members" link in the right-hand infobox, it worked, too: I was taken to the Members page just fine, and was able to edit the page to add myself.  Clicking on the link to the Talk page next to "Members" also worked.  (Obviously, because that is where we are having that discussion.)


 * Sometimes, I.E. mis-interprets what Wikipedia is trying to do. I would suggest deleting your temporary Internet files and then trying to reload the page.  I've never seen Firefox do this, so I'm not sure how to correct in in that browser.  I guess my other question would be:  What page were you starting from?  The Project Page?  Or some other page? - Tim1965 (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability of strikes
Many pages under this WikiProject contain "notable strikes." The most prominent is List of strikes, but you can also find notable strikes listed on other pages. For example, see the section on the Teamsters page. I have a problem: I don't think every strike is notable. And yet, every strike in the world is getting added to every page. Wikipedia is not "strike news central," and it is not a site to advertise a union's current strikes. Wikipedia's notability guidelines are helpful in this regard, but not conclusive. Briefly, the guidelines require: The guidelines are quite clear: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage."
 * Significant coverage - Sources must address the subject directly in detail, no original research is needed, and coverage is more than trivial but may be less than comprehensive.
 * Reliabile Soruces - Sources must have editorial integrity, be verifiable per the reliable source guideline.
 * Multiple Sources - There must be multiple secondary sources addressing the topic. Several sources simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence does not always constitute multiple sources.
 * Independent Sources - Sources must be independent of the subject. Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large.
 * Presumption - Substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability. For example, minor news stories may not actually support notability, despite their existence as reliable sources.

Are these guidelines enough? I'm unsure. For example: A local teachers' union strike will have many news sources which cover the strike non-trivially, are reliable, come from multiple sources, and which are independent of the subject. The strike may even meet the "short burst of news coverage" test. (We often read something in a news story such as: "This is only the second strike in the school district in the past 20 years. The teachers last struck in 1980. That strike, too, was over pay and class size, and lasted three weeks." Although, this may not meet the "trivial mention" criteria.) Retrospective news stories, too, are often published about a local strike by a local newspaper. Does a single retrospective article in the same town newspaper where the strike occurred establish notability? I hestiate to agree.

Part of the problem I'm confronting is that I don't want to get locked into a lengthy discussion of the notability every single strike on the List of strikes page. Even if the existing Notability guidelines cover something, it's sometimes not clear how they apply to strikes without thinking them through. I'd love to make it much clearer by establishing something similar to what the Notability (people) or Notability (organizations and companies) have.

Some things I would propose for discussion:
 * Book of lists is not enough - Increasingly, there are books out there (some by academics) which list so-called important strikes. This is not enough to establish notability. Such books are loaded up with trivial strikes simply to reach a size large enough to be published. The article on the strike in that book would need to be non-trivial, provide a rational establishing the strike's notability, and cite references itself.  If it lacks the latter two, additional reliable, neutral, non-news source references (preferably academic sources) would be needed to establish notability.
 * Numbers - Merely mentioning numbers is not enough. A company with 100,000 unionized employees is struck; is that notable? I propose no.  The union may strike after every contract expiration, and thus each strike is not notable based on numbers alone.  Additional rationales would need to be offered by the sources to establish notability.
 * First is not enough - A first strike is not enough to establish notability. Nor would a strike be notable if it were "the first strike in 10/15/20/25 years" at the company.  "Only" may be enough to establish notability, but it would merely establish presumption (and that presumption could be rebutted absent additional sources and rationales establishing notability).
 * Neither success nor failure is important - A strike which results in big wage and/or benefit increases is not enough to be notable. The success must be notable for other reasons.  Nothing is notable about a strike or series of strikes which results in a series of rich (or poor) contracts.  A strike which broke the pattern of contracts (e.g., which finally won a rich contract) would presumed to be notable.  Failed strikes are not notable, either (sadly, they are more common than I wish).  What I am saying is that strikes are different; it is not enough to say "the strike led to a contract" or "despite the strike, the resulting contract gains were minimal" or "the strike collapsed".  Strike notability goes beyond this.
 * Non-strike-related effects can establish notability - The success or failure of a strike may not be notable, but strikes can have effects outside the strike itself. For example, a strike might destroy division within a union and, for the first time, create solidarity.  A strike may be the first time that a union conducted a strike "professionally" or using a certain technique (such as public relations, grassroots outreach, or the Internet).  A strike might also have an unintended effect which is notable.  For example, the Florida statewide teachers' strike of 1968 was a failure, but teachers became much more militant, the state's dominant teachers union fragmented (leading to the establishment of new, militant unions), and major organizing campaigns led to most of the teachers being unionized within a few years.
 * Assessment of notability must be non-trivial and neutral - This can't be a guideline, it has to be a rule. It's far too easy for news sources to say "this is the most important strike in 25 years."  A newspaper needs to say such things in order to sell papers.  Without analysis of why a strike is important, such claims are trivial.  Repetition of such claims is also non-trivial.  (Every union leader claims his or her strike is "the most important"; it is part of their job to create solidarity.  Employers, too, say such things to dig in their heels.)  Such claims are also clearly not neutral. Merely being reported in a neutral source does not, in itself, create NPOV.  An academic assessment, an assessment at least five years after the strike, or an assessment backed up by analysis and evidence would be non-trivial.

These are some ill-thought-out thoughts. Please comment! Thanks! - Tim1965 (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There are some good observations here about ways in which a strike may be not notable. I wonder if it would be helpful to explore the reasons a strike might deserve mention (or not). I expect that the varieties of reasons might be both interesting and enlightening in regard to the question of notability.


 * I'm thinking, for example, of the United Mine Workers strike in Colorado in 1903-04. It accomplished almost nothing, in and of itself. The most interesting detail about this strike, organizers and union officials were frequently beaten bloody by unknown thugs as they traveled to meet with dispersed groups of coal miners. That in itself isn't particularly significant (sorry to say) because it happened so often. But several years after the strike failed, Morris Friedman wrote an amazing expose' which described how the United Mine Workers had been thoroughly infiltrated by Pinkertons, whose operatives were apparently passing union info to the coal mining companies. Would that make the strike notable? We wouldn't even know about it, if Friedman hadn't worked as a stenographer for the Pinkertons. The spying was undoubtedly a reason for the strike's failure. And, this same union launched the Ludlow strike twelve years later. The failure of the earlier strike resulted in the UMWA devising new techniques which in 1912 (via disinformation and deception) turned the company spying network into a successful organizing tool.


 * (Friedman also wrote in his book about Pinkerton activities relevant to the WFM and its 1903 strike, which was undoubtedly notable...)


 * I guess my take is, the 1903-04 UMWA strike wasn't notable in itself, but surrounding events make it worth mentioning in articles about related topics that are notable. It could be mentioned briefly in articles about Friedman's book, about the Pinkertons, about the Ludlow strike, and about labor spying in general, and the purpose would be served. Without other notability, maybe it doesn't need an article of its own. Should it still be in the List of strikes, because of (what we might call) connections to notability? And how would we categorize that? Or do these connections make the strike notable, and therefore deserving of its own article? Richard Myers (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC) (minor edit to correct date) Richard Myers (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)