Talk:SEIU Local 1.on
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
[edit] Deletion request
There's no need to delete this article. It relates to SEIU and its locals. I'm worried about the writing as well, as it does read like it comes from somewhere, so I'm looking into copyvio. In the meantime, I'm going to add some standard WP:UNION stuff around the text.--Bookandcoffee 18:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sourcing
There are some pretty strong charges in this article that aren't backed by any sources, and some writing that seems like WP:OR. I'm going to cut a number of them out in the next few days unless they can be <ref>ed.--Bookandcoffee 16:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Started.--Bookandcoffee 19:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well that's my run at it. I took a large amount of material out. It was clearly personal opinions, original research, and frankly, an angry rant against the union. I'm all for including unflattering material if it's true and sourced, but I saw none of that here.--Bookandcoffee 16:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- The material that I removed ([1]) continues to be re-inserted into this article. It contains a considerable amount of polarized language, original research, and unsourced material. Simply re-adding the content is not enough - if it is to be used it must be improved a great deal and, most importantly, accompanied by sources.--Bookandcoffee 17:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well that's my run at it. I took a large amount of material out. It was clearly personal opinions, original research, and frankly, an angry rant against the union. I'm all for including unflattering material if it's true and sourced, but I saw none of that here.--Bookandcoffee 16:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
