Talk:United Mine Workers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a WikiProject which aims to improve all articles related to Mining.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within Mining articles.
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	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.	Organized Labour Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been selected for the Organized Labour Portal Article Of The Day for January 21.
	If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

[edit] Corrected "Mine Riot" link

Corrected the reference to the Virden Mine Riot of 1898. It's external, but at least it's correct. It replaces a link to nowhere (and so, a red link). A reference to the same event in Mother Jones was also corrected. Also changed the description of that event (the event was one reason Mother Jones was buried at Mt. Olive, not the only reason). Also Wikified Mt. Olive. 24.178.228.14 (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It also fails WP:EL. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello One Night In Hackney, your revert was incorrect according to the justification that you used in reverting. Specifically:

• Regarding WP:EL - quoting the style guide of EL, "As the occasional exception may arise, it should be approached with common sense." Quoting the page-in-a-nutshell just below the style guide, "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article."
• Application to the article: the pre-modified article contained a link-to-nowhere or a link to an inappropriate location, and it described a historical event with an apparently made-up name, whereas the event is known by an accepted name .
• The article modifications more than satisfied the criteria in the EL style guide and nutshell summary. The article improvement was quantifiable, providing useful information where none had existed before, and using the accepted name of a historical event where a made-up name had been used before.

This was all explained on the talk page, in a compact but understandable form. Patrollers who attempt to improve Wikipedia are a good thing, and mistakes are understandable. Regards, 24.178.228.14 (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't link to self-published unreliable sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And to clarify. We avoid links to Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". What you're linking to is no better than a blog in terms of reliability. The person hosting it can publish anything he likes, there's no proven fact checking. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)