Talk:Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject. |
 |
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. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. | |
 |
This article has been selected for the Organized Labour Portal Article Of The Day for August 25. | |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. |
[edit] conductor
This article describes a conductor as a job reserved for whites. That was written in the context of the 1920's. What a sad commentary it is that our conductor (transportation) article, written 80 years later, still features a picture of a white man performing that job. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copyvio
Prince Par—thanks for not writing over the text of the article on the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters. But the text you have added still presents a problem, since it is lifted almost verbatim from a February 1, 2001 article by Pia Sarkar for the San Francisco Chronicle. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/02/01/MN140578.DTL
This sort of copyright violation is taken very seriously by Wikipedia editors; I know because I had an article deleted when it appeared that it was taken from a newspaper article (as it turns out, it was the other way around; they passed off the Wikipedia article as their own). I have therefore deleted the addition you made, because it puts the entire article in jeopardy.
The addition is also not suitable for this article. It repeats, in a format suitable for a newspaper article but not an encyclopedia entry, some of the facts already provided in the main part of the article. I have kept the part that is new, the existence of a museum devoted to Randolph and the Union in Chicago. Italo Svevo 02:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
