Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Chicago Teachers Union

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PumpkinSky talk 12:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Chicago Teachers Union edit

(
)
  • ... that the Chicago Teachers Union was formed during the Great Depression after teachers revolted against the banks withholding their paychecks?
Alt 1... that the Chicago Teachers Union was formed after unpaid teachers revolted against Chicago banks during the Great Depression?
  • Reviewed: Mulugeta Buli
  • Comment: Expansion partly caused by CTU's presence in the news; chose this factoid because it won't age much.

Expanded by Groupuscule (talk) and others. Self nom at 12:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

  • This is an interesting 5X expansion article, just briefly perusing it. The hook is not correct. Banks were not withholding the paychecks, because the teachers were not employed by the banks. The teachers in Chicago were employed by the city. Teacher funding came from taxes, and both businesses and banks were evading taxes. The city was low on funds because of that. What the source actually says is that the teachers were not getting paychecks at all due to the economy. They were paid by "scrip" - like a coupon, or something similar to today's food stamps vouchers . Apparently, neither the banks nor businesses were honoring that for the full value of the scrips. In contrast, the banks got a big government bailout, but still were refusing to honor scrips The teacher revolt happened in 1933. They were angry about the banks hogging all the bailout money for themselves. But the banks were not withholding their paychecks. Maile66 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
You just need to write a new hook. Maile66 (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Hello Maile66 and thanks for your attention (to the article & to detail). You hit the nail on the head in highlighting an ambiguity in the article concerning 'the money owed to the teachers'. More research revealed more facts about the status of the money being held by the banks, but ultimately the waters are still murky. Scrips & bailouts (I know little about the latter—is there a relevant Wikipedia article?) are only part of the story here. As was the case during Margaret Haley's tax dodger fight at the turn of the century, teachers attributed the city's budget crisis (and their payless paydays) directly to wealthy tax dodgers, who collectively owed the city millions of dollars. One bank, Chicago Title and Trust Company, was apparently sitting on $10 million of someone's dollars, possibly slated for tax payments to the city. CTTC was audited by the city in summer of '33 (perhaps because of the teacher's efforts but causality would be difficult to determine), but I haven't yet discovered the outcome. Library books may shed more light on the matter. In any case, you are correct that we cannot hang our hats on a hook that blatantly blames the beleaguered banks. I have suggested a simplification that, perhaps, offers less information, but also perhaps provokes curiosity from the reader. groupuscule (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Just a little correction on the new hook. DYK likes to see all the history, so the old hook should still be there with a strike through, and with your new one as Alt 1. And if you do another one, it would be Alt 2, etc. Otherwise, anyone else seeing this discussion doesn't know what's going on.Maile66 (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I know you are doing an expansion on a pre-existing article, but I suggest you check all the references there to make sure they're still valid. Anything that requires a login, subscription are not helpful links. DYK reviewers are supposed to access the links. That would at least be those references that are in all caps. Why all caps, by the way? Are they yelling at us?
  • The last paragraph of the lead got tagged for citation needed Taken care of Maile66 (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Reconstruction Finance Corporation - the organization giving bailouts to banks.
  • External links - I'm unsure how DYK feels about Twitter Feeds and Facebook external links. You could ask at DYK Talk
  • I would remove the union logo in the upper right of the article. It's not licensed to Wikipedia.
Maile66 (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Stability is also an issue right now, due to current events in Chicago. Since Sept 13, there have been 35 edits to this article. Only 3 of those have been by the author who expanded and nominated the article. Maile66 (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
OK. Thank you both for your attention and your patience. Issues resolved:
  • CTU logo replaced with free-use image
  • Citation (two, actually) for officers now appears in lead
  • Link to Reconstructive Finance Corporation, with clarification of its role, added to section on Great Depression
  • Completed review of Mulugeta Buli DYK nom
  • The article had no references prior to expansion so there are none to check.
Other:
  • Articles with all-caps titles come from Proquest database of historical US newspapers. I have access through my local library; if you're located in the US, you probably do, as well. If not, please backchannel me and I can send you whatever articles you need.
  • I agree there were many edits to the article, concerning the CTU's 2012 strike. As you can see above, I did anticipate that the strike would play a role. The hook comes from the history of the CTU, and you'll notice that this section of the article has been untouched. The 2012 strike was updated as it progressed, but edits there have died down as well, and there have been few in the last week.
  • The external links seem standard and I'm inclined to leave them unless there's a specific policy against them. Is the concern that the DYK nomination would be CTU advertising? If you feel like you want to delete them for the article's DYK appearance I suppose this is fine.
So, I think we're getting close. Let me know what you all are thinking. Thanks & peace, groupuscule (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Of the items I mentioned above, only the citation on the lead paragraph was taken care of.
  • 1) Not all references in the article seem to be valid - and I only did a spot check. Many need union membership to access. I don't understand why references are in all caps
  • 2) External links - I'm unsure how DYK feels about Twitter Feeds and Facebook external links. You could ask at DYK Talk
  • 3) The article still uses the union logo, not licensed to Wikipedia, not on Commons (Groupuscule removed it and was reversed)
  • 4) Stability is still iffy, as far as edit history

Maile66 (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Also, I would like to recommend someone familiar with labor unions, and familiar with Chicago politics, do this review. This is a heavyweight article, and it should receive appropriate attention from someone knowledgeable with the subject matter. In this particular case, I think the reviewer expertise is necessary to pick up on any POV which may exist. This is an expansion and has had a good many editors. Maile66 (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


---

I'm going to ignore all of the above and start fresh. I've worked in schools in the Chicago area (but NOT Chicago), been a member of an education union (but NOT a teacher's union) but not involved inside it. I've a degree in education, have worked as a teacher. Union issues in Illinois have been covered in classes I've taken at the university level and high school level. I find Chicago politics interesting and have watched them for many years. I'm not in Chicago and haven't been following this story that closely. Hopefully, this works as expert knowledge. I listened to some Chicago radio that mentioned it. (As a non-political station, their views were rather neutral in my view. Or rather, they were anti-union in the sense of "My kids need daycare.")


Alt 1... that the Chicago Teachers Union was formed after unpaid teachers revolted against Chicago banks during the Great Depression?
  • New enough and long enough at time of nomination.
  • File:Chicago Teachers Union.jpg has a fair use rationale. File:2012ChicagoTeachersUnionStrikeMarch.jpg was uploaded by user as self taken photo and licensed acceptable. File:Chicagoteachers1900.jpg is public domain.
  • Article is fully supported by citations.
  • Offline source used is by a publisher I would trust as they have a record of publishing high quality, well researched materials. Quotes excerpted from this support this.
  • Offline sources support text and were not plagiarised to write this article.
  • Plagiarism spotcheck at here, here, here, here show no cause for concerns.
  • Spot check of sources using Highbeam and Proquest newspaper article links through an alternative database (Newsbank) shows no cause for plagiarism concerns and that these sources support the cited text.
  • Alt1 is properly formatted. The hook is supported by article text. The hook is neutral enough given the topic while still being interesting. The hooked fact is supported by citations in the article.
  • The article mirrors my understanding of the broader labour situation in Chicago and the contentious nature of it. Pullman Strike is an example of another labor situation in the area. There are a few others and the early history also mirrors what I know in regards to Jane Addams. The early history section to me fits this. Phrases like "exceptionally militant" might have some POV issues, but at the time, they likely were given everything else going on.
  • For me, the focus feels right because it focuses on teacher grievances and teacher working conditions. If it focused on external reaction to the teacher unions, it wouldn't explain the union but rather the broader labour movement in Chicago. While I think there are a few phrases in "Before collective bargaining: 1937–1967" and "Origins" which could be viewed as polemicist, I think the balance is there to offset what is probably some bias on both sides.
  • Overall, I think the article is as neutral as you're going to get. I'd be inclined to nominate this for GA as I think it does a rather adequate job of covering the topic in as neutral a manner as possible.
  • There is nothing in policy about not including links to Twitter and Facebook in the external links section. As these are to official sources and not intended as a link repository of unrelated links masquerading as a reference section or way to promote websites by commercial companies unaffiliated with the topic, I have no problem with them. --LauraHale (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

My inclination is to give this the tick to go. --LauraHale (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ooh look at all the nice green check marks! Reaching "GA" status would be great; I think mostly expansion would be needed for "Collective bargaining and strikes", which does not currently have proportionate coverage.... but that's work for another day. I agree it is good to go for DYK, and many thanks to both of you for your reviews. Shalom, groupuscule (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Chicago_Teachers_Union&oldid=1019539456"