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

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)

This review is transcluded from Talk:United States Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in Labor and Management/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


### Initial comment
I will be undertaking this review. It may take a while to complete, owing to 'real life'.
This article appears to be stable (albeit largely unedited, being the work of one extremely thorough and hardworking contributor, User:Tim1965), comprehensive, focussed, well-referenced and containing appropriate images. I will be checking some Manual of Style issues and forming an impression of whether the article is balanced - it looks to be so, but as the creator of all the text is a self-identified labour union member, it is something I will keep in mind :-) This looks to be one of many excellent pieces of 20th century historical research by this editor. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Background and creation

First sentence commences "Beginning in 1955,..."  Yet the second sentence commences "In December 1952, Robert F. Kennedy was appointed..." The chronology is immediately confusing. It needs to be reworked so that it is clear how something can "begin" holding hearings three years after someone became assistant counsel.
Done! - Tim1965 (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
"Kennedy resigned in July 1953, but rejoined the committee staff as chief minority counsel in February 1954.[4] When the Democrats regained the majority in January 1955..." This needs an explanation to a lay person (or indeed a non-US person). What is a minority counsel? Why did the guy have to resign to become this? If he had been on the staff in a committee in a Westminster system country (eg. UK, Australia, New Zealand), this would not make sense, as the staff are non-partisan and serve both sides. Was it caused by control of the Senate changing hands in '53 or '54 (as well as '55)?
There is, shockingly, no Wiki article on U.S. congressional staff, and the article on committees in the U.S. Congress doesn't contain any information on committee staff either. So I added a much larger footnote than intended. The footnote explains the committee staff system in a very few words (I hope), and adds citations. I'd appreciate feedback on this footnote, especially if it answers the questions. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Second para: "Much of the Permanent Subcommittee's work focused on a scandal in the International Brotherhood of Teamsters which emerged in 1956..." Teamster is a US word, and this just needs a slight tweak to introduce it to the audience more generally. I suggest: "Much of the Permanent Subcommittee's work focused on a scandal in the powerful trade union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters."
Done! - Tim1965 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
More terms that a lay reader will not know: "paper local" (I know it is wikilinked, but could a phrase be substituted that gives the gist of what these were for?); "charter" in this context: does it mean apply for membership of the union? Apply to become a local branch or become affiliated with the union? Not sure how best to handle this, and will take advice.
I added a parenthetical phrase about paper locals in the text. I'd prefer to deal with the "charter" issue in a footnote, because as you noted it is a slightly complex issue. - Tim1965 (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
"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". This and other nearby sentences all rely on the one citation (Robert Kennedy: Brother Protector). This seems to be a fairly important assessment of Kennedy's effectiveness in the committee process, and I wondered whether other sources agree with this view?
I added other sources to support not only that conclusion, but to support other statements in the paragraph as well. I would appreciate a re-review of that section to see if anything needs further support. - Tim1965 (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way, the "Criticisms" section at the end of the article also documents criticisms of RFK's behavior and questioning. Given your concerns about that section (see very bottom), would it be better to just add these statements about RFK's questioning into the "Background and Creation" section (either as full sentences or as footnotes)? - Tim1965 (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Investigations

"...the Committee had also been strongly criticized for its handling of witnesses and its apparent one-sidedness in exposing union but not management corruption." This is a crucial claim that needs citations, preferably to multiple sources, and certainly to at least one academic / secondary analysis (ie. it should not be supported only by contemporaneous newspaper reports).
Should it include both contemporaneous and later assessments? - Tim1965 (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Done! - Tim1965 (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
"...gathering enough power unto itself to destroy the national economy." This is a strange turn of phrase - is it a quote from a report or speech of the time? Otherwise, perhaps "...gathering enough power to destroy the national economy" would be adequate.
That's my own weird phraseology. I've adjusted it in the article. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
"By the summer of 1959, it was clear that the Select Committee was not developing additional information to justify continued operation." This analysis of its (in)effectiveness should be supoprted by a citation.
Done! Clearly, this was not a factual judgement, but a political one. A paragraph lower in the article talks about the jurisdiction being transferred to the Permanent Subcommittee. - Tim1965 (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Criticisms

"Only three of the committee's eight members looked on organized labor favorably, and only one of them (Senator Patrick McNamara) was strongly pro-labor." This needs a citation.
Done! - Tim1965 (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Other points

Do any of the books that cover this topic discuss the committee's legacy in terms of its effect on the careers of the main players such as Kennedy?
That could be easily added.  The article length is already a concern, and I don't want to add too much. My sense is to add a sentence each on the boost to John F. Kennedy's career, the boost to Robert F. Kennedy's career (it made him a household name), and the impact on McClellan's career (he went to on to chair investigations of the Mafia throughout the 1960s). As for Jimmy Hoffa, Beck's resignation boosted him into the Teamsters presidency, and made him famous (of course). - Tim1965 (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Done!  I would appreciate any review of this change. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I had trouble reconciling the apparently damning evidence uncovered about Hoffa with discovering later in the article that Hoffa became President of the Teamsters. This really needs more explaining. How could there be wiretaps etc etc and yet he not only was not imprisoned, but actually continued to rise in power?
Because the evidence wasn't as damning as the committee seemed to believe. Hoffa was never convicted in a court of law on any of the charges made by the committee.  Additionally, some of the behavior Hoffa was accused of wasn't a crime at the time (e.g., the violations of union democracy, misuse of union members' money, etc.), but would be after the passed of the Landrum-Griffin Act. I could address this briefly, although it should really be addressed in an improved article on Jimmy Hoffa (that article needs significant work!). - Tim1965 (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Done! I added a couple sentences on Hoffa beating the indictments against him. I would appreciate any review of this new bit. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I want to think some more about the section "criticisms" at the end. I feel it may be better integrated into the article somehow, and I also wonder about its balance. Would it be better to have a section on analysis of the committee's legacy, which dealt with criticisms of its operation, positive effects (if analysts think it had any), and its influence on the careers of key players (Kennedy, the Senators, and for that matter Hoffa). Will try and give this more thought.
My thinking was that a pretty positive view of the committee's work (bringing down Beck, attacking Hoffa, passing legislation) is interwoven into the rest of the article (in telling the story, I think any storyteller naturally praises their subject), and I wanted to balance that out with a stand-alone section on criticisms. But suggestions are very welcome. - Tim1965 (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Thought I'd make a quick further comment re the section on criticisms. I think, in an ideal article, this would not be separate material, but would be integrated into discussion of the committee's effectiveness and political support (for example, links could be made between the concern over its impact on individuals' rights and the level of political support the committee garnered amongst democrats, the public, and some media outlets perhaps. In other words, did the criticisms you have identified in the references have effects on the committee's operational effectiveness etc?) It could also be integrated into discussion of the committee's legacy in terms of its effect on the careers of its key players, particularly Kennedy, to whom a considerable portion of the criticisms appear to relate. I recognise that this integration may not be straightforward, as some of the above thoughts don't quite mesh with how the article is laid out. But there you are. I'm happy to negotiate!
Real life has gotten in the way in the last three days, but I'm fiddling with something off-line to integrate this material into the main article. Just wanted to keep you apprised that changes will be forthcoming soon! And thanks for the many terrific comments so far. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so I finally finished "distributing" this information throughout the article. I decided the best approach would be to identify when each criticism was made. For example, many of the criticisms of Kennedy mentioned in the "Criticisms" section came in March or April 1957, right after the Beck and Hoffa hearings. I did some additional research (which took me a week; someone had checked two books I'd relied on out of the library! D'oh!) and identified the years in which these occured.  The criticisms now are scattered throughout the article according to the year in which they were made.  This gives the criticisms a bit more weight, as they are now linked to the distance (or not) from the events in which they occurred. I appreciate any review or advice you can give about these changes! Thanks! - Tim1965 (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Those are my initial thoughts. Fabulously detailed references. Good work. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

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. Wikidea 13:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

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. Wikidea 20:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

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. Wikidea 20:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

@Tim1965: 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)