Talk:1912 Lawrence textile strike

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 12 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dexter1967.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Graphics needed!!

One place to go is http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5202/rebelgirl.html. Many other sites likewise available.

____________________

Articles in the Washington Post from 1912 indicate that the trial of Ettor and Giovannitti was presided over by Judge Joseph F. Quinn of Salem.Tom Cod 07:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Change in article's conclusion planned

I'm planning to change this statement:

A depression in the industry, followed by another speedup, led to further layoffs. The IWW had, by that time, turned its attention to supporting the silk industry workers in Paterson, New Jersey.

It is subjective, but is also somewhat contradicted, in mode of operation if not in specific detail, by one authority:

A persistent myth about the IWW is that it plunged into strikes without previous organization, bringing out contented workers with spell-binding oratory, won great victories, then deserted the workers to repeat the process elsewhere. The myth is groundless... Prior to its fame at Lawrence the IWW had been organizing textile workers for seven years, and these constituted roughly half of its membership.

The I.W.W.: Its First Seventy Years, Fred W. Thompson & Patrick Murfin, 1976, page 56.

The text gives significant detail about membership numbers, local identifications, etc. in support of the above statement.

Posting here first in case there is discussion. Richard Myers 09:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm the author [as 24.126.41.116] of the original paragraph, which gives me no special rights, but does give me an interest in discussing the change. I think that Thompson's comment is attacking a straw man--no one (on this page at least) is accusing the IWW of either "plung[ing] into strikes without previous organization" or "bringing out contented workers." The version of the article I wrote gave the IWW credit for five years of organizing effort in Lawrence before the strike and certainly did not portray the strikers as contented workers bewitched by rhetoric.

On the other hand, while I would not use the word "deserting," the fact remains (1) that the IWW did move its big guns to Paterson in the hope of achieving another victory there and (2) that the union withered and then disappeared in the years after 1912. I don't think that either of those facts or the economic downturn mentioned in that sentence is subjective. While the last sentence may sound unduly critical of the IWW, I think it is fair to say that the union did not mount any effective resistance to the employer's counterattack.

The part of the paragraph that you would leave in gives some of the reasons for the disappearance of the union--the IWW's dislike of bureaucratic structures and the employers' deep-seated hostility to all forms of union organization. The part you want to cut takes out one of the other reasons--the pressure of an economic downturn. I would vote to keep these two sentences.

On the other hand, the topic deserves more attention. I don't know of any histories of the aftermath of the strike or of Lawrence after 1913, but maybe there is something out there that we could use. But I would propose expanding, rather than shrinking this part of the article. Italo Svevo 02:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The change that i envision for these two sentences is more one of tone than substance. And i want to get agreement before such a change, so that's why i brought up the idea here. (No proposals yet, i'm working on some other articles...)

I would also like to see this section expanded, and i think i have at least one good source for the aftermath.

(Plus, i heard today that another book on the subject is just being published.)

In the meantime, if you have an opportunity, check out this article: User:Richard Myers/Anna Lo Pezza

It was deleted (and moved to my userspace) because the dead striker is considered "not notable."  :-( However, one administrator wants this text folded into the Lawrence article. The review process hasn't yet been completed, so i don't know what the admin group will recommend. Unfortunately, i think there is too much material for all of it to be merged, i would prefer using it as the basis for creating a broader companion article to go along with this one. best wishes, Richard Myers 08:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Source this baby!

It's a moderately decent piece the way it stands, but there are virtually no footnotes, so it's gonna end up getting flagged. Please plow through and source this puppy! Carrite (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the claim that the slogan 'No gods, no masters' originated with this strike. The claim was not supported by the source cited (which merely stated that a newspaper using the slogan had drawn it 'from the IWW strikes'), and moreover is misleading at best - the slogan was documented long before this in French socialist circles. It's possible that this was the first English usage, but the source cited did not explicitly claim this, and the origin of the slogan should be acknowledged as the French version, not this strike. 128.232.229.27 (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Citing sources as you go is tedious, certainly, but not nearly as tedious as going through someone else's text after the fact and trying to cite sources. This is an important article, and it needs to be done, so I'm working on this instead of creating new articles. In cases like this I often wonder if the original authors - always male, seemingly - incidentally? - don't know how to cite sources, or find it beneath them, and would rather leave that sort of work to others...an aristocratic mentality, you might say, relegating the dull, repetitive, thankless tasks to the lumpen proletariat of Wikipedia. Rosekelleher (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

For the "No Gods, No Masters", Elizabeth Gurley Flynn's Autobiography has a few pages: page 150-151 The Rebel Girl An Authobiography Elizabeth Gurley Flynn International Publishers, 1955 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:CF80:5DC0:49B6:719B:F0C8:780A (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

No sources for living conditions

They earned $36 a month ($9 a week) and that is $810 in today money according to http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/. Seems to be a decent wage considering it was in 1912. I'm removing the claims about their harsh living conditions because those are unsourced and most likely only few families were in that situation, not "many". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.3.13 (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It depends on the cost of living, obviously. It's well documented that the cost of living in the area was going up faster than the people could keep up. Rosekelleher (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 20 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. I realize people may have strong feelings over the subject's importance, but consensus sides with MOS:CAPS. I will not be reverting to the previous uppercase title, as this is a classic example of WP:BRD reaching a resolution. Hadal (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

---

1912 Lawrence textile strike → 1912 Lawrence Textile Strike – Move-warring evident in the history suggests that the move was not uncontroversial and should be formally discussed to make a decision one way or the other. – Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment: I moved the above request here from WP:RMTR. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

History: The article had lowercase title 2004–2008; capitalized in this edit in 2008 without comment or discussion; back to lowercase in this edit in Dec. 2014, with note that it is not a proper name based on being usually lowercase in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose since it's not generally capitalized in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  I see that your source from an ancient 2008 ngram has a race going on....I wonder what the last seven years has shown?? (Y2K smiley face here) Randy Kryn 10:42 20 March, 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: My request at RMTR was largely procedural, because of the apparent move-warring; I don't feel strongly about what the title should be. There appears to be a mix of capitalizations in sources [1][2][3]. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Note that per MOS:CAPS, WP style is to avoid caps when usage is not consistently capitalized in sources. Here it's not even close. That middle case of capitalizing Textile but not strike is unusual enough that it doesn't show up in books n-grams. Dicklyon (talk) 06:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Support This major event in Union history, the "Bread and Roses Strike", called a "seminal event" and "one of the most significant struggles in U.S. labor history" on Wikipedia, is capitalized well over half the time on search engines (by historical societies, labor union sites, and hundreds of others, as well as on the pages own 'External sources' list). Ngrams? Here is where ngrams go off the rails (they discontinue in 2008 - ngrams are ancient history folks)....but, even in 2008, look at this: The ngram shows a steep decline of lower case and a consistent rise in upper-case as the world catches up to the reality of the importance of this event. At the risk of WP:CRYSTALBALL (a.k.a. WP:EDGARCAYCE), I'd bet that in the ensuing years since that ancient-but-latest ngram that the capitalization of the Lawrence Textile Strike has surpassed the lower-casers. As for 'consistently capitalized in sources' guideline, tis the refuge of wordsmiths (I wonder how that language came into being, hmmm). Labor historians rate the Bread and Roses Strike - the Lawrence Textile Strike - as one of the most important events in American history. Well deserving of capitalization, and please look at search engine results and scroll a few pages in just to get a feel of how well respected this strike is in the world outside Wikipedia. Randy Kryn 10:35 20 March, 2015 (UTC)

  Here's another trend for you as we eat bread and wake up to smell the roses. Randy Kryn 12:20 20 March, 2015 (UTC)

  "I'd bet that in the ensuing years since that ancient-but-latest ngram that the capitalization of the Lawrence Textile Strike has surpassed the lower-casers" – do you have any evidence of this? Any reason to ignore the evidence that we do have? "Well deserving of capitalization" – we don't capitalize things because they "deserve" it; merit has nothing to do with capitalization in written English. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  Your note is a perfect example of what's wrong with ngrams. The ngrams show the trends, one rising, one falling, and then they stop....in 2008! If doesn't take a WP:CRYSTALBALL to see trends....from 2008. Then you complain if I point this out. I have no idea why people keep relying on these ngrams, they are, as Mr. Sandler would say, "wicked old". Randy Kryn 18:48 20 March, 2015 (UTC)

• Support revert Dec 2014 move; back to upper case. I don't know about 2008, but certainly Dicklyon knew better in December 2014 than to change case of letters in a title without RM discussion as this is a known controversial area. There was insufficient good reason to overcome WP:TITLECHANGES to move it, so such a move would unlikely garner consensus support. A good reason to change a title is a revert as a consequence to a unilateral move designed to subvert consensus. --В²C ☎ 16:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

My move was exactly a revert of a unilateral move move without consensus, though I didn't realize it at the time. There was no reason to think a routine move toward the style suggested in the MOS would be controversial, especially when the MOS and the usage in sources both point in the same direction. About 99% of such moves go without comment. Dicklyon (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support per Born2cycle. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 19:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. First, if, as Nikkimaria says, "there appears to be a mix of capitalizations in sources", there's no argument. MOSCAPS requires consistent capping in sources to justify this kind of change. Second, the ngram search found that majority usage is lower case, just to reinforce the first point. Third, I want all people who appear to support this proposed move to confirm that they're happy to have "the Strike" in the main text when referring to the event. Please state that you'll support upcasing short-form references to the event throughout, since that is the clear requirement if the title is upcased (not title case, as many sources use, but real upcasing as would apply to a WP article title). Tony (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  Consistent capping in sources is a guideline, because in the real world names such as this will be inconsistently cased. Not everyone uses the same name. If a name is upper-cased enough in sources, it can be considered a proper noun (and this one has been upper-cased thousands of times, just do a search engine run on it. Can you give a link to the discussion which created this 'consistent casing' guideline, that's one I'd like to read to see how the guideline was written before to see if the language was purposely limited and why). As for 'the Strike', that isn't needed unless the words 'Lawrence Textile' or 'Textile' appear before it. When we talk about 'President Calvin Coolidge' on a page we can refer to him as 'the president', and the same language rule would apply here. And please look again at the old-ngrams and check out the trend. Bottom line, this page title has been capitalized enough to be considered a proper noun, and is considered a proper noun by enough major sources to pass that guideline test. I'd also say that the page was lower-cased improperly, and if consensus can't be reached here that the page title should be put back to before it was moved to lower-case. Randy Kryn 12:00 21 March, 2015 (UTC)

  Okay, I found where Dicklyon removed MOSCAPS stated definition and language and added the words 'consistent capitalization' and many more in one edit on December 6, 2011, under a innocuous thus misleading edit summary - a single edit which entirely changed the scope, definition, and range of the MOSCAPS guideline in one swoop (maybe call it the "Night of Long Knives" of MOSCAPS): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters&diff=464335547&oldid=464087325 He mentions a talk page discussion to see how this evolved and/or came about. I'll look for that but can others look for it too, thanks. Randy Kryn 12:42 21 March, 2015 (UTC)

  Alright, I found the night of long knives discussion and it was almost literally that - Dicklyon came up with totally new language in the middle of a discussion, took comments from two people, then changed the MOSCAPS page (again, no notice, no wide discussion, just up and changed it with the comment 'Let's see who balks'. Unbelievable but believable, and now he uses that rule he invented at every opportunity and has others echoing the words. Amazing that this is how Wikipedia works and that all of these discussions and decisions since stem from this one major massive change coming from nowhere but Dicklyon making it up here in this discussion Randy Kryn 13:00 21 March, 2015 (UTC)

Edit conflict ...

"Consistent capping in sources is a guideline, because in the real world names such as this will be inconsistently cased."—Logic unclear.

"Not everyone uses the same name."—True.

"If a name is upper-cased enough in sources, it can be considered a proper noun"—Logic unclear.

"Can you give a link to the discussion which created this 'consistent casing' guideline"—No. I see what I read in the guideline, and it must have been there for quite a while. If you'd like to change it, please propose something different at MOSCAPS, and try to gain consensus for it. The guidelines exist to minimise the occurrence of disputes on local talkpages; they have been guiding us for more than a decade.

" 'the Strike' ... isn't needed unless the words 'Lawrence Textile' or 'Textile' appear before it ..."—So after mentioning "Harvard University", we don't refer to "the University"?

"check out the trend"—It's the current majority usage and the humungous historical majority that I see. But majority usage is not required for downcasing. Just inconsistency, and of that there is an awful lot.

"this page title has been capitalized enough to be considered a proper noun"—So caps in a WP article title during a certain interval turn something into a proper noun? Really? Tony (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

No, not the caps in the title,but the caps used by sources which capitalize it - sources which don't turn something into a proper noun but acknowledge that it is a proper noun. I did find the edit and the very limited discussion where Dicklyon put in the words 'consistently capitalized' (a later discussion on the page didn't focus on those words), see the comments right above your present comment. As for 'the University', 'the president of the University' does not capitalize 'president'. Anyway, I'd say that the guideline for 'consistent' may be in reality a wing-and-a-prayer at present, not every source will capitalize, and if enough don't then people who oppose capitalization on pages like this can point to those. Others point to the hundreds or thousands of sources that do capitalize. The word 'consistent' is the fly in the ointment, a fly that flew in there under the radar and pretty much undetected, then stuck in the ointment enough that people now use it as a hard-and-fast rule when all it maybe is is just a fly. Randy Kryn 13:22 21 March, 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose—I'm always surprised, but there is really compelling evidence here that this phrase is not normally capitalized in running text. In cases like that we normally don't either, so keep the title as is. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

  Posted in this discussion a couple of times, this 2008 ngram from the wayback-machine (google ngrams end in 2008, half-a-Wikipedia-lifetime ago) shows that with the word "the" added that the upper-case was rising and lower-case was lowering, and it doesn't take a crystal ball to know where that trend is pointing. You claim "really compelling evidence here that this phrase is not normally capitalized in running text". Please look at that old ngram data again, it at least shows that Lawrence Textile Strike, capitalized, is a common name and very likely the topics common name. It also certainly is not lower-cased enough to change the name of this page to lower-case, which is what occurred in December as an 'uncontroversial move', and should have been moved back to upper-case before this discussion took place (see request to the closer, below). Randy Kryn 19:04 31 March, 2015 (UTC)

  Wow that ngram link shows a lot more lowercasing. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose A JSTOR search on the exact title "1912 Lawrence Textile Strike" returned 12 articles referencing this event. Of the 12, only three were fully capitalized, while nine used "1912 Lawrence textile strike" in their text. There's no evidence in scholarly journals that this is a proper name that warrants all caps. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

'Lawrence Textile Strike' has proven to be a proper name, although the '1912' portion is probably seldom included. The name of this page should be changed, removing '1912', although capitalizing the rest makes the most sense. Randy Kryn 19:29 27 March, 2015 (UTC)

In a JSTOR search of "Lawrence Textile Strike", 53 results show an overwhelming 3:1 margin for Lawrence textile strike in running text. Hardly good scholarship if it is a proper name. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point of this section. Which name is the proper name is the subject in the RM proposal section above. The subject here is procedural: especially about what the closer should do if there is no consensus. --В²C ☎ 18:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the section back to its main point. Randy Kryn 18:23 29 March, 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as it is another case where sources and MOS:CAPS both indicate lowercase. 73.222.28.191 (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

To the Closer

To the Closer Since this page was lower-cased without notice or discussion I'd ask you to consider it as upper-cased if a decision of 'no consensus' is reached. The page was moved in December as uncontroversial when, if the mover was at all aware of the historic position of this strike within labor history (I'm not a labor historian but do know some), he would have made the connection that this would be a controversial move, and would have brought it to the talk page at that point while still capitalized. Thanks. Randy Kryn 11:38 23 March, 2015 (UTC)

• What, pray tell, has "the historic position of this strike" got to do with the price of furniture polish? Or should I say "the historic position of this Strike"? Tony (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  Your prayer is my command. What I meant was that the person who moved the page, if they had known its prominence in labor history, would have known that changing the name of such a historic strike would be controversial, and would also be much more likely to be capitalized in sources. So the move itself, moved as uncontroversial (during ongoing discussion on other pages of historic strikes in which the mover was involved in), should probably have been reversed right at the start of this present discussion, and likely should remain capitalized if a 'no consensus' decision is made. Randy Kryn 11:57 23 March, 2015 (UTC)

• Concur. Moves simply to change capitalization are arguably violations of WP:TITLECHANGES and should always be considered controversial. The person who changed this title in December knew better. --В²C ☎ 16:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Women's History Month

Wouldn't it be great if we could upgrade this to Good Article status and nominate it for "Did You Know" in time for Women's History Month? Rosekelleher (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Or maybe Labor Day. Rosekelleher (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Crickets chirping*

I guess going to war over the capitalization of titles is more fun than looking up sources. In the GA nomination guidelines they say it's best to involve the original authors. So never mind then. And you're welcome. Rosekelleher (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Joseph Ettor and Arturo Giovannitti

To the editor who wants to change "Ettor and Giovannitti" to "Ettor and Arturo Giovannitti": They're not brothers. They have two different surnames. See also WP:SURNAME. --MopTop (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Referring to the mill management as "mill owners"

Although it is common among pro-labor writers to refer to the management of the American Woolen Company and other textile companies as "mill owners", this is technically not true. The company was financed by the issuance of preferred stock on the New York Stock Exchange; the owners were the shareholders, who resided all over the place.

Cbmccarthy (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

the Business Snake.

The final sentence of the 4th paragraph of the lede says "The strike also inspired the local Merrimack Valley holiday-time tradition of the Business Snake." I've lived a long life in the Merrimack Valley and have no idea what the 'holiday-time tradition of the Business Snake' is. The text is neither cited nor does the terminology appear anywhere, other than in this article, that I can find. If it remains uncited in a week, I'm planning to delete the sentence. Irish Melkite (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixed it. The original edit was 15:39, 31 December 2020‎ by 2601:180:4180:4540:cd9a:c169:7b4b:51e. Colfer2 (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)