Talk:Congress of Industrial Organizations/Draft

Naming

I thought this article was going to be about Chief Information Officers. Question, then: at what names shall we put this article, the article about Chief Information Officers, and what should reside at "CIO"? Notice, "CIO" is also the name of a magazine. Cf. also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIO What do you think? --Larry Sanger 10:38, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

CIO is the common name for 70 years of one of the largest and best known organizations in American history. I think we can disambiguate when we have another article with similar title. Note that Wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIO does a TERRIBLE job on disambiguation here (the union is listed twice, both incorrectly, and AFL-CIO is missed); this list lacks a meaningful order. And they miss Comité International Olympique . Richard Jensen 12:59, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Moving Towards Approval

At first blush, this article is looking pretty good... any thoughts on moving towards approval? Stephen Saletta 21:59, 17 April 2008 (CDT)

yes it is ready. I just fixed the bibliog. please nomnate. :) Richard Jensen 23:08, 17 April 2008 (CDT)

I took another read, it looks great, encyclopedic. Is there a reason for the single reference at the top of the bibliography page? I asked the copy editors to take a look and weigh in with a second opinion on the title, we'll give it 10 days? Stephen Saletta 00:15, 18 April 2008 (CDT)

I updated the links in the bibliog; the Arneson encyclopedia is more general than anything but it can go in with the others.Richard Jensen 01:07, 18 April 2008 (CDT)

Problems

This article still reads too much like the poorly-written wikipedia article. I took a stab at re-writing the 1937-1940 section, but there is just too much general gobbly-gook there that would require a couple of hours of research to clear up. You've got the formation of the CIO, UAW, USW, URW, the Memorial Day Massacre, the Flint Sit-Down (which is exceptionally sketchy), the Battle of the Overpass. It doesn't mention the 1935 & 1936 URW strikes that pioneered the sit-down, or that the sit-down was ruled illegal by 1941. There's the battle for control of the CIO and UAW. I'm not going to devote more time to it right now. --Russell D. Jones 21:28, 24 April 2008 (CDT)

Naming-Again

Also, the name of this article should be "Congress of Industrial Organizations" not CIO. We should have a disambiguation page "CIO" that would link here. Yes, the wikipedia disambiguation page is a mess, but we're not wikipedia. Russell D. Jones 02:46, 25 April 2008 (CDT)

the term "CIO" is current -- as in AFL-CIO--and has always been used by members and scholars; the "Congress of Industrial Organizations" was discarded 50+ years ago, and even then it was seldom used. It should not be resurrected here. Richard Jensen 03:19, 25 April 2008 (CDT)

I just looked at the ABC-CLIO listing of 200 books, articles and reviews dealing with the CIO and published since 1990. Exactly 1 article and 1 dissertation used "Congress of Industrial Organizations": Gentry, Jonathan. "Christ Is Out, Communism Is On": Opposition to the Congress of Industrial Organizations's "Operation Dixie" in South Carolina, 1946-1951. in Proceedings of the South Carolina Historical Association 2003: 15-24. and Eimer, Stuart. "The Challenge of Organizing the Organized: The Congress of Industrial Organizations Greater New York Industrial Union Council and Working Class Formation." PhD dissertation U. of Wisconsin, Madison 2000. Ao the experts do not use the long form.Richard Jensen 03:40, 25 April 2008 (CDT)

Yes, we all call it the CIO, even the "experts" call it the CIO. But it's name is not the "CIO"; it's name is the Congress of Industrial Organizations. To claim otherwise is just a bunch of double-speak. Russell D. Jones 19:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The name of the organization is the Congress of Industrial Organizations. See this. Russell D. Jones 19:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

APPROVED Version 1.0

Congratulations! Due notice that there were several edits that were not included as the approved version didd not include them and the editor has not been available to review them. If they are approved later, we can update the approval at any time! --D. Matt Innis 11:30, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

Discussion for Version 1.0 stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break.

I'd like to ask that the disambiguation template be re-added to the approved version. --Robert W King 12:56, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

Renaming -- yet again

This article should be named Congress of Industrial Organizations. How do I (as history editor) rename an approved article? (probably the wrong question at the wrong time). Russell D. Jones 18:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it should be renamed. --Phillip Stewart 21:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you contact Anthony as Approvals Manager. If he OKs it then Matt as constable deals with the technicalities. Peter Jackson 09:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus. I can just move it. John Stephenson 16:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It's about time. Russell D. Jones 19:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)