Talk:List of striking United States workers by year

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 July 2023. The result of the discussion was merge.

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Orange County Transportation Authority#Labor disputes|2007 Orange County transit strike]] The anchor (#Labor disputes) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
[[Pan Am Railways#Labor disputes and mismanagement|Guilford Transportation Industries railroad workers' strike]] The anchor (Labor disputes and mismanagement) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Shorter name

I would rename this article to List of US strikes. This article is about the strikes themselves, not a literal article about the publication by BLS, which is of course an excellent source ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a decent point. But I think since the strike history is limited to the time period of recorded strike number information. It would probably be better to rename it to Striking US workers by year, Bureau of Labor Statistics?

Since you can remove 'list of' from the title of lists. And the year range might be excessive. It is ultimately still restricted and partially about the BLS information.

The BLS information is important, there are secondary sources that review each included section of time. But previously not concisely or in an easily accessible way. LoomCreek (talk) 07:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see BLS as a high quality source. But this is an article ABOUT this example of scholarly work. Are there even many US labor strikes pre 1881? In order for this to be an article ABOUT BLS strikes, we would need scholarly sources that are independent of BLS writing about it? I think the earlier discussions muddled it a bit by focusing whether the info here is encyclopaedic at all or not, which it certainly is. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about strikes in the US--more exactly an annual list of strikes with links to the Wikipedia article on each strike, and a count of the number of strikers (the usual measure of magnitude) plus a graph of the magnitudes. It covers two topics: names of strikes and number of strikers. For simplicity I agree the best name is "Strikes in USA since 1881." Yes there were some strikes before 1881 (Most famous: Lowell mill girls = 1834 & 1836 women in Lowell mills went on strike)--also see https://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/essays/trade-unions-1820s-30s/ Maybe someday a reliable source will provide a compilation we can use.Rjensen (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case maybe Striking US workers by year would be the best title? If a rename to "US Strikes since 1881" is wanted I won't oppose it. I just think it might muddle the articles clarity, which is to provide the strikes in the context of the level of strike activity in that year. LoomCreek (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LoomCreek US strikes by year would be my preference. I think the explanation of BLS methodology inside the article is very helpful/should stay for what it is worth. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, given both you and Rjensen think it's the best idea I'll support it. As long as the data and explanation remain I have no issues.

I'll probably just slightly reorganize the article in the next few weeks once someone else has done the name change, to simply ensure that information remains. LoomCreek (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an update I've just shortened the current title just till a final decision. Simply because of the potential merger. LoomCreek (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]