Portal talk:Organized Labour/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Pre-deployment discussion

This would be a good place to discuss general issues before we deploy the portal. After we make it "live," we can move this section down to the bottom or archive it. Feedback on general features, design -- anything that's on your mind. Haus42 15:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it's a great idea to get this going. Looks good. --Bookandcoffee 16:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks good, but I worry that it looks a bit too rah-rah pro labor unions. I'm pro-union, but I'm aware that there are legitimate concerns about thinks such as union officials who look to help themselves before their constituents. bd2412 T 02:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

General comments and suggestions

I think our Portal needs to be listed at Wikipedia:Portal/Directory. Or is there some other process we're going through that I'm not aware of? - Tim1965 02:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it says what you need to get onto the portal list right on the top. it says '{tl|portal2}} (ie, {{portal2|Name}}'. I don't know what general category this falls under however. MrMacMan ^Talk 02:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say "People & Society", but I'm open to other suggestions. I'm portal-clueless, and don't know enough about the process of building, reviewing and approving portals to just go and list ours at Wikipedia:Portal/Directory. I'm terrified of jumping the gun or f'ing up some process. - Tim1965 02:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno it seems like its a pretty straightfoward process and I doubt that anyone will be anti-addition of the portal, i mean the worst that can happen is that we aren't following some guideline and it gets removed from the list. MrMacMan ^Talk 03:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree - I'd say go ahead and just plunk it in there.--Bookandcoffee 03:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's plunked! - Tim1965 13:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured Labor Leader

Feel free to edit the page, or leave a comment here.

Featured Union

Guidelines

• The union infobox should be reasonably complete, and include a logo.
• Consider using smaller articles that would not qualify for the Article of the day section.

Instructions

• Copy the entire {{Infobox Union}} from the wiki text of the desired union article.
• Paste the entire infobox text into a blank subpage at Portal:Organized Labour/Featured Union.
• Link the "Full Name" field.
• Save the subpage.
• Add the featurebox field (below) to the {{LabourProject}} tag on the talk page of the chosen article.

{{LabourProject
| class           =
| importance      = 
| AOTD            =
| featurebox      =     <!-- Any value will return the notice (Yes,yes,Y,y) --> 
| inmedia         =
}}

The list of featured unions can be cross-checked against Category:Organized Labour Portal Featured Union

Discussion

I like this idea because there are a lot of union articles that are still very tiny, but they do have a reasonable infobox - so they look good here, but would never make it to the larger "feature" part of the page. One question though, the data in the infobox is subject to change/drift - would it be worth the effort to move the infobox from the article page (American Maritime Officers) to a subpage (American Maritime Officers/infobox) and then use the same page here and on the main article page so that they remain up to date? It's a bit of work, but if the infoboxes here are kept for some time they will eventually be outdated and inaccurate.--Bookandcoffee 19:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're absolutely right in principle. I'm wondering if there's precedent though. Can you think of a case where this kind of strategy is used? I tried out something like this on a small scale, for example: (template / page) but couldn't get a clear feel for the policies involved. Cheers. Haus42 19:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we started something similar at Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Internationalisation with the "translation summaries" (Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Summaries), but it received mixed reviews (I think unrelated to the actual subpage idea), and it is sitting fairly inactive. Offhand, I don't know of any other related activity, but personally I don't see how there would be much of a reaction as long as it's transparent to the user - unless there are technical issues (of which I would know very little.) It would, incidentally, also work very nicely with porting articles over to other language wikis. --Bookandcoffee 20:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That being said, if this is an idea worth working on it would definitely need to be discussed on a wider arena - at least at the main project page and maybe a pre-emptive WP:RFC or some such thing.--Bookandcoffee 20:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I tripped over this brouhaha a while back. It's about transcluded prose. Its long, often heated, and as far as I can tell, there was never any consensus. Now, I think your suggestion falls somewhere between "transcluded prose" and a more standard use like, say, "Infobox union" itself. My guess is that a RFC would be inconclusive, but probably worth trying. Cheers. Haus42 20:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... like lots of things around here, there's no easy answer/agreement is there. Maybe (not today, and not tomorrow) a different idea would be a small bot action that called the pages up and substituted the up-to-date infobox data from time to time. (Another one of those "oh just get a bot to do it" ideas. :) --Bookandcoffee 21:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Labour in the Media

Feel free to edit the page, or leave a comment here.

Featured pictures

Feel free to edit the page, or leave a comment here.

Category page

Feel free to edit the page, or leave a comment here.

Tasks page

Feel free to edit the page, or leave a comment here.

Um... isn't the page effectively broken? Nothing seems to have a subpage. MrMacMan ^Talk 10:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

How's that look? Haus^Talk 12:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Some ideas for improvement

Here some I ideas I had for improving the portal:

1. The article of the day should be turned into an article of the month for several reasons:
   1. There aren't that many great articles on labour-related topics.
   2. Updating that every day will probably be too much work.
   3. Therefore I think we should find about 12 articles, that are preferably at least GA or close to it, and use them over the next twelve months
2. The whole article of the day/month shouldn't be displayed, only the lead, much like on the main page and most portals I know
3. The link to the French portal should be a normal interwiki link IMHO, not an entry in "related portals"
4. The dominant use of the color red could be interpreted as expressing a socialist POV. There were many non-socialist (Christian, Fascist, bourgeois) trade unions in history; they all also fall within the scope of this portal. On the other hand, "red" is the color of many trade unions today and historically that wouldn't really fall in the category "socialist", Solidarność for example
5. I don't really like the idea of the "featured union" part. Some can be featured as part of the article of the day/month, but having a seperate section for this seems unnecessary to me.
6. The Did You Know section should actually contain DYK entries IMHO. I do a lot of work on DYK so I'd be happy to add any entries relating to trade unions featured there to this portal.
7. I have to admit I don't really like the top section as it is either. For one, I don't understand what the image symbolizes. The definition of a trade union used isn't particularly accurate either IMHO:
   1. Trade unions have had and in part still a lot of goals beyond just "better treatment from their employers and governments".
   2. A single worker or a small collective isn't a trade union, that term implies a group of some size, this should also be reflected in the definition

Even if I may sound critical, I'm really impressed by the work you've done, Haus42. Let's try to improve this portal and then announce it on the Community Portal.--Carabinieri 14:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I just noticed there are only two articles that are GA or better: Bill Haywood and History of Solidarity. Getting articles up to GA at a rate of one article per month probably isn't a realistic goal, although it would be a nice challenge. I'm not sure what should be done there then. But I'll await your responses to my comments first.--Carabinieri 14:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Carabinieri, thanks for the great feedback! A couple of quick notes. This portal is by, of, and for the community, so I don't claim any particular rights as the "creator." Feel free to edit it as you would an article. That said, I agree with some of your points, feel conflicted about others, and disagree with a couple:

1. This is, I think, the third comment I've gotten on Featured Articles. Your point that there aren't that many great articles on labour related topics is absolutely correct. I think there's room for another approach though. For the sake of argument, let's define an "Article of the Day" or "Collaboration of the Day" as an article that's not necessarily very good, but has something to to with the day. Having it shown on the portal might motivate people to take a couple of swipes at improving it. As far as the work involved, I did the same procedure at Portal:Nautical. Sorting through 1000 articles to find relevent dates took a couple of days. Actually adding the redirects took less than two hours for the whole year.
2. I think a good response to this depends on a couple of items.
3. The French portal. Please feel free to fix that to your tastes.
4. Color red -- let's split this off to another discussion?
5. "Featured union." Hmm. A couple of reactions: a) I don't see what it harms, b) as things stand, there's tons of room for stuff on the right column, c) it seems to bring a little variety to the page, and d) it could make a member/visitor happy to see/add their union.
6. . DYK -- please feel free to edit to fit your tastes.
7. . I'm open to other definitions. The origin of the current one is a copy edit of the opening paragraph of Labour movement, which seemed very wordy to me.

I'm encouraged by the level of feedback. If you feel like sketching out alternatives, such as page layout or headers, please do. Cheers. Haus42 15:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the longer trade union definition from Trade union. It may be a bit long for here, but when it was put together we were having trouble agreeing on a def. There are so many variations around the world that people couldn't agree - esp. when there were a couple strong anti-labour voices keeping an eye on the article. (Keeping us honest!) --Bookandcoffee 16:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Featured union

There is another problem with the Featured Union section. Most infoboxes contain logos of the respective trade unions and most of these in turn are fair use, not free. Fair use images cannot be used in portals: "Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine." (WP:FU).--Carabinieri 19:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that convinced me -- I tentatively commented out the "Union of the Day." If there is a compelling argument on the other side, it will be easy to put back in. Cheers. Haus42 20:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Another problem?!! I didn't know we had a first one. :) I think we're actually on pretty safe ground on this fair use issue. There is quite a clear difference between a fair use image being in the portal or on the portal. The fair use rationale for logos addresses the idea of using the image "to illustrate the organization, item, or event in question". A further refinement of this idea is the understanding that the logo should, in general, be used only on the article of the organization in question. We have complied with both the letter and the spirit of this rationale here. The Featured Union box is in fact an article about the union in question. Granted, it is a very short article, but it is nonetheless a complete article that is solely about the union - and the use of the union’s logo improves the reader's experience of the article. The fact that the article appears on the portal is no more relevant than the fair use images that appear in the Article of the Day articles that are on the portal page.

An example of a non-fair use of these logos would be if we decided that the border area of the portal would look much better if it was comprised of miniature tiles of union logos. Not only would it look incredibly tacky... it would be a non-fair use of the image because it was used in the portal.

As it stands, the sections on the portal are simply articles that have been collected by the portal. They do not need to be penalized simply because they are viewed in "Portal" space.--Bookandcoffee 21:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I wrote "another problem" because I wasn't particularly excited about this section, but I don't feel strongly about this at all and would be perfectly fine with keeping it. You're reasoning about the admissibility of fair use images in this case does sound a bit odd to me, but I have absolutely no idea about copyright law and Wikipedia policy on fair use, besides the very basics I've picked up here and there.--Carabinieri 21:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There is discussion going on at Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals2 about this problem. I haven't read through it yet (off to work...) but thought I would put the link up. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 21:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So, it turns out I was, well, completely wrong! After slugging through the usual hair-splitting at the above linked discussion I guess people are actively removing fair use images from the portal space. In fact it goes farther, and apparently even the fair use images in the articles in the Article of the day are afoul of the law. That being said, I'm of the opinion that we let the dust settle at the argument first before we worry too much about complying. Personally I don't see the harm in the whole thing... but I've been wrong before!--Bookandcoffee 04:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I got a batch of these User:Durin/Removal of fair use images messages today and commented out the featured movie and featured union features. Cheers. Haus^Talk 04:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. An odd coincidence after my comment related to his comment on the argument page last night... :/ --Bookandcoffee 07:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

International Longshore and Warehouse Union

The information given in the article says the this Union was formed in 1934 but the infobox says 1909. Which is right? Dave Smith 22:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, the article merely says that it was "formed through" the 1934 West Coast strike. I admit, I think that's unclear, too. But Bernstein in The Turbulent Years clearly puts the date of the union's founding as August 11, 1937. - Tim1965 20:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm ... now we have 1937 too. I suppose that clarifies things no end :-) If this Union is the product of a series of mergers then I am wondering whether the 1909 date is when one of the originating unions was formed. When unions merge they will often inherit the history of their processors, including the originating date of formation. Just a thought. - Dave Smith

The only date we have a citation for is 1937. Plus, the ILWU was formed as a breakaway union from the ILA. The ILA still exists. I don't think anyone can claim ILWU "existed" prior to the disaffiliation on August 11, 1937. Anyway, the reasoning that a union "existed" prior to its actual formation because there was a predecessor organization is like saying the "United States" really was formed in 1066 because that's when the Normans created "modern" Britain. Naw, I don't buy that. - Tim1965 23:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If we are sure about 1937 we ought to bring the article up to date with that information. I'm no expert on this particular Union. On you second point, though, I think we can discuss. The union I recently worked for was formed in 1967 out of a merger of two unions. One of those was formed in 1935 and so the merged Union claims a continued existence since 1935. You find that unusual? - Dave Smith 01:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think dating is inconsistent. The AFT was created by several local unions coming together, and dates from then and not from the creation of its earliest local. UNAP broke from AFT, and dates its founding to the date of disaffiliation and not the creation of its first locals. The United Mine Workers dates from its founding in 1890, not the founding of either of its predecessor unions. Those are three examples. I agree it varies from union to union. As for the 1909 date in the ILWU article: 1) It is not longer there because someone removed it. (That makes this moot, right?) 2) I can't see any justification in either the ILWU or ILA article for using a 1909 date. 3) The break didn't come in 1934 but 1937. 4) The ILA organized the first West Coast locals between 1895 and 1905 (the ILA article is unclear). Ultimately, I see weak justification for a date between 1895-1905, or 1937. Academics point to the secession vote in 1937 and the subsequent NLRB election as the ILWU's official founding, and I'm inclined to agree. - Tim1965 14:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Anarchism

What do people think to the idea of anarchism as a related portal? Many anarchists (especially anarcho-syndicalists) have been and still are involved in the labour movement and there are and have been anarchist unions such as the CNT in Spain and France and the IWW which had synidcalist aims. Chris 18:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Its fine with me. I looked at Portal:Anarchism and didn't see a logo image, which is the only reason I didn't put the link in. Haus^Talk 18:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)