Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

The Burke Group revisited

Apologies, i haven't visited the labor project page in many months, hope i'm posting this in the right place.

I'm wondering if we may have a new individual (Jbowersox) who might be from The Burke Group, editing The Burke Group.

Please see my comments/questions here:

Talk:Union_busting#Goals_of_Union_Busters

I may have laid it on a little thick (at least one person thinks so), but after an in-depth exploration, i felt justified.

For context:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Organized_Labour/Archive_5#The_Burke_Group

and,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Burke_Group

(especially discussion near the end)

best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The editor denies any association with TBG, and for now i will assume honest intentions. Richard Myers (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I wouldn't be so trusting.--Cerejota (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
To elaborate, just look at his contribs and the edit summaries at The Burke Group, to which he lovingly refers to as "TBG". I know crap about unions, but I know TBG likes to bust em, because the article pretyt much says so. I have tagged his page with a COI template to make sure.--Cerejota (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I've added some evidence to the Talk:Union_busting page which is suggestive of Jbowersox being a sock puppet.--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


One last chance before we take the next step...
Talk:The_Burke_Group#Jbowersox.2C_please_respond
best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Want to let everyone know that my exploration of the Jbowersox sock puppetry and COI issues is now essentially complete. Jbowersox denies everything, but has claimed to be (1) a 35 year veteran of the union busting industry, as well as (2) a middle class female school teacher who has nothing to do with the union busting industry. Of course, the students get the blame for any sock puppetry accusations... Wikipedia was a class project, doncha know.
I'm convinced that Jbowersox is the same individual who was blocked for sock puppetry long ago. The whole conversation is at the above link, if anyone is interested. I'd appreciate if someone could sanity-check my research and my impressions, and maybe suggest if we should file a formal report? Richard Myers (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's my situation. There are very strong "coincidences", considerable circumstantial evidence, that suggests the sock puppetry that had certainly ocurred in April of last year, has continued beyond the blocking of those accounts. There is the strong possibility of COI.

I strongly suspect that Jbowersox has willfully broken some important Wikipedia policies and rules. But i'm not absolutely certain.

Add to this, there's a slight difficulty with one of the key edits that i had concerned myself with, the deletion of a paragraph (by Oppo212, Rgcroc, and then Jbowersox, all of whom share some characteristics and styles, not to mention philosophy) which used this as a source:

[1]

The deleted paragraph actually was an imperfect representation of that source.

In brief, the document by John Logan stated some general tactics of union busters, then attributed some specific actions to the Burke Group. My problem with the passage, there was incomplete specific attribution in the source of these to the Burke Group as general tactics.

Here's the passage that was deleted from the article at least three times:

TBG recommends that employers use their management staff to meet workers individually in an attempt to strongly persuade them of the perceived disadvantages of voting to be a part of a union. This may include arguing that a union will decrease pay, that workers could end up on strikes all the time, and that unions would harass them at their homes.<ref>Logan, ''U.S. Anti-Union Consultants: A Threat to the Rights of British Workers'' (2008) pp.6</ref>

The source implied that the Burke Group routinely uses these tactics, in that it discussed the tactics generally, and then examined case histories of Burke Group consulting. In different case histories, the source gave one brief example of the Burke Group's use of each. But it didn't state explicitly that these were general tactics used by the Burke Group.

I feel that it would have been more accurate for the article to state (according to this source) that union busters generally use these tactics, and Logan documented at least one example of each use by the Burke Group (rather than using the somewhat stronger implication "this may include...")

That's a subtle difference. The article was technically true, but through injudicious wording it created a somewhat erroneous impression of what the source stated implicitly, and what the source merely implied.

In my own view this certainly did not justify deleting the passage, the way that our apparent sock puppets sought to solve the problem (and may have succeeded -- the passage is gone, and i haven't tracked its history after Jbowersox revised and partially deleted it). But the passage was imperfect in representing the source.

Now, our sock puppets in two examples gave false analysis of the mis-characterization of the source, i.e.,

"Deleted paragraph. The data is not found in the corresponding citation. It describes "generic" tactics as written by Martin Levitt, not TBG, belongs in Union buster post, not here"

and

"Removed John Logan citation which quotes autobiography Confessions by MJ Levitt whose book never mentions TBG--"

So we have probable sock puppets editing with a meat cleaver -- when editing with a scalpal would be the appropriate fix -- and using false justification for doing so.

But the fact that the example i would like to use is (was) a slightly compromised example makes me hesitate to use it.

I started this inquiry, and i know a lot more than i did a week ago. But there's one critical issue that i still don't have a handle on: who is Jbowersox -- a union buster with a Burke Group COI cleverly masquerading as a teacher, or a teacher with some bias against unions, who happens to know the CEO and President of the Burke Group? I still don't know.

Also be aware, JeremyMcCracken has done some additional investigation, he describes that here:

User_talk:Richard_Myers#Re:_Query_about_the_possible_return_of_a_sock_puppet

Interestingly, that additional individual (Arabianrider (talk · contribs)), whom JeremyMcCracken suspects as a possible additional sock puppet, also claims to know the CEO and President of the Burke Group. But this individual describes a different identity, claiming to know the big guy through a flying club. [2]

Could be that these are all sock puppets, and are the result of a clever individual who has created multiple personal identities in an effort to avoid blocks. If that's the case, i think we need access to better tools (possibly checkuser?) in order to investigate and come to a conclusion.

I invite anyone who has reviewed the situation to judge for themselves whether to file, and i certainly release them to take whatever course of action they find appropriate.

Probably the strongest evidence we have is what we started with -- IP info tying Rgcroc to Jbowersox -- together with the denial that was elicited from Jbowersox through discussion -- all of which is noted here: Talk:The_Burke_Group. If that stands up, then we have a strong case for sock puppetry -- and a very clever masquerade by the sock puppeteer. I'm not an expert on the way that Wikipedia presents IP info, so i'm probably not the best person to file.

thanks, best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Some recent, related commentary...
Jbowersox has denied being Rgcroc.
Rgcroc claimed to be "in the legal world"
[3]
Jbowersox describes "just being a typical lawyer" here:
[4]
Rgcroc talks about "a different experience in the UK vs the US. There needs to be a cross cultural agreement. Labor laws differ UK to US to Canada etc."
[5]
Jbowersox is helpful in a similar manner, "Employers in the UK cannot be "union free" in the same sense as in the U.S.", on the same page:
[6]
I haven't listed a number of other similarities that i've encountered. I do consider all of this growing circumstantial evidence that Jbowersox not only has a COI, but also is (was) Rgcroc, in spite of a flat denial. The alleged teaching job claimed separately by Jbowersox (with a predictable sockpuppet defense, blaming the students for other Wikipedia identities) is probably bogus, but i can't say for sure.
Meanwhile, the union busting article has been edited with a subtle commercial bias, using the commercial website of The Burke Group as an attributed source:
[7]
Here is the diff citing the Burke Group website as a source for some of the "commercial-sounding" contributions to the article about union busting:
[8]
This edit was made by Jbowersox, and the commercial-sounding contributions were added in the surrounding edits, also by Jbowersox.
Understand, Jbowersox is not disruptive in the way that typical sock puppeteers have often been disruptive. Jbowersox has contributed a few edits which have some merit. Jbowersox does communicate in a civil manner, albeit with questionable credibility relating to identity and purpose. But Jbowersox contributes a very significant amount of content that defends union busters in general, and the Burke Group in particular. Jbowersox creates a tremendous amount of extra work in those articles that are thus targeted. Richard Myers (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Jbowersox has been blocked for sock puppetry. Thanks, everyone, who provided support in this investigation. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


Our Burke Group sock puppet is back, again, this time with a new twist: admitting an association with the Burke Group:
Talk:The_Burke_Group#Soapbox.2C_Propaganda_and_Advertising
best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
...and is blocked again.--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. This time it took 11 minutes from formal notification to block, and only 35 minutes overall after my initial message to Jeremy McCracken, who filed. Impressive work by Jeremy and Wikipedia's administrators, i think. Richard Myers (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems to never end. The latest incarnation of the Burke Group sock puppet is "Oscarnight". In the latest entry, he identifies himself as, apparently, a manager with the Burke Group, and appears to blame sock puppetry on underlings. But this is just a continuation of Oppo212/Rgcroc/Jbowersox/Tbg2.

Another current editor of the article, THF, is a right wing lawyer with the American Enterprise Institute. He specializes in defending corporations. His editing on Wikipedia is very prolific and, judging from early history, partisan and controversial. I haven't had the time to evaluate recent edits, and am not therefore making any sort of complaint about THF – for now. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Attacks against the Burke Group article are beginning to look like a full court press: [9]
As a matter of interest, THF typically spends eleven or so hours a day, constantly editing Wikipedia articles. Not that i'm critical of the number of hours; it just appears that the American Enterprise Institute is probably paying him to do Wikipedia editing as a fulltime job.
The latest Burke Group sock puppet has been quiet the last few days. Perhaps the work has been contracted out... ?? Richard Myers (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Union Busting disagreement

There is a sticky disagreement over the Union Busting article, summarized here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Union_busting#Universal_Human_Right_to_Join_Trade_Unions Is there a universal right to join a union, and should that be included? Note that the discussion is a continuation from the previous section. I haven't expressed an opinion, but i would like to hear the opinion of others (on that talk page). best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is such a right. And since Wikipedia articles must be universal in nature, I would make reference to this universal right (although, perhaps separate article may need to be created on this topic?). The right to form and join a trade union has been declared a universal human right by the United Nations and its subsidiary, the International Labour Organization. A number of regional human rights treaties and social charters (particularly in Europe) also declare the right to be a universal human right. However, these are just declarations: You can say anything you like, but who will actually believe you? In international law, like any international declaration of human rights (such as those respecting free speech, freedom of religious practice, freedom of conscience, etc.), the right to form and join trade unions is usually recognized only by signatories to the declarations or conventions and sometimes only by those nations which have not only signed but also ratified these documents. For some listings of international legal conventions outlining the human right to form and join trade unions (which is inextricably linked to freedom of association), see:
I did a brief Google search ("international law" form trade union), and came up with these in just 15 minutes. Additional searches on different search terms, as well as spending more time searching, will undoubtedly lead to many additional citations. (A Google book search alone should be much more productive than the simple one I did on the entire Web.) The articles on Strikebreaker and International human rights law have some sources which may also be of help. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
A note, not ratifying an international convention of the ILO does not mean it does not apply. In fact it applies if the country is a member of the ILO. As for the UDHR it is in practice universal and recognised as such. The problem of course is enforcement.--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I would request editors to comment on a current debate on the union busting talk page, there seems to be an editor engaged in serious WP:DE, WP:PUSH and WP:BIAS (and to add to difficulties a sockpuppet has again turned up). The matter is over a definition of union busting. The editor has for the last week sought to exclude, middle-ground and derail attempts to define union busting in the context of the denial of the exercise universal human rights. The editor has demonstrated a severe lack of knowledge on the issue (eg no knowledge of trade union rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and is now introducing neoconservative arguments ("some people don't recognise the right") to justify the editor's position. This should be an important article for the organised labour project and deserves to have a definition characterised by a globally neutral understanding, not determined by neoconservative views.--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Filing the sockpuppet/meatpuppet report is probably the first step. But we might try informal mediation as well, which is the next step in the dispute resolution process. We should ask the Mediation Cabal to informally review the situation, and see if a resolution cannot be reached. Also, if an edit war is going on with more than three reverts, we should report that as well. - Tim1965 (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. As far as I can see the sock puppet is being taken care of and seems to be better handled by direct engagement. It is another editor who is causing the most difficulty presently. The editor has not begun edit warring/reverting and so far seems to have enough nous not to do this, though the editor has done a number of reverts, well spaced out not to be accused of edit warring. The level of obstinacy is high and shows significant levels of bad faith in my view, especially with the introduction of a very specific US neoconservative argument into the debate. I would appreciate other Organised Labour editors viewing the debate and commenting. Thank you.--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Young Christian Workers

That article does not seem to have a discussion page of its own and one is directed to the Wiki Project Organized Labour. I merely wished to note that there should be a reference, or redirection from "JOC" or "Jeunesse Ouvrière Chrétienne" to Young Christian Workers.Svato (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • You know, you can make that change yourself. That's the glory of Wikipedia! When you find an error like this, you can instantly correct it. We're all equals here, which means you have as much right to make those kind of corrections as anyone else. I strongly encourage your to do so! (Plus, it's fun!) - Tim1965 (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

Announcements
  • All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page.
  • Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
  • No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.
Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 22:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Chime on AfD

The article Daisy Rooks has been nominated for deletion. If you feel like chiming in one way or the other, please do so. - Tim1965 (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

American Miners' Association

The article American Miners' Association has just been declared an orphan. If anyone has appropriate places to add links to this brief article, it would be helpful. thanks, Richard Myers (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have created a new article, Miners' Protective Association. However, it is probably mis-named. I'm thinking it should be called something like the history of early hard rock miners' organizations. Before re-naming it, however, i think it would be good to determine whether it is best kept with a focus on hard rock mining, or if it could include coal mining as well. I haven't surveyed to see what general mining organization articles already exist, so if someone has suggestions or advice, please record them here. (The American Miners' Association, above, was for coal miners...) Richard Myers (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I turned Miners' Protective Association into a redirect, and moved the content to History of hard rock miners' organizations. Richard Myers (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Leif and Vivian Dahl

Leif Dahl, agricultural workers union meeting, Bridgeton, New Jersey, 1936.

Doing some trawling through the Library of Congress photo archive I came across a photo of Leif Dahl, which I uploaded to the commons. Doing some googling it looks like he was husband to Vivian Dahl, author of the famous text "Them Women Sure Are Scrappers". Both it seems were involved in setting up United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing, and Allied Workers of America and Leif was an editor of the union's journal in 1937 and involved in organising agricultural workers in New Jersey (and most likely other states). The other place they turn up is in HUAC hearings in 1938, where they are identified as communists. It seems like both of these persons would make good articles (there doesn't seem to be any). There is enough material for a picture of Leif's work in the late 1930s, but not much else. Anyone come across these people before and can suggest any further sources to find things like birth dates etc.--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Leif Arthur Dahl was born May 23, 1908, in Sioux City, Iowa, and died August 23, 1972. He was married to Vivian Will Dahl (b. February 6, 1911 d. July 5, 1982) during the time he organized unions. Ericajacobs (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Ericajacobs (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Edited date of death V. Dahl (typo) Ericajacobs (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Labor union

Labor union is a newly re-created article. The re-creating editor appears to hold an economic perspective, and possibly a business perspective. Prior edits of various articles by this author have removed language which union-knowledgeable editors might be comfortable with, and replaced it with purely economic language. I encourage everyone to watch this article, and help insure that it doesn't define labor unions too narrowly. Richard Myers (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The article has again been "un-created" and is once again a redirect link to Trade union. Richard Myers (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Upgrading the Organized Labour/LabourProject template

Not sure if people have noticed this before, but recently came across a rather nice feature of the Japan Project template. It has a small show/hide link which when clicked pops-down (is that the expression?) the current "to do" list of the project. The template is visible here. This is not my area of expertise, but fiddling round in the template sand box it seems relatively easy to create this. Basically it would require the following code added to the current LabourProject template (I've cut and pasted from the Japan template and replaced with Organised Labour):

<hr /> <div class="NavFrame collapsed" style="padding:0; border-style: none;"> <div class="NavFrame collapsed" style="border-style: none; padding: 0;"> <div class="NavHead" style="background: #F8EABA; text-align: left;">'''Organized Labour Open Tasks:'''</div> <div class="NavContent" style="text-align: left;"> <div class="noprint" style="white-space: nowrap; font-size: smaller; text-align: right; background:#ffffff;">[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Template:WikiProject Organised Labour/open tasks|action=edit}} edit] [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Template:WikiProject Organized Labour/open tasks|action=purge}} purge] </div> {{WikiProject Organised Labour/open tasks}} </div></td></tr>

and then an additional template called Template:WikiProject Organised Labour/open tasks.

What I am not sure about is how the open tasks template is created in such a way so that it is a mirror of the open tasks page.

What do editors think...useful? Anyone clear on the exact proceedure? --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, doing more work in the sandbox, came up with this which uses the existing open tasks template:
WikiProject Organized Labour
This project page is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.
I guess it is not as pretty as the Japan project one, but it still seems to acts as a way to encourage people to edit. I'm still not totally clear if this actually works the way it should...but it seems to. Would appreciate a more qualified comment...? --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Nao its prettier. Let me know if you need anything else ;)--Cerejota (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, doing further tweaks...--Cerejota (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Nao methinks its fine.--Cerejota (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

While not part of the Organized Labour project, I asked Cerejota to look at this since s/he has a lot coding experience. IMO this actually looks really good now (thanks, Cerejota!) and has the advantage of not being as intrusive as the Japan project template drop-down. I would recommend using this, but it would be good if other Organised Labour project editors can comment. Anyone? --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

well, it seems the whole banner system has been recoded, and the above no longer works...back to the sandbox.--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

New articles page...? Time for some editing?

The Wikipedia:WikiProject_Organized_Labour/New_Articles section dates back to January 2007...possibly a little overdue for some editing? Any problems with deleting entries older than three months?--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally think deleting past a year old would be reasonable. I sometimes browse back six months or so. But input from some others would be good before taking any action on this; i can see where the info might be helpful re: who is starting articles, and who focuses on what (in case anyone is interested in that...) best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem, will delete up to February 2008.--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

to do task, Bisbee Deportation surrounds

This is a candidate for the to do list, but i was scared off by the instructions to make entries very brief. Is that due to formatting issues, or just to reduce overall length?

We have the Bisbee Deportation, but there were surrounding events as well. For example, 17th Cavalry Regiment (United States) mentions strike duty at Globe, Arizona in 1917, related to the IWW and almost certainly related to Bisbee. I didn't see anything about a strike in the Globe article, and the 17th Cav article has just a sentence, and no link to the strike/deportation itself. Seems that someone with resources to research this might be able to tie in these other articles to Bisbee with just a couple of sentences, and links. There is also mention of Globe, here: [10]

Maybe someone more familiar with the limitations of the to do list can add this. Or, do the tie-ins in the articles, and forget the list. I'm unfortunately bogged down with other projects, and without adequate resources on the Bisbee deportation. Richard Myers (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Coeur d'Alene miners' dispute

This article, Coeur d'Alene miners' dispute, is actually about two labor struggles, separated by about seven years. The article covered both struggles when i first started editing there.

I'm wondering if it should be separated into two articles. There are an increasing number of links from other articles, and keeping track of which is which is a little weird.

It is possible to link into the second topic's subtitle, but i've found that not to work so well when someone decides to change any little thing in that subtitle.

Are there other examples of similar combination articles? Does it seem to work OK as is? Is there a better way to handle this?

Comments invited. Richard Myers (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar at all with this material, so not sure how helpful I can be, but.... The ideal might be that there would actually be three articles. One article on the Miners' movement at Coeur d'Alene in the 1890s (eg a summary of events and and explanation of the significance of those events), and then two separate articles detailing each strike. Of course that would mean more work and, possibly, some caution on WP:OR for the first article I suggested. Other than that the article as it is looks to be getting a little long, so for least amount of work I would say separate into two articles.--Goldsztajn (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the suggestions. I have adopted your first suggestion, and turned one article into three articles. I have moved full sections to the two new pages, and have summarized the content on the original page. I will later re-assign links (finished), and will eventually re-write, and consider re-naming the main article to better reflect its new purpose.
Making the changes so far has been easier than i anticipated. There's an "aftermath" section relevant to both incidents on the original page that needs to be revised and distributed, but i'll tackle that later. Completed. Richard Myers (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC bias?

I'm new to participating in this sort of evaluation:

[11]

So i'm just surmising. But it seems to me that the topic area Economy, trade, and companies might have a predominantly pro-corporate readership, simply because of the subject matter. Does that mean it could be, by default, a tool used to promote a "corporate" bias – as opposed to an "organized labor", "environmental", or "social good" bias – as part of the Request For Comment process?

RFC issues by topic area are:

Biographies; Economy, trade, and companies; History and geography; Language and linguistics; Maths, science, and technology; Art, architecture, literature and media; Politics; Religion and philosophy; Society, sports, law, and sex. [12]

I don't know if this is likely an issue or not, just thought i'd bring it up for discussion.

best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really sure, I think this problem is just deeper, viz. systemic bias in Wikipaedia. Labour issues could go in a number of those categories, I'm not sure there would be any less of a problem though.--Goldsztajn (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Making labor history accessible (via Wikipedia)

Wikipedia is used by a lot of students, either to get ideas for essays and papers, or for obtaining an overview of a certain topic.

How do students begin their search for ideas? I think it is reasonable to believe that many students check the Wikipedia page for their own community. And many of our communities have a rich labor history.

My suggestion: after we finish that great article on a union or a strike, we should establish summaries and links on all the relevant community pages (cities, counties, regions, etc., as appropriate) where such actions took place. That way, people (including students) will be able to more easily locate labor histories. I know that some of us create such link summaries routinely. But i expect that many of us could do better at it. For the little time it requires, i think the payoff is quite worthwhile. Richard Myers (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a possible downside to this, of course:
[13]
This deletion of carefully annotated history was apparently done for ideological purposes. Leave aside the fact that the Communist Party didn't exist as a viable entity at the time of the Western Federation of Miners.
I don't have a problem with separating the labor history into a separate article, if there is too much. But the WFM was founded in Butte, Montana, fer goodness sake. I'll discuss it on the Butte TALK PAGE, but this is frustrating.
But maybe there's help. On the TALK PAGE is this:
Talk:Butte,_Montana#Butte_Labor_History
Richard Myers (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up: someone has restored the labor history to the Butte page. Richard Myers (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:31, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Missing articles

FYI, there are several missing articles on labor leaders at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/biographies. Listed below. – Quadell (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

  1. Thomas William Gleason (Teddy Gleason)
    • Thomas William Gleason (Teddy) (1900–1992), U.S. labor leader; pres. of International Longshoremen's Association 1963-1987
  2. Daniel Keefe, Keefe, Daniel
    • Daniel Keefe (1855–1929), U.S. labor leader; 1st pres. of International Longshoremen's Association 1895-1909

Created the Daniel Keefe article.--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the Daniel Keefe article. If anyone has some time, would appreciate a quick comment, eg I think it's up to start class, but would like second opinion. Thanks.--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

First Division Association

Hi there.

There is currently a disagreement as to whether the article First Division Association should have been renamed to that title, or if it should be "FDA (trade union)".

I have absolutely no idea; it's not my field; I was just trying to help out a user.

At the moment, it's a dispute between two people, so in the interests of trying to reach a consensus, I'd be really grateful if anyone else could have a look at the discussion and add their opinion, in Talk:First Division Association.

Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  00:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Does it really require a "consensus", when it is a fact that the organisation is named the FDA, and that it is a trade union? I have put all the evidence necessary to prove these facts on the talk page of the "First Division Association", but it still remains with the wrong name, and with no reference to it being a trade union. I genuinely am bewildered by this dispute, and would be grateful if it can be resolved sensibly. Guineveretoo (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Please, please, please can someone explain to Haldraper what a trade union is, and that FDA is a trade union? S/he won't take it from me, and continues to amend the pages relating to the FDA!Guineveretoo (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What union? (USA 1940s, mining in Montana)

Trade union meeting, Butte, Montana USA, 1942.

I just loaded up this Russell Lee photo from the FSA-OWI-LOC archive, can anyone tell me what union this would be? --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This picture of Paul Fall Jr and this picture of miners seem to indicate the union is the Butte Miners Union, local 1. Would that be correct?--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Most likely Butte Miners' Union, Local 1, International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers. It was the only miners' union of any size in the city for most of Butte's history. There were many "mining unions" (representing carpenters, boilermakeers, large machine operators, plumbers, electricians, etc.) in the city, but that was the most prominent miners' union. It had been revived in 1934, and weathered a massive strike during the Great Depression. It was very active throughout the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. (See: "When Toil Meant Trouble: Butte's Labor Heritage." ButteAmerica.com. Has lots of nice sources, too. See also: Malone, Michael P.; Roder, Richard B.; and Lang, William L. Montana: A History of Two Centuries. 2d ed. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1991. ISBN 0295971290 particularly pages 327-330.) - Tim1965 (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. One question, if the distinction between the Western Federation of Miners and the International Union of Mine Mill and Smelter Workers is historical (ie the former became the latter)...should these not have two separate articles? --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I would argue not. This is not a merger (such as UNITE and HERE becoming UNITE HERE), but a mere name change from WFM to IMM. Name changes are quite common in labor unions, and among corporations. I find that the practice on Wikipedia is to keep the history in one spot, and just make the article title the most recent name. However, I agree this can be an incredibly grey area. (1199 is one case where the history is so confusing as to almost require a separate article to keep everything straight.) What I feel is maybe more appropriate for WFM/IMM is this: Why is the article the old name? Most articles about unions and corporations use the current name, or (in the case of defunct organizations) the last name used. But not in this case. Why? I don't know. Perhaps because the original article was about the WFM, and IMM history got appended to that? The question then arises: Was the more recent history appended inappropriately (e.g., should it have been added to a new IMM article)? No, I don't think so. But the article name should have changed, with a redirect from WFM pointing to the IMM article. As we have it now, there's a WFM article with IMM redirecting to it. Once IMM got merged into the Steelworkers, the Steelworkers article should take over the history of the union (now a division within the Steelworkers). But these are just my thoughts, and not well-developed thoughts yet. - Tim1965 (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
As a standard practice, adopting the most recent name for an organization seems to make sense. However, in this particular example, although the Steelworkers absorbed Mine Mill, they probably would prefer not to identify too closely with the history of that organization and its predecessor. They were ideological opponents for a significant period of time. And, between Mine Mill and the WFM, the WFM has the better known and more dramatic history. So i think it is reasonable to leave as is, even if that doesn't follow the standard practice. If Mine Mill still existed, i would not make this argument, but since Mine Mill no longer exists, i think it is fine as is. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Cato Institute editing of 1952 steel strike

A new user with a distinctive libertarian POV has been heavily editing the article 1952 steel strike. I would appreciate some other eyes looking at the changes, which are extensive. - Tim1965 (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal Labour Day v International Workers' Day

It seems every year there is a proposal but no movement on a merge of Labour Day (which is 90% a list of May 1 celebrations) with International Workers' Day (which also mostly lists May 1 celebrations). Originally Labour Day included United States Labor Day, but that was split off. International Workers' Day is a split from May 1. It seems when people look to list a national May 1st celebration/public holiday/tradition, these are added arbitrarily to one or the other. The two now mostly overlap, which is kinda sad to witness on May 1st. They need to find independent subjects or merge: uninvolved editors are needed to decide which. Soli, T L Miles (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

RMT strike history (London underground strikes)

Is there any detailed info on Wikipedia regarding the strikes called by the RMT? A small paragraph on the RMT page, and just a sentence on Bob Crow's page, but was hoping for a history of the various disputes and reasons behind them, how it ties in with PPP, etc. Would be a NPOV nightmare no doubt, but there's large amounts of media coverage each time. Something like London transport industrial relations? (transport intentionally lower-case) Not sure that covers it! (Cross-posted on Wikiproject London Transport) Paulbrock (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

National Union of Teachers

Good portal. Made a few layout changes to National Union of Teachers article. If anyone wants to improve article further just drop a note on talk page I can help. Kasaalan (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Rock Springs massacre featured article review

I have nominated Rock Springs massacre for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --68.127.233.138 (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll just wait three days and raise the issue again. Since the writer of the article agrees that the lead cannot be understood without reading the entire article, and apparently the whole lead is some weirded out attempt to not say that the Chinese were murdered or killed or anything, it really does need rewritten. --68.127.233.138 (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

New labor presidents articles

I have created articles on three labor leaders that could use some expansion:James Williams (labor leader), R. Thomas Buffenbarger, Warren S. George--Blargh29 (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The AFL CIO has a HUGE flickr account that is licensed CC-BY. Check it out, there are great union pictures in there.ALF CIO flickr--Blargh29 (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

HELP NEEDED "The Bund On Wikipedia" Project

{{helpme}} I need help creating subpages for my proposed Task Force that will be on WikiProject Judaism and possibly WikiProject Organized Labour. Even when I read the directions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces, I can not figure out how to create it. Can someone help me? Thanks. --Eliscoming1234 (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  • It's like creating any kind of new page. Say I have a page called "WikiProject:MyPage." I want to create the subpage "WikiProject:MyPage:PersonalityTaskForce." I type the words "WikiProject:MyPage:PersonalityTaskForce" into Wikipedia's search box, and click either Go or Search. Of course, it won't find it. But you will see a red link to that subpage on the search results page that Wikipedia generates. Click on that link. Type in some content (it can be just a few words). Click "Save Page" using the button at the bottom of the page. YAY! Your subpage "WikiProject:MyPage:PersonalityTaskForce" has been created! Now go back to "WikiProject:MyPage" and create a link on it somewhere so that people going to "WikiProject:MyPage" can find the Task Force subpage. This part of the Task Force subpage creation guidelines can help you go back to the new subpage you just created, and start adding some real content now. (I'm not expert on this, but that's how to create a page.) - Tim1965 (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I can address your first question, but not your second. You can name your task force anything you want. But, generally speaking, you should propose the task force and see if there are other people willing to participate in it. The guidelines say "...task forces are something to get serious about when there are 50-100 members in your WikiProject. Additionally, a good number to start a task force with is five people; it may not be effective until it reaches 10 or so people, but having the task force there enables them to recruit." Posting something on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page will help you gauge that. Sometimes the name is easy (the "Korean military history" task force on WikiProject:MilitaryHistory pretty much writes itself), but you may want to talk about it (especially if it crosses two WikiProjects). Your second question involves programming a template (see the example here). I'm no good at programming. What you could do is go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour, click the "edit" tab at the top of the page, and copy the template. DO NOT MAKE CHANGES TO THAT PAGE THOUGH! Instead, paste that template code to a sandbox page of your own. Tinker and fiddle with the text there. Once it works, then you can add the code to the WikiProject Organized Labour (or other project's) page(s). Let's see what others have to say, too. I'm absolutely dumb when it comes to template programming. You may be better off asking about template programming over at the WikiProject Council/Proposals page, though. - Tim1965 (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I have people who are willing to help in this Project. The Project just needed a Task Force. Here it is (still rough):
Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Organized Labour/ Jewish Labour Bund Task Force Suggestions?--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Workers United

Workers United is a branch of UNITE HERE which disaffiliated this fall and joined SEIU. There are lots of unions which affiliate and disaffiliate from various national trade union centers, or other unions. In this case, a user has added "Category:UNITE HERE" as a new category. My thought is that since Workers United is no longer part of UNITE HERE, that category should not apply. But since Workers United came out of UNITE HERE, perhaps it should. My argument is that many trade and labor unions have long histories; if we added the category of each affiliation and kept the old disaffiliations as well, it would lead to intense confusion among readers. Thus, only the most up-to-date affiliations should be reflected in the categories. What do others think? (I am posting this to the "Workers United" Talk page as well.) - Tim1965 (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the timeline on this...whether Workers United was ever actually part of UNITE HERE I'm not sure (did the branch split and then become "Workers United"?), but from what I understand, Workers United came into existence specifically to transfer members (primarily in industrial laundries) out of UNITE HERE. In a round about way, it is also part of the much larger issue of the SEIU and its departure from the AFL-CIO. So there a lot more categories we could possible hang there....For what it's worth, I would say keep the UNITE HERE category because it is not so much the issue of disaffiliation (which in general I agree with what you say), but the issue of the splintering of the AFL-CIO generally and how this affected UNITE HERE specifically which means the UNITE HERE category should stay, IMHO.--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd never thought about adding cats for the reasons you outline. Unions deal with so many employers and have such intricate histories with other unions... When a union deals primarily with a single employer, or its existence is fundamental to a single or small number of employers (say, the UAW and GM; US Steel and the United Steelworkers), I can see doing that. In this particular instance, I'm more conflicted. As for the timeline: The 100,000 workers of the textiles division of the original union (the UNITE in UNITE HERE) voted to disaffiliate. It existed before UNITE HERE (which was only around for five years), and seems likely to exist afterward. Due to the disaffiliation the textiles division cannot regain its old name, so it chose a new name, "Workers United." At issue (it seems) is whether WU will seek to raid UNITE HERE for the few thousand remaining textiles, casino, and non-hotel gambling workers still part of UNITE HERE. - Tim1965 (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I think I was the editor at issue here. (-: If Workers United becomes a stable unit of SEIU, then I think dropping the Cat would be apprropriate as mere historical legacy. At this point, they're swapping members back and forth in some weird death match with much litigation outstanding and a fight over Amalgamate Bank outstanding. Can we revisit this topic in a year or two?RevelationDirect (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The issue goes beyond the immediate one of Workers United. Including old affiliations as a category is confusing. We would not categorize New York City with "Category:The Netherlands" simply because The Netherlands once owned it. I cannot image the confusion which would arise if the various "1199" articles were categorized with all their various predecessor affiliations. Each article is (or should be) clear about prior affiliations. Categories should reflect only the current affiliations, to my way of thinking. - Tim1965 (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

GA nomination for Breaker boy

I've put the article Breaker boy up for Good Article nomination. If anyone wishes to review it, please do so. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Organized_Labour/Archive_5&oldid=1238820987"