Why do the Wikipedia articles on strikes have a habit of not actually stating what caused the strikes, and tend to mention only what the strikers are doing?
by 
Halskiisaklink
ANSWERS: 1
-
1) Wikipedia has a neutrality policy, so they would describe facts rather than unproved suppositions. 2) Have you some examples of this? Here the first article that I found about a strike: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_steel_strike I think that it contains a broad reflexion about the origin of that strike. 3) As far as nowadays strikes are concerned, maybe a causal analysis is quite difficult, because it would rather base on the arguments of the striking people or of the companies being striked, so not always neutral. Often argument can be only considered as valid sometime afterwards, after some people have made a detailed analysis of the situation.
iwnit RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC