Talk:Russell Crowell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
 |
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. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. |
[edit] Notability
I was tempted just to say "this editor knows more than i, and has a long, substantial, eclectic, & AFAIK constructive rcd at WP; give his article a pass." And IMO the life in question is one to be well satisfied with and to admire.
On the other hand,
- my Google search on
- union "Laundry and Dry-Cleaners" "Cleaning International"
- IMO should have come up with a lot of hits abt this split's significance in labor history, but produces almost nothing but clones of this or of the union's WP article
- the author of the article is presumably a relative of the bio's sujbect
- the bio is a near-orphan, i.e., except for its author's addition of
- an LoPbN entry, and
- a see-also lk in Teamsters, and
- the union's 2-sentence stub article, itself an orphan but for this author's creation of articles already mentioned and his addition of a lk in a list of unions.
My hope is that this article would be "rescued" if VfD'd, and i'd like to see that done via C-U, rather than burden VfD with it.
The article also needs (if its retention is justified) some style work, starting with dividing into a very short lead 'graph & at least one add'l 'graph.
--Jerzy•t 19:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
It may be worth look at this memorial.
- Hi -- Yes, he's my grandfather. Yes, I think he's notable. The fact that you didn't turn up much on google isn't surprising. Most of the events referred to in the article happened in the 1960's, decades before the internet existed. Thanks for your style comments. I'll break up the paragraph.--Bcrowell 21:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, I should also explain that the union of which he was president went into a tailspin not long after he retired from its leadership. I don't even know if the union still exists. So if it seemed suspicious that the union itself didn't have any web presence, that's why. Also, the memorial at lightandmatter.com is my own web page.--Bcrowell 22:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi -- Thanks for your comments on the Russell Crowell article. I've done some edits, which I hope will take care of your concerns, and I hope that after you take a look, you'll be willing to take off the clean-up marker. I realize that the fact that he's a relative of mine makes me biased and may sound suspicious, but I honestly think he is far, far above Wikipedia's threshold for notability. I've added a few comments on the talk page as well.
--Bcrowell 22:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- _ _ Hi back. I like the photo, and tho it's IMO far from conclusive, it helps to strengthen his case; the text is also indeed improved.
- _ _ I hope yr not being embarrassed by its presence on CU; WP is of course abt the articles & not the authors. I'd like to leave it there a while, even tho i'm mellowing abt the notability question (despite thinking its situation is insignificantly changed); IMO wider comment will support a better outcome.
- _ _ Yr photo reminds me of one i saw last week of only two people of that generation -- they're deep in a discussion of apparent weight; one has a household name and a BIG WP article, the other has IIRC a handful of Web refs despite decades of relationship with people whose names appear as article titles. I mention this bcz it occurs to me that the spotlight serves to hide the significance of the people, perhaps including the 7 or 8 presumed labor leaders in the photo, who may make the difference between their notability and non-notability by a personal choice (or a low-profile habit in years of incremental decision making) that is not obviously a dramatic one. The world wasn't automatically changed by that exec order, nor is it likely the presence of RC made the initiative noticably more significant. But IMO the fact that the UAW and CWA etc. weren't crowding out the laundry workers at that ceremony means that each of those unions' presence made a difference that mattered at least in the long run -- even tho i'll bet you could never trace it. Whether that perspective is germane to this notability question is not clear to me.
- _ _ What i do know could help convince me is more about his union:
- How many Teamster-affiliated unions were there, and how many of the largest of them did it take to make half their total membership?
- What fraction of those unions "split" like the laundry workers did, and what fraction of those largest ones? What fraction of workers in "split" unions ended up in the dissident unions 1, 5, 15, and 45 years later? Where do the laundry workers fall relative to the other split unions, in terms of starting size, and of how the relative and absolute sizes of the two unions developed? Were the laundry workers probably included in the photo bcz they were one of the largest willing, or one of the largest willing split unions, or bcz someone wanted to include a "token" small and/or split union?
- What is said abt the laundry unions in the print labor histories?
- How many unions signed on with the exec. order, and what characteristics (Teamster vs. never-Teamster vs. dissident, size, i dunno: craft vs trade, size of typical shop, whatever) correlated with doing so?
- _ _ Those questions are not addressed specifically to BC as original author, BTW: i ask them bcz in labor history i'm beyond my depth. BC may be as well (or not), without that bearing on the notability question. I hope some editors with labor-history qualifications will come forward.
- --Jerzy•t 04:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Executive Order
_ _ I don't think we have any other coverage of the pledge about discrimination in unions. And i'm pretty sure the current wording in Russell Crowell abt it is only vaguely accurate. _ _ An executive order is a binding order to people who work for the Executive Branch, and not a suitable means for an initiative whose focus is voluntary pledges. While research is needed to straighten this out, here's a likely direction:
- JFK may have ordered Federal agencies to insert, into future solicitations of bids to perform services for the govt, a requirement either
- that the contractor refrain from racial discrimination, or
- that all union locals certified to represent the contractors' workers refrain from it.
- In case 1, "voluntary" would make sense if the unions were saying "sauce for the goose ..."; in case 2, it might be a matter of unions or locals typically exempted (e.g. bcz of representing too small a fraction of the workers) or unaffected (bcz their shops don't get applicable Fed'l contracts) committing to the same standards as the covered unions or locals.
_ _ IMO, this order, or at least Kennedy-admin race policy (including it), is worth an article, so this is worth clearing up (whether or not Russell Crowell is retained).
--Jerzy•t 05:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- The executive order had no legal force. That's why Kenndy needed the people in the photo to sign a pledge to obey it voluntarily.--Bcrowell 15:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] removed cleanup tag
I'm removing the cleanup tag. In my opinion, the article was never in need of cleanup in the first place, but I tried to make the kinds of changes Jerzy suggested. As far as I can tell from Wikipedia:Cleanup_process, the person who added the cleanup tag does not have to be the one to remove it. Jerzy, if you think Russell Crowell is not notable enough to be in WP, please go ahead and do an afd.--Bcrowell 20:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
