Talk:Anti-union violence

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for merging with Industrial violence on April 2011. The result of the discussion was not merge.

PROD

As simple case of a WP:POINT essay in mainspace. Collect (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC) [1] makes the case that this is directly a WP:POINT essay by the way. Collect (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see the point being made here.

The closest i can perceive, is perhaps this, from WP:POINT:

If you have nominated an article for deletion, and others vote to keep it...

- do make your case clearly in the discussion, noting examples of articles that could exist under the rationale for keeping the one in question.

- do not create an article on what you consider to be a similarly unsuitable topic just to get it listed for deletion and have others make the same arguments you are making.

If i had indeed violated this, i could understand the reason for this action. However, i did not create this article. The individual who improved the article that i did AFD, Union violence, created this article as part of that improvement. In my understanding, the creation of this article answered a point i made in the Union violence AFD, which was: If [Union violence] presents a seeming balance between "union violence" and "management violence", [both of which were a part of that article, then] why is the article named for just one side of that equation?

Again, i did not create this article. In fact, i did not edit this article in any way until after the AFD for Union violence was closed. Therefore, i consider that the above argument is invalid, it does not apply, it is an erroneous basis on which to assail the existence of this article.

If there is some other provision of WP:POINT that someone believes does apply, please enlighten me, because i've gone through that guideline, and i don't see any relevance whatsoever. Richard Myers (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline states, "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason"

I object for the reasons stated above. I have removed the message.

Further clarification, the individual who did start this article, Remni40, did not nominate any related article for deletion, and therefore WP:POINT does not apply there, either. In fact, WP:POINT does not apply at all. Richard Myers (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 edits by the other person - every other edit done by you. Still WP:POINT. The other editor has a total of 79 Wikipedia edits. And is all of one week old. Still WP:POINT Collect (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, why is it that you keep finding fault, i.e., deleting links and sections, coatrack, point, canvass, etc., and use these procedures to report me for this and that?

Why not just help to edit the article, and discuss improvements on the talk page rather than taking a meat cleaver or a scatter gun approach?

I thought we were here to make articles better, and that's what i'd very much like to do.

I note your history of edit warring and being blocked; i've never had any of that. I just wish to edit, and make these articles better. Richard Myers (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My "target" is WP:BLP. If you examine the reversals of my latest "blocks" you would better understand Wikipedia dynamics, to be sure. I have now edited about 1,500 articles - which means I run into some very strong POV-pushers from time to time. My "edit war" was to insist that Joe the Plumber's occupation was not "plumber's ass" as one editor sought, and that Sarah Palin did not believe in "Jesus ponies" etc. I know about CANVASS having had a page be canvassed for 24 editors to votestack on me :(. Read WP:False consensus for the result. Collect (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand BLP, and i understand quality sources. If you find sources that are not quality, i appreciate your input. I think the Indiana-related edits will stand, but we shall see. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have a judicious opinion offered by Jonathanwallace, an "an uninvolved editor": [2] No BLP concerns. No coatrack concerns. No jurisdiction pleaded for WP:POINT, but a comment suggesting that it doesn't apply either. Let us please accept this as closing the arguments about this article's right to exist. Richard Myers (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Merger discussion here. --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems much is not about "violence" at all

Use of the law against unions which break the law seems not to fit any reasonable definition of "violence" I can find. Might someone explain how non-violence becomes violence? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also "inter-union vioklence" seems not to be in this article, although it is a very interesting part of union history. Collect (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there nothing about the 'Battle of Blair Mountain', and precious little about the Appalachian mine wars in this aticle?Lyricmac (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acquire sources and edit away. Richard Myers (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U.S.-centric content

Seems an appropriate time to expand the section about contemporary anti-union violence to include events in Bengladesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.244.33 (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article should really be titled US union violence, considering it draws 90% of its content from US history. TokyoTrainStyle (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very much agree with that observation. I propose splitting this out into "Anti-union violence" and "Anti-union violence in the United States". Comments welcome. --Lockley (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Right now, the small amount of content from outside the US is lost among all the US incidents. Plazak (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

oh, hi, @Plazak:, glad to see you here. If you have ideas about the best way to proceed on this issue, I'd be happy to contribute, and, you know, actually work a little. best! --Lockley (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be so US-centric that all I can think of is to copy the whole thing to a new article, Anti-union violence in the United States, then systematically remove the non-US content from the US article, and remove the specifically US content from this article, leaving a link. Obviously, most of the cutting would be from this article. Hopefully, an article less dominated by US content would attract a wider variety of international content. What do you think? Plazak (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes good sense to me. I'd advocate asking for other voices here, wait one day, maybe two days, and then if no objections appear, haul off and let's follow your suggestion. Plazak, if I'm being honest, something in the back of my head still objects to the very construction of articles called "union violence" and "anti-union violence", because that starts off the binary thinking, sets up two teams to root for, and the filtering of these events through the smeary goggles of partisan politics. But I can live with that. Adding a worldwide view here? That's worth doing. --Lockley (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's a good idea to wait a bit for other opinions. Plazak (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one objected, so here I go. Plazak (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of violence

This article seems to count any anti-union activity as violence. The 1st sentence mentions "bullying and aggression," which are somewhat vague and not necessarily violent. Later, the text includes labor spies, humiliation, wasting union funds, and wrongful convictions all as violence. My dictionary defines violence as "physical force used as to injure or damage," which is pretty much the common understanding. I believe that this article should be on actual physical violence, and move the non-violent abuses to another article, such as union busting. Thoughts? Plazak (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly agree with that. Intimidation, spying, etc. are not violence. Re-reading the existing article with that in mind, I concur that we should limit this to examples of physical force against people. We'll have many to choose from. As to exporting that existing material, I wouldn't care if it got removed entirely; it seems to me like a wandering series of observations about the characteristics of different strikes, all U.S. examples, with not much of an underlying structure or point. We can do better. --Lockley (talk) 03:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions are starting to make this an article of international scope. How about this for a lead paragraph:

"Anti-union violence is physical force intended to harm union members, their families, or union sympathizers. It is most commonly used either during union organizing efforts, or during strikes. The aim most often is to prevent a union from forming, to destroy an existing union, or to reduce the effectiveness of a union or a particular strike action. If strikers prevent people or goods to enter or leave a workplace, violence may be used to allow people and goods to pass the picket line."

What do you think? Plazak (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a solid start, plunk it in when you're ready --Lockley (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-union violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Gender, Race and Computing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rug005ucsd (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Racoon dolphin (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]