Talk:Project Labor Agreement

Hi there, I'm not entirely sure what to do here. I have been researching PLAs, and was hoping to create an unbiased source of information.

ConstructionRus, I really appreciate your contributions, but these edits look to be straight from the ABC website, and are intended to creating to promote bias in the people reading the article. I absolutely support your right to have a voice and oppose PLAs, but Wikipedia is based on offering objective information that allows viewers to create their own opinions. I don't want to delete your contributions, so is there a way you could edit them to offer less bias?

Thanks so much! Bt202

Bt202 -

Thanks for your help. I appreciate your message. For what it is worth, I could say your contributions look very similar to what I would expect from a BCTD represenative, and are clearly intended to creating to promote bias in the people reading the article.

Regardless, I will be providing more indepth citations through the end of the afternoon and early tomorrow. I will also be monitoring this site closely. Feel free ask about any information you do not believe is properly cited.

Thanks!

ConstructionRus

Contributors, it strikes me that although your cites are valid, they are the source of the bias you both have a problem with. Citing ABC as a neutral source is the same as citing the AFL-CIO as a neutral source. It doesn't work. Making biased statements in Wikipedia and then using biased sources to support them doesn't make the article less biased. The article would be vastly improved by the removal of all such citations. Scottcuddy (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Formatting

Capitalization of headings: the Wikipedia style for capitalizing headings is to use "sentence case" instead of "title case", e.g.,

Important things to know about this subject

not:

Important Things to Know About This Subject

This may be unfamiliar to many editors who believe that or have been taught that "title case is the right way to capitalize headings". It isn't the "right way", it is one style. Wikipedia has, for better or worse, chosen to follow a different style, i.e., capitalize the heading the same way you would capitalize any sentence:

• capitalize the first word,
• capitalize any proper nouns (people, places, organizations), and
• begin all other words with lower case letters.

See WP:HEAD for more information.

Links in headings: The Wikipedia style is to leave internal or external links out of headings within articles. See WP:HEAD again:

"Section names should not normally contain links, especially ones that link only part of the heading; they will cause accessibility problems."

I have changed this again.

Wording of headings: WP:HEAD says:

"Headings provide an overview in the table of contents and allow readers to navigate through the text more easily."

So they should be brief and not be packed withinforamtion -- that is what the text section should do. I have trimmed the headings to take out dates, institutions where the authors work, etc.

"Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article... headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated."

So I have taken out repeated refences to Project Labor Agreements for the headings.

Ground Zero | t 19:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I tagged POV check. The article has many issues and should be looked at seriously. user:redoy (not logged in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.55.240.19 (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

this article covers a hotly debated topic in popular culture, and needs to be reworked to remove bias from both sides of the argument.Scottcuddy (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

New attempt to fix this article

A few editors have pointed out on this page that the article isn't very neutral, on both sides, and I definitely agree. But there are more problems with it than just that. I happen to work for ABC, an interested party in the debate, but I would like to see this article become a readable guide to the topic and its background, and I think anyone can agree that's not what it is now. A lot of information here has no citations, there are too many subsections, many of which are not written in encyclopedic style at all, and too much emphasis on listing various studies without adequate summaries. I think the best thing may be simply to start over. With that in mind, I've been working on another possible version of the article and I am nearly done with it. In the interests of creating a useful, balanced entry, I'd like to invite anybody who is watching this page to review it when I post it and see if we can find agreement on how to fix this page after so long. Thanks, Alaemon (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

To follow up this note from earlier in the summer, I've finally now finished what I think is a dramatic improvement on the current article. I respect the fact that others have worked on the article that currently exists, but the present version has numerous problems. There is a lot of original research in there, and it is not written in summary style so I went back to the drawing board, and the article I'd like to move into place is here: User:Alaemon/Project Labor Agreement. I would like to suggest that someone else review the article and move it over. I'm willing to discuss any aspect of it, although I'd also suggest that we could have that discussion after it was moved. Since I've also seen that there's not much activity here on this page recently, I will leave it open for now, but if there's no discussion following the weekend, I may do it myself. Thanks, Alaemon (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been any commentary or activity on this discussion page (other than my own) in a few months' time, I've taken the liberty of changing out the old, bad article for my new, good one. Please feel free to make any changes necessary, so long as they fit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I may check in with this page from time to time, but for now I've done what I think needs to be done, and I hope it's a better resource for anyone coming to this topic, from whichever side of the debate they may happen to be on. Thanks, Alaemon (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)