Jump to content

Talk:List of strikes/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

General strike list

There is also a list of notable strikes under General Strike would it make more sense to include both lists in one place? Hmette 14:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Updates

I have begun adding articles to complete this list using Filippelli's encyclopedia of Labor Conflict in the US. It will take some time.Hank chapot 23:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Strikes in France

I added the french strike that took place earlier this year to the list, but the french strikes on the 1990's isn't listed, and i didnt find an article, or reference on wikipedia about it. I don't quite rember the exact year it took place, either. It should be added to the list. Pyramide 17:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Nor are the wildcat strikes by Arab workers in the car plants in France in the 1970s.... and I don't see a list of strikes on the French wiki. gren グレン 15:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Either this list should be comprehensive and provide links where articles exist, or it should list only those strikes and general strikes which have Wikipedia articles. Creating a list which has a large number of red-links is not appropriate, especially when most of those red-links have remained that way for the better part of a year (e.g., no one has any intention of creating any articles for these strikes). I can also tell that this list is not meant to be comprehensive because 99 percent of strikes worldwide never appeared here. To clean up the list, I removed the inappropriate links and entries. - Tim1965 19:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

i disagree. The red links give incentive to people to correct them, and I will soon be providing wikipedia entries for most of them, based on the book referenced 67.101.40.61 04:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
These bad links are a real problem. Here's why they will not encourage people to write articles:
These points are true, but they don't present a large problem - that's what redirects are for. Warofdreams talk 19:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no point in even having this article if not for strikes without articles. If you want a list of strikes that Wikipedia has articles for, that is what categories are for. If anything, the wikilinks for strikes without articles could be removed, leaving a list of strikes without red links. --Pascal666 23:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This article has a large number of problems, in addition to the problem of redlinks: It lacks a lead, it lacks references and citations, it lacks universality (it is notoriously U.S.-centric, and Filippelli's entries only make that worse), and it lacks criteria for inclusion on the list (most importantly, notability). But Wikipedia's guidelines on lists clearly indicate that a list should focus on articles, not random collections of information: "Stand-alone lists, including 'lists of links', are articles consisting of a lead section followed by a list (or a list of lists)." (emphasis added) I am not averse to redlinks. The problem is a larger one of notability, and that has not been established for the strikes which were included here and which came from Filippelli's book—nor does his book alone establish notability.

There are other issues, too:

  1. The claim that redlinks encourage users to write articles is not borne out by experience. For example, 67.101.40.61's claim that s/he'll be adding articles on most of these redlinks based on Filippelli's book has proven false. Indeed, most of the redlinks existed on this page for the past six months, and only one or two were filled in. Redlinks might just as easily encourage authors to use the title taken from Filippelli's book, rather than use the more correct Wikipedia form for the title.
  2. Titles which fit Wikipedia's style guidelines are also an issue. For example, most of the Colorado mine strikes (added to this list by referencing Filippelli's book) of the early 1900s are covered in the article Colorado Labor Wars. What Filippelli calls a strike may not be what Wikipedia calls that same strike. Wikipedia has guidelines for titling articles which may not match what Filipelli (or someone else) might call that event. Some of these titles don't make sense, because they are not spelled out (what, for example is the "1970 UPR Strike"? University of Puerto Rico? Utah Public Radio? Unia Polityki Realnej?)
  3. Existing strike articles are not reference by using Filippelli's titles. For example, there is an article on the Bisbee Deportation. Yet, there is a redlink in the List of strikes article to the very same event: Bisbee Arizona, Miners' Strike. For another example, there is already a link to the Centralia Massacre on the list (Centralia Massacre (Washington)), but because Filippelli called it something else, there is now a second, redlinked article (Centralia Washington Massacre). There was already an entry to the Great Southwest Railroad Strike of 1886, but then a new redlink was added to Southwest Railroad Strike. There's a Gurindji Strike already, but also a redlink to Anyone adding to this list can't just toss Filippelli's titles for strikes onto the list. Each even has to be researched using Wiki's search engines, and the correct Wikipedia title for the strike used.
  4. There are errors of placement in the list. For example, the redlink to 1909 Swedish General Strike should be in the "Chronological List of General Strikes" section. Filippelli may not distinguish between narrow and general strikes, but this list does.
  5. Finally, Filippelli's book focuses on strikes where the use of force was used. It is not an encyclopedia of all strikes, nor an encyclopedia of important strikes. The book also includes public disruptions where there is merely competition for jobs (such as anti-Chinese mob violence), where unions were involved in the disrupton but not central to the event, and to slave rebellions. This raises distinct problems of notability (as it does for any "run of the mill strike" which someone might wish to add to Wikipedia).

At the very least, these issues should be addressed. I would further argue that redlinking is probably inappropriate (given the very large number of entries which editors would like to add from Filippelli's book). If a person reviews the lists Wikipedia points to in its list style-guide page, redlinks exist in those lists. But redlinks don't dominate them, and the titles of redlinked articles are already agreed upon (economic terms, for example, are universally used and known; what to call a given strike is not universally accepted). - Tim1965 15:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

/shrug. I wrote an article to fix a redlink. Can't say it NEVER inspires a new article.  :)--James52 (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
So did I.  :) So that's two of us. But just two... *sigh* :/ - Tim1965 (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It is now more than a year since Tim1965's original message, and this list is still made up mostly of redlinks. I think we need a moratorium on the addition of new strikes to this list unless said strikes already have articles. Even stubs would be better than so many redlinks. How many of these strikes are really notable? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What is a "Strike"?

I conceive of a strike must involve withholding of labor as a tactic to some end, and most dictionaries will back up me up there.

We have several important protests listed here that I don't think qualify as strikes. First and foremost the Bonus Army was an important event but it consisted of retirees and the unemployed, who could hardly withhold their labor. I've removed that item but I wanted to get feedback before proceeding. DirectRevelation (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

See the article Strike action for a definition of a strike. I agree that this list is problematic (see the comment above). For another example: The East St. Louis Riot started out as a strike by the AFL, which led to large numbers of blacks working as strikebreakers. It's really a race riot, but does it go here? My argument would be that the trade unions must either be an instigator of the primary civil disturbance and/or a prominent participant in the disturbance. This would include on this list the Seattle riot of 1886 (the Knights of Labor instigate a riot which leads to the expulsion of all Chinese from Seattle and Tacoma) and the East St. Louis Riot. It would exclude, however, the WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity. It did not involve a job action, for one thing, but the AFL-CIO neither instigated the protest (it just participated like any other group, although it had the largest delegation there) nor participated in the riot (anarchists are generally considered to have rioted). - Tim1965 (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that is an ideal definition. It seems to exclude many "wildcat" strikes, as they are often organised by political tendencies, by shop stewards or by ad-hoc committees, and are sometimes actively opposed by the official trade union. It also excludes some early strikes, such as the Canut revolts or those during the Radical War, which occurred before trade unions of any size were established in the affected areas. On the other hand, if a labour organisation instigates a significant event (protest, riot, demonstration, conference, etc) which does not involve withholding labour, I can't see that it can be defined as a strike and appear on this list. I'd prefer asking whether we can realistically link to something which is about a strike, as defined in our article on the subject, whether an article or a section within it. If the strike action doesn't merit even a section in the article on a topic, it shouldn't merit inclusion in this list; if it does, then we have the evidence that the strike is noteworthy. Warofdreams talk 22:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that the purpose of a strike (political, grievance-related, etc.) matters. Whether it is "sanctioned" or not is also, I would think, irrelevant; some unions sanction strikes, others do not, and some wildcat strikes are sanctioned by the union but in contravention of the contract (hence, wildcat). I agree with you on the guideline that an event must include the withholding of labor, but the examples I cite above ([[:Seattle riot of 1886], East St. Louis Riot) meet that definition. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What about the Luddite rebellion? --Hank chapot (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I would include it. The Luddites engaged in the withholding of labor, as well as vandalism and other violent acts against employers. In more modern (biased?) parlance, the Luddites would be considered a "pre-union" movement. But I would include it here. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actions against Unions themselves (as employers)

There is currently a strike going on in Oregon by the teachers' union's own employees (office staff) against the union as their employer. I recall another case a few years ago where a union's employees wanted to unionize, and the union (as employer) allegedly engaged in illegal union-busting activities. I'd love to see a section on this. Thoughts? SkyDot (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

VSEL 1988

I've added this to the list, is it worth mentioning that a fair number of those striking were also shareholders in the recently privatized VSEL? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.137.204 (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

US bias?

This list is very biased towards strikes in the USA and seems to ignore labor history before ~1890. Lumos3 11:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Probably because those who have written it are from the United States and only have knowledge of events after 1890. Why don't you add some non US strikes occurring before 1890 to fix the problem. --The_stuart 13:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I added some UK rail strikes and an Italian strike.92.16.213.236 (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

strike list

Good stuff, but the compiling has a long way to go. I could not find, for instance, in the Wikipedia list any mention of Israel, where there have been many general strikes, and many of which have been followed by vicious attacks on Palestinians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.88.181 (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Current Section?

I came here hoping to find a current list of strikes. I think that would be very useful to have. 68.41.184.209 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

2018 Australian student walkout protesting climate change

How come the 2018 Australian student walkout against climate change isn't listed here? I reckon it's pretty notable considering protests occurred all over the country in Melbourne for example.ToQ100gou! ToQ100gou! Shupatsu Shinkou! (the chitter-chatter) 03:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_strikes/Archive_1&oldid=1136953352"