United States Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in Labor and Management has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 30, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
McClellan Committee served 8,000
subpoenas, took testimony from 1,526 witnesses (343 of whom invoked the
Fifth Amendment), and compiled almost 150,000 pages of evidence? |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It seems to me that the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hoffa_faces_McClellan_Comte_1957.jpg is being used here in a way which conflicts with the policy that "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)." In this article, the image itself is not being discussed, just the event it depicts.
Unless somebody objects, I will flag the image as a possible copyright violation. Sorry to be a pain. MJD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.28.152 ( talk) 14:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I will be undertaking this review. It may take a while to complete, owing to 'real life'. This article appears to be stable (albeit largely unedited, being the work of one extremely thorough and hardworking contributor, User:Tim1965), comprehensive, focussed, well-referenced and containing appropriate images. I will be checking some Manual of Style issues and forming an impression of whether the article is balanced - it looks to be so, but as the creator of all the text is a self-identified labour union member, it is something I will keep in mind :-) This looks to be one of many excellent pieces of 20th century historical research by this editor. hamiltonstone ( talk) 02:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Background and creation
Investigations
Criticisms
Other points
Those are my initial thoughts. Fabulously detailed references. Good work. hamiltonstone ( talk) 12:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The following text was added to the article. However, there is nothing in the text which would indicate that The Oregonian's reporting was an impetus to the McClellan Committee's formation. There were many reports in many states about Teamster corruption; but was any single article or series of articles critical to the establishment of the Select Committee? Unless the source says so, I would not include it. Removed text follows:
Maybe this entry in the Oregon Encyclopedia does say so; if so, the text should be altered to make that point, and then be re-added. - Tim1965 ( talk) 00:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The 1957 hearings opened with a focus on corruption in Portland, Oregon, and featured the testimony of Portland crime boss Jim Elkins. [2] With the support of 70 hours of taped conversations, Elkins described being approached by two Seattle gangsters about working with the Teamsters to take over Portland vice operations. The colorful testimony brought the committee's investigations national media attention from the outset. [2]
References
This is a really good article, and thanks to Tim1965 for doing it (I'm finding it very useful). I do think that to get better it probably needs to say what the page numbers of those books, which are cited repeatedly, are. Usually I think the books would be put in a reference list, separate from the endnotes. Wik idea 13:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The entire article has a harshly negative tone toward the committee and its investigation of labor practices. It includes no examples of actual corruption by labor leaders or organized crime figures being investigated. It also shows black and white thinking so that one is either pro-labor or pro-management without allowing for the possibility that one could be pro- one side or the other on a case-by-case basis, nor that any senator or investigator withheld judgment until he or she was presented with facts. Sources such as those from Woodwiss should be counterbalanced with someone from a differing point of view, such as Stephen Fox.
This page is useful, and the work that has gone into is laudable. But the citations are really frustrating, especially this: "Robert Kennedy proved to be an inexpert interrogator, fumbling questions and engaging in shouting matches with witnesses rather than laying out legal cases against them.[1][4][18][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]".
None of those clumsy row of footnotes cite a page number. It's a rather unhelpful claim - though it may be true. It needs to be accurately substantiated - which is hard, because I expect a lot of people praised RFK for his work. It should also be in only one footnote, even if it's multiple books. All else in the article that's similar would be greatly helped if also amended. Wik idea 20:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
@ Tim1965: Why is it necessary for us to describe Kennedy's history as counsel for the Committee on Government Operations? For the record, I don't see that "deletion of cited materials must be discussed" if that material is wholly irrelevant. This is not Kennedy's page. And overall any inclusion of the history of the Committee on Government Operations is relevant only insofar as its initial investigations that spurred the creation of the Select Committee. - Indy beetle ( talk) 19:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
United States Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in Labor and Management has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 30, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
McClellan Committee served 8,000
subpoenas, took testimony from 1,526 witnesses (343 of whom invoked the
Fifth Amendment), and compiled almost 150,000 pages of evidence? |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It seems to me that the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hoffa_faces_McClellan_Comte_1957.jpg is being used here in a way which conflicts with the policy that "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)." In this article, the image itself is not being discussed, just the event it depicts.
Unless somebody objects, I will flag the image as a possible copyright violation. Sorry to be a pain. MJD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.28.152 ( talk) 14:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I will be undertaking this review. It may take a while to complete, owing to 'real life'. This article appears to be stable (albeit largely unedited, being the work of one extremely thorough and hardworking contributor, User:Tim1965), comprehensive, focussed, well-referenced and containing appropriate images. I will be checking some Manual of Style issues and forming an impression of whether the article is balanced - it looks to be so, but as the creator of all the text is a self-identified labour union member, it is something I will keep in mind :-) This looks to be one of many excellent pieces of 20th century historical research by this editor. hamiltonstone ( talk) 02:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Background and creation
Investigations
Criticisms
Other points
Those are my initial thoughts. Fabulously detailed references. Good work. hamiltonstone ( talk) 12:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The following text was added to the article. However, there is nothing in the text which would indicate that The Oregonian's reporting was an impetus to the McClellan Committee's formation. There were many reports in many states about Teamster corruption; but was any single article or series of articles critical to the establishment of the Select Committee? Unless the source says so, I would not include it. Removed text follows:
Maybe this entry in the Oregon Encyclopedia does say so; if so, the text should be altered to make that point, and then be re-added. - Tim1965 ( talk) 00:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The 1957 hearings opened with a focus on corruption in Portland, Oregon, and featured the testimony of Portland crime boss Jim Elkins. [2] With the support of 70 hours of taped conversations, Elkins described being approached by two Seattle gangsters about working with the Teamsters to take over Portland vice operations. The colorful testimony brought the committee's investigations national media attention from the outset. [2]
References
This is a really good article, and thanks to Tim1965 for doing it (I'm finding it very useful). I do think that to get better it probably needs to say what the page numbers of those books, which are cited repeatedly, are. Usually I think the books would be put in a reference list, separate from the endnotes. Wik idea 13:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The entire article has a harshly negative tone toward the committee and its investigation of labor practices. It includes no examples of actual corruption by labor leaders or organized crime figures being investigated. It also shows black and white thinking so that one is either pro-labor or pro-management without allowing for the possibility that one could be pro- one side or the other on a case-by-case basis, nor that any senator or investigator withheld judgment until he or she was presented with facts. Sources such as those from Woodwiss should be counterbalanced with someone from a differing point of view, such as Stephen Fox.
This page is useful, and the work that has gone into is laudable. But the citations are really frustrating, especially this: "Robert Kennedy proved to be an inexpert interrogator, fumbling questions and engaging in shouting matches with witnesses rather than laying out legal cases against them.[1][4][18][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]".
None of those clumsy row of footnotes cite a page number. It's a rather unhelpful claim - though it may be true. It needs to be accurately substantiated - which is hard, because I expect a lot of people praised RFK for his work. It should also be in only one footnote, even if it's multiple books. All else in the article that's similar would be greatly helped if also amended. Wik idea 20:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
@ Tim1965: Why is it necessary for us to describe Kennedy's history as counsel for the Committee on Government Operations? For the record, I don't see that "deletion of cited materials must be discussed" if that material is wholly irrelevant. This is not Kennedy's page. And overall any inclusion of the history of the Committee on Government Operations is relevant only insofar as its initial investigations that spurred the creation of the Select Committee. - Indy beetle ( talk) 19:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)