Talk:1985–1986 Hormel strike/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 10:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

First remarks

I'll take this on to review as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/October 2020. I'll hope to be posting my review today. Please let me complete the review before responding to specific points unless it is superurgent (but feel free to respond to these remarks at any stage). Let me know if you have any strong feelings about pinging to be kept updated, some people like it some people don't. JJonahJackalope you said it's your first nom, congrats and feel free to ask for clarification at any stage. I'm a relative newbie at GAN also and happy to work through any issues or explain something that isn't clear. Mujinga (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm about halfway through the article and whilst it is well written, I'm hitting problems with referencing, which impacts on verifiability, one of the six criteria for a good article. If the nominator or anyone else is fine with making some improvements over the course of the next week, then we can carry on, otherwise maybe it's better to fail the article for now and review it again when the referencing has been improved. I'd like to discuss that before proceeding so I'll pause the review. Mujinga (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah JJonahJackalope i see you are editing right now so I'll ping you Mujinga (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping and thanks for the review so far, Mujinga. I'm reading through your review points so far and I think that I can make several of the edits you suggested in the next week, including the issues with references. I'm a bit preoccupied for the next few days, but by the end of the week, those issues should be addressed. The prose issues and issues with clarity seem especially doable in a short amount of time, and as far as the Ideas and Action references are concerned, I tried to limit that source to only noncontroversial claims, but I recognize that a better secondary source would be preferable, so I'll try to find that as well. However, on that note, were there any controversial claims you would recommend I change or excise to improve the article? Thanks for your work so far with the review, and thanks for being helpful to a newbie. Also, I have no issue with being pinged, and I'll try to respond ASAP. Looking forward to hearing back. JJonahJackalope (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh great then I'm more than happy to continue the review, I just wanted to check you were up for putting in the work to improve it - I agree it isn't so much. Also, I'm actually fine with the week "deadline" being extended by agreement if needed, that happens a lot since real life should always come first. What I'll do is put the review on hold when I'm done with the first sweep and you'll get a notification about that on your talkpage. Cheers! Mujinga (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hiya JJonahJackalope I thought I'd check in and see how things are going. I can see you've done some edits recently and I can also see an edit request from Hello-Mary-H. What's a manageable time-frame to get this review finished? I'm fine with extending the hold for another week if that works. Mujinga (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey Mujinga, sorry about the delayed work on the review, been more busy than expected lately, but I think that, given another week, I should have the remainder of the edit requests addressed, including those from Hello-Mary-H. Thanks for the check-up, and if there are any additional edit requests or comments on the edits I have made so far, please feel free to say. JJonahJackalope (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi JJonahJackalope looks like things are chugging along ok then and you are nearly there. Thanks for checking the refs, it's a shame googlebooks chose to block some of the pages which you relied on heavily for me (I think gbooks blocks different pages for different people, maybe by geolocation I'm not sure) Re the edit request, it would be neat to get that done as well, on a quick look it seems there are plenty of sources giving 1500 as a figure (including refs 5&6 from Hello-Mary-H) and I'm not sure there is much in the 10 month claim, but the new refs about the existence or non-existence of apartheid links are interesting. Give me a shout when you are done! Mujinga (talk) 01:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi again JJonahJackalope I can see that over the last week you have been making edits on wikipedia but not on this article, so I thought I would check in again. I have been ok with keeping the article on hold but we are approaching a month now. I would suggest if you don't have time in the next three days, then I fail the article for now and I'd be happy to reassess it when the rest of the review has been answered. Mujinga (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey Mujinga, sorry for the delayed reply, but I think I've addressed all your concerns with the article, and if there's anything else you'd like me to address, please let me know. JJonahJackalope (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

oh that's good news, i will take a look later today or tomorrow, cheers Mujinga (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Template

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Review

Copyvio

Earwig throws up some 20-30% matches, nothing too worrying, I'll just mention a few phrases which are the same as https://www.mnopedia.org/event/hormel-strike-1985-1986 which is itself Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0), so either the phrases could be altered or attribution given. For example: "boycott of Hormel products. In January 1986, Hormel reopened" and "wage freeze and dangerous working conditions". Plus "Early into the strike, Hormel offered 300 striking employees retirement benefits if they stopped striking, with 30 employees accepting Hormel's offer " is just a bit too similar to "When Hormel offered 300 eligible employees retirement benefits if they stopped striking, thirty of them accepted the offer."

• Rephrased some of the above sentences and cited MNopedia in the text for the "300 eligible" phrase. JJonahJackalope (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Pictures

Appropriate and licensing fine.

Lead

Will come back to this and infobox last On first read I liked the introduction, having read the article closely i think it can be expanded. Per MOS:LEADLENGTH three paragraphs is good, right now we have two small paragraphs and one big one so room to expand. The lead should summarise the whole article. Certainly legacy could be expanded a bit in para3. I think para1 could be expanded with info summarising the background section, and explainign what Hormel is and why the workers went on strike (as mentioned in the infobox). Infobox is good, perhaps it can include something on what happened to the workers.

• • Expanded lead with additional background information and later analysis of the strike. JJonahJackalope (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Early organized labor activities at Hormel

• "The company now known as Hormel" - for the first mention could use full name, Hormel Foods Corporation
  • Done. JJonahJackalope (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• " to serving as the company's headquarters" - perhaps better "to being the location of the company's headquarters"
  • Done. JJonahJackalope (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• "modeled off of " - i would say "on" here, but I use british england and obviously here house style is US english, so i'll flag up things if they seem strange, but if it's US english then we can forget about it
  • Edited to "modeled after" JJonahJackalope (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• "The first large scale labor dispute at Hormel occurred in 1933, following the creation of the first labor union at the plant. The union, the Independent Union of All Workers (IUAW), had been organized that year by veteran activist Frank Ellis of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), and was closely modeled off of the IWW.[3] This included an emphasis on industrial unionism, direct action, and a militant attitude towards employers.[3]" 3 here is Rachleff 2007, p. 641, which on the gbooks link is page 1053, and these claims arent cited there
  • Link fixed from page 1053 to 641. JJonahJackalope (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• "In 1933 the meatpackers at the Hormel plant launched the plant's first labor strike" here or after it would be good to know the demands and if they were successful
  • Added a new reference and added some demands, with the success of the strike discussed further down in the paragraph. JJonahJackalope (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• "While originally an independent union", since it's a new paragraph, is this referring to IUAW or IWW?
  • Clarified that I was talking about the IUAW. JJonahJackalope (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Increased hostilities between union and company

• Rachleff 1993, p. 46. - i dont have gbooks access for that page, so just wanted to check all the cited info is on page 46
  • Just checked again, can confirm the cited information is on that page. JJonahJackalope (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

New plant in Austin

• "then-80-year-old" - i would say "then 80-year-old", what do you think?
  • Done. JJonahJackalope (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• "Among these, the union agreed to a wage freeze for seven years, an elimination for incentive pay, a 20% increase in productivity, and a no-strike agreement that would last for three years following the opening of the new plant" again, just want to check the info is on page 46, becuase quite a lot is cited to that page
  • Just checked, all info that's cited is on that page. JJonahJackalope (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• maybe you can add a qualifier to Oscar Mayer to show it's a company
  • Done. JJonahJackalope (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Ray Rogers and the corporate campaign

• I've got to say this prose is really impressive writing on a quite complicated subject. So most of what i am saying here is quite nitpicky, but hopefully will result in a better article. Here I'm a bit confused because the previous section ends "and shortly thereafter Local P-9 hired labor consultant Ray Rogers of New York City-based Corporate Campaign Incorporated (CCI) to wage a corporate campaign against Hormel" then now in this section we have Rogers not being hired by UFCW, then "However, in January the next year, Local P-9 agreed to hire CCI". So then i have two questions, first how does the chronology fit to the sentence in the previouhttp://ideasandaction.info/about/s section, secondly the local did hire CCI and presumably Rogers but that needs clarifying since right now it reads like the local hired CCI but not Rogers. Hope that makes sense.
  • Rephrased both passages you mentioned to make it clear that both Rogers and his company were hired. JJonahJackalope (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• "which included targeting bank ties between Hormel and First Bank System, a regional bank which had many ties to Hormel" three uses of "bank", two of "ties" so i would suggest rephrasing
  • Replaced some instances of "ties" and "bank" to sound better. JJonahJackalope (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• Apartheid can be apartheid
  • Done. JJonahJackalope (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• "93% of Local P-9 voted to authorize a strike" the source goes to page 111, but the stat is on 113
  • Fixed. JJonahJackalope (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Early activities during the strike

• "the National Labor Relations Board issued an injunction against Local P-9 that stopped their boycott against First Bank System, ruling that it constituted an illegal secondary boycott." this sentence reads a bit weird since the injunction would be issued by the court, which would make the ruling, right? again, link goes to page 111, but the ref says 113-114 ... don't see it cited on 113, no access to 114
  • Clarified that the NLRB "sought and were granted" the injunction, changed citation to page 114. JJonahJackalope (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• "Since reopening, the plant had experienced a 120% increase in injuries" - this is a big claim and i don't think the current source is adequate since it is from the IWW magazine. i find that source fine for noncontroversial claims but this 120% increase if true will have been repeated elsewhere (or it's propaganda). Sorry it's not an IWW magazine, but still a source which I don't consider reliable for exceptional claims like this. the ideas and action website says "ideas & action is the publication of Workers Solidarity Alliance, an anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian organization of activists who believe that working people can build a new society and a better world based on the principles of solidarity and self-management" so my point still holds.
  • I found another source that mentions the increase in injuries (the Albrecht source) and have changed phrasing appropriately. JJonahJackalope (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• "That same month, Anderson publicly criticized Guyette on television, and the UFCW began to employ red-baiting to further hurt Local P-9" link goes to 344, since the link is https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PnJ7PmAyi_MC&pg=PA344&dq=hormel+strike&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=hormel%20strike&f=false .. you can change PA344 to PA345. Unfortunately I can't access page 345, blinkin gbooks. again i am slightly concenred her eby the referencing, since this ref to page 345 has twelve iterations. it's of course possible you reference the same page twelve times but it does seem a bit unlikely
  • Changed citation from PA344 to PA345, and I know it may seem unlikely, but there was a great deal of information provided on Page 345. Nevertheless, I'll go through all of the 345 cites just to be sure. On a related note, it's unfortunate that a few of these pages aren't available to you, not quite sure why that would be. JJonahJackalope (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• "On January 21, Minnesota Governor Rudy Perpich sent the Minnesota National Guard to protect the strikebreakers,[27] with the plant placed under martial law.[18]" this is a pretty drastic step so I'd be intersted to know why they did this. Also link 18 isn't again the best for such a big claim.
  • Added some background found in source [27], removed claim of martial law as I was unable to verify the claim in another, more appropriate source. JJonahJackalope (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• stopping here for a breather

Roving strikes

• "Wynn was failed" - Wynn failed
  • Done. JJonahJackalope (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• Much of this section is sourced to Ideas and Action - as discussed above, it would be great to find a reliable secondary source here
  • Found a new source (the Gabriel source) and supplemented many of the claims with information from that source. Actually restructured this section quite a bit. JJonahJackalope (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

UFCW withdraws sanction and protests escalate

• do we need the sanction redlink?
  • Fixed in an earlier edit. JJonahJackalope (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• "the boycott" - boycott of what? is the bank boycott still happening?
  • Removed. JJonahJackalope (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• "According to the Austin Daily Herald, 9 officers were treated for injuries. By 8:20 am, the plant was reopened. 17 protestors, including Rogers, were arrested, and a warrant was issued for Guyette for "aiding and abetting a riot."[31]" - so the citation goes to Labor Notes which indeed says "The Austin Daily Herald reported that of the nine police officers injured, eight were treated for tear gas burns" but then the current citation setup makes it seem to me the rest of the info and the direct quote is also from ADH, which it isn't.
  • Added additional citation to clarify this. JJonahJackalope (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• "including in articles" - including articles
  • Fixed. JJonahJackalope (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• "fomer" - former
  • Did a ctrl+f search, couldn't find an instance of "fomer" JJonahJackalope (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• yes two people made copyedits in between our edits Mujinga (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• " Described in the media as a riot, the protest received significant media coverage, including in articles published by the Minneapolis Star and Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press and Dispatch, with the fomer calling the event "among the worst in state labor history." - nothing about this on p218
  • Apologies, apparently it was on p222, fixed citation accordingly. JJonahJackalope (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Trusteeship process and end of the strike

• "The hearings, lasting two days,[18] were held in a meeting room in the Minneapolis Public Library and were attended by Guyette, the executive board of Local P-9, several P-9 union members, and UFCW officials.[34]" 34 is Green 1990, p229. but on p229 i don't see backing for everyhting this says:

• " held in a meeting room in the Minneapolis Public Library" - yup
• " were attended by Guyette, the executive board of Local P-9, several P-9 union members, and UFCW officials" - guyette yup, "the executive board of Local P-9, several P-9 union members" not quite what it says ("fewer than fifty"), "UFCW officials" - sort of, 8 UFCW officials were crowdcontrol, then Roy Wooster from UFCW was hearing officer

• • Rephrased to accurately reflect the roles and number of people there. JJonahJackalope (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Mural

• What an incredible mural!
• "The mural depicted a green snake, reminiscent of the depiction of corporations in Russian revolutionary art alongside organized workers, led by one carrying a torch, underneath which was the popular IWW motto, "If blood be the price of your cursed wealth, good God we have paid in full."[41]" 41 is Green p257, link goes to page 215, on p257 there's a quote about Russian revolutionary art so maybe better just to use that and i think it's worth mentioning that there's a P-9 worker chopping at the head of the serpent
  • Added quote and reference to the decapitation. JJonahJackalope (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Further action by Local P-9 and the end of the strike

• "nearly 500 workers" source says 507
  • Changed it to 507. JJonahJackalope (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• "ending the strike" may as well put the ref on the end of the sentence
  • Done. JJonahJackalope (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Results of the contract

• "Additionally, Hormel agreed to a new system for arbitration pertaining to worker's grievances.[49]" link is for p232 but goes to 218, again you can change this on the link from https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=c7ydIBWar-4C&pg=PA218 to https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=c7ydIBWar-4C&pg=PA232
  • Fixed. JJonahJackalope (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• payed → paid
  • Done. JJonahJackalope (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Later analysis of the strike

• Overall this is a good section on views of the strike, but i think even more could be said to bring out the legacy. Or maybe a separate legacy section, discussing the impact both on the town and the US labour movement. You have the sources to do this already.

• to expand on what i mean here, it wasn't immediately obvious to me what a signicant struggle and defeat this was for the strikers and some things aren't mentioned which perhaps for you are obvious but not for me which flesh it out a bit, eg Hormel slashing the wages but making massive profits at the same time and the no strike pledge honoured on https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PnJ7PmAyi_MC&pg=PA344

• • Added additional information from the example here. JJonahJackalope (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• "numerous forms" - various forms?
  • Done. JJonahJackalope (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• " including books by notable labor historians such as Kim Moody,[9] Peter Rachleff,[53] and Michael Yates.[54]" this bit is separated from the second paragraph were you discuss other books, so maybe better to join it to that. also please expand on the books, could give titles and any significant info. You do have a quote from Moody, what about the other two? Ah yes you do have Yates, please add his book title as well.
  • Added titles. JJonahJackalope (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• " filmmaker Barbara Kopple debuted the documentary film American Dream, which had been filmed by Kopple during the strike" - don't need "by Kopple"
  • Removed redundant name. JJonahJackalope (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• "the strike might still have been won." citation is to 115, link goes to 111. on p115
  • Changed page number. JJonahJackalope (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• not keen on the wikilink in "heavy-handed and autocratic" but if you really like it no problem
  • Removed wikilink. JJonahJackalope (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

References

• I'm hitting problems with referencing, noted above - to expand there's a few times on spot checks where the cited info has been a bit off or the page number is wrong, things like that which make me wonder about some of the refs i cannot check eg the Moody book and Weir 2013, p. 345, which is cited 12 times.

Putting on hold

• This article is an excellent read and when expanded a bit for broadness and some referencing issues are ironed out, can be a good article and in my opinion could go on to be a featured article. I've made detailed comments on a read through and asked for a bit more in the lead and the last section. Again, please ask if something's not clear and give me a buzz when you want me to look again, if it's goign past a week I might check in but we have already communicated about the deadline not being tight. Cheers! Mujinga (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Final comments

I am glad we got there in the end! Thanks for putting in the work. Having read the article again and gone through the improvements, I have three last comments, they don't stop the article being a good one since improvements can always be made to any article.

• lead: "workers experienced an increase in workplace injuries caused by the working" can be changed to have less "work" in it - i made an edit, feel free to change
• the COI edit request about the apartheid issue did offer some useful new sources which could be added
• "Weir also commented on the effectiveness of the corporate campaign, saying that parent union support for Rogers and the CCI could have succeeded at Hormel, citing its success at the Ravenswood strike that occurred several years later." this sentence could arguably be moved a few sentences back to be with the rest of the Weir comments.

Happy to approve this as a good article now, congratulations! Mujinga (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.