Talk:United States Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in Labor and Management

Copyright status of image.
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)
 * But historical archive press photos are acceptable. Wikipedia's "Unacceptable Non-Free Image" guideline makes this clear (see #6 in the list): "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos." (emphasis mine) - Tim1965 (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Oregonian articles
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:
 * In April 1956, the Portland, Oregon newspaper The Oregonian launched a series of articles exposing plans by Teamsters officials to take over the city's vice rackets. Information gleaned from local crime boss James Elkins informed the series. The Teamsters were able to exert influence over many industries by refusing to make deliveries. Using this power, corrupt union members were able to put illegal gambling machines into taverns, clubs, and grocery stores.

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 text in the Oregon Encyclopedia does say so, but not as directly as I'd like. I should concede that I'm only beginning to familiarize myself with this bit of history, so it's possible I'm misreading it. To my mind, the question is whether the Portland situation was the issue that caused the committee to be formed, or whether it was merely an important component in the formation of the committee. Either way, I think it merits some mention in the article. But I'm interested to hear other people's interpretations. Tim, maybe you could take a look at the source article and report back on this point?


 * Also relevant: for those unfamiliar with it, the editorial policies of the Oregon Encyclopedia are very rigorous, so it should easily qualify as a high quality reliable source. Articles are written by carefully selected experts, and edited by an editorial board composed primarily (entirely?) of the History faculty of several universities.


 * Some day, I'd love to go to the library and look up the original Oregonian articles on microfilm...but I doubt that'll be any time soon :) -Pete (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For ease of checking, here's the citation: Donnelly, Robert: McClellan Committee in the Oregon Encyclopedia


 * Here's a possible addition -- do you think adding this sentence to the end of the paragraph would adequately state the significance of the event, and accurately reflect what's stated in the source? (I think the 3rd paragraph of the OE article is the most significant to this Wikipedia article.) -Pete (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Oregonian's reports, along with rising concerns about union activity in other parts of the nation, caught McClellan's notice, and contributed to the committee's escalating attention to union corruption.

(using this space to compose some text for main page)
The 1957 hearings opened with a focus on corruption in Portland, Oregon, and featured the testimony of Portland crime boss Jim Elkins. 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.

Page numbers
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)

POV: Bias
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.
 * I disagree. First, the article passed an independent review and was listed as a Good Article.  That wouldn't have happened had the article been biased.  Second, numerous instances of illegal union behavior are discussed in the article (the IBT "paper local" scandal, Beck's fleeing the country, six contempt of Congress charges, testimony by crime boss Jim Elkins, involvement of mobster Johnn Dio, extensive testimony by a string of New York crime syndicate leaders, etc.).  Third, it is not the article or its Wikipedia contributors which claim senators are pro- or anti-labor or pro- or anti-crime, but rather the first-hand testimony of witnesses or that of the historians cited. Fourth, there are exactly three citations to Woodwiss in the article, out of a grand total of 240 citations.  Many of these citations are to sources highly critical of labor unions.  If you feel Fox's Blood and power: organized crime in twentieth-century America has something to contribute, you can certainly add that information and citations. - Tim1965 (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's true - the article looks bias so long as it doesn't substantiate the opinions its repeating. The citations are not balanced, and I'm not even sure if they confirm what's being written. It's terrible form to repeat the same citation over and again, especially without page numbers. That said, it's easily fixed up.  Wik idea  20:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Citation method
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)

Irrelevant info about RFK
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)


 * "Irrelevant" is your claim, but so far is not backed up. My claim is that it is relevant, or I wouldn't have added it in the first place: (a) It shows how Kennedy came to be appointed council to the committee (which is important for readers assessing the bipartisan support for his work); (b) it demonstrates Kennedy's role on the committee as a caucus counsel (Republican majority, then Democratic minority, then Democratic majority), not staff counsel; (c) it shows how Kennedy rose to the position he was in when the McClellan Hearings began (which is important for readers, who they do not think Kennedy was appointed specifically to lead the investigation); (d) it shows that Kennedy was no newcomer to the committee, nor an anti-labor proponent, but at that time merely an attorney interested in government operations); (e) it shows Kennedy's lengthy service with the committee as majority counsel (two years prior to the start of the McClellan Hearings); and (f) it shows how Kennedy joined the committee before the Hoffa/Beck battle (which, as documented with citation later in the article, is what upset Kennedy). Contextual information like this is often included in B-class or better articles. - Tim1965 (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * But if that's the case its rather UNDUE. Maybe then move some of it to a footnote? It would be the same as describing how McClellan became a senator (for the record, we should probably say that McClellan became committee chairman following the 1954 elections). I don't see why we have to say anything beyond RFK having counsel experience—do we really need all those dates, or that he was appointed by McCarthy (those are the parts that seem biographical)? -Indy beetle (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)