Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jan 2006 - Jun 2006

Contents

[edit] 1969 police strike in Montreal

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)

[edit] {{union-stub}}

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)

[edit] Labour disputes by country

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)

[edit] Union bug

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 Berkeley on the bug.--Bookandcoffee 17:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's excellent, a very good reference to start from. - Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 6 August 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)

[edit] NPOV problems

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)

[edit] assessment department

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)
  • I started this today. There are changes to the {{LabourProject}} tag, as well as a new Assessment department. It will take a bit of time for the bot to recognize and setup some of the data pages.--Bookandcoffee 20:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Internationalisation

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)

[edit] Stubs (again)

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)

[edit] What is an "international" union?

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)

[edit] Internationalisation and Summaries page

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)

[edit] Norman Tebbit as trade unionist

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)

[edit] Outreach

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)

[edit] History of Solidarity

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)

[edit] Project directory

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)

[edit] ICFTU - WCL merger

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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Organized_Labour_8446.html"