Talk:Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association

message: Deleted two sentences (heavily POV) and replaced one outgoing link. The article now links directly to the relevant VLRC report mentioned, rather than to an activist blog. Also corrected a spelling error. (211.29.117.5 13:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't remove POV against SDA without removing POV for SDA -- (Fro onlookers: I'm simplifying the situation here, obviously it's not just an eye for an eye situation). It appears you're just trying to unbalance the article.  --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 21:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no interest in unbalancing the article, quite the contrary. I welcome your commitment to neutrality. If you want to keep the current edit, please verify the assertions and include alternative POV. If you cannot, they will be deleted, as per the Wikipedia style guide on unsourced material. I have re-replaced one external link, deleting the link to an activist blog and linking to the actual VLRC Report mentioned, added citation requests where necessary, balanced the account in line with the Brisbane Times article and tried to even out the anti-SDA POV in the third line with a pro-SDA reply. The whole article needs a proper cleanup, but I don't have the time. Perhaps you'd like to refer it to Wiki? (211.29.117.181 10:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That's an out of context quote, if you read the part under it you can see the article is attacking the union influence over the ALP. Also, conservative is a term that can describe a mainstream viewpoint. Infact, the Liberal party is described as conservative and the Republican Party (US) which until the mid-terms held the majority of Congress is also described as conservative. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 07:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup.  

message: :Image:Sda.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Sda.jpg

message: This section is written like an advertisement for the SDA, with phrases like "the union is moderate and responsible in its approach to Industrial Relations", and no references.  This is in stark contrast with the more professional tone of the "criticisms" section.
miracleworker5263 (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industrial approach 

message: I disagree with the edit summary yesterday by  who wrote, "The text does not accurately reflect the relevant content from the source".
My text was:
::"Penalty rates, for working at night or on weekend, were scrapped in some agreements".
The source read, in part:
::"The Fairfax probe points to underpayment of more than 250,000 workers through dozens of enterprise agreements - many excluding penalty rate payments ... An analysis of four weeks of rosters at one inner Melbourne Woolies store shows 63 per cent of workers were paid less than the award, about $1070 for each affected worker. The shortfall is largely a result of low, or non-existent, night and weekend penalty rates. ... The Hungry Jack's agreement excludes penalties, and pays lower casual loadings. ... KFC payslips and rosters tell a similar story; no penalties paid, and casual loadings below the award. ... An analysis of dozens of SDA agreements from the last decade shows a clear pattern of hourly rates paid from a few cents to a few dollars an hour above the award while penalty rates are slashed or non-existent."
So I think my text is a reasonably faithful paraphrase of that aspect of the source. If you think otherwise, please discuss on this talk page before reverting again.  Thanks.  Meticulo (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Penalty rates source

message: POV check added to article
History section:
Information should pertain to the organisation’s establishment and development in so far as it provides an overview of key dates and events. Much of the information achieves this. Reference to the Four Corner’s report and subsequent response should be shifted, in my opinion, to the campaigns sub-topic. 
:: NPOV issue – opinions as facts: 
:: “These unions had a key role in the Labor split of the 1950s”. 
:: While possibly true, this statement is derived from an editorial that does not provide information on the cause of the Labor split or the organisation’s involvement in said split. As a result, this statement may be interpreted as impartial against the organisation or the opinion of the editor.
Coverage section:
In general, similar articles tend to include membership size, composition, trends (for example, growth estimates and turnover) and membership structure (for example, fees and eligibility).    
Campaigns section
This section should outline the campaign issue, the organisation’s involvement and key dates. While it seems fair that the organisation’s point of view is expressed, this should be used to give context for their involvement and not to endorse or validate their position.
:: NPOV issue – opinions as facts:
:: For example, “The SDA has become the nation's leading voice for protecting and expanding public holiday rights and entitlements across all Australian states and territories.”  While possibly true, this statement is unsupported and worded in a way that may be interpreted as an endorsement if not directly quoted. 
Industrial approach section:
Articles for similar organisations have structured this sub-topic as policy positions and/or political activities. If retained, this section should present a description of the general approach followed by the organisation. It would be appropriate to include specific examples in this section in so far as a specific case is used to provide evidence (support) of the general approach. The current presentation includes content that relates to a specific campaign Hart v Coles. In its current form, the inclusion of this case does not seem to provide direct support for a generalised approach taken by the organisation. 
:: NPOV issue – impartial tone:
:: This section includes statements that may be interpreted as impartial when unsupported or not directly quoted: '“As a result of the SDA's coverage, the union claims” – does this refer to an official position of the organisation or the editor’s viewpoint? In contrast, a specific viewpoint is attributed to individuals by a direct quotation in subsequent sentences.  
:: NPOV issue – words to watch:
:: “The union has also been criticised” – this choice of words is addressed by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions. Criticism of the general approach taken by the organisation should follow from a clear statement outlining the general approach. This is not made clear in the current version.
:: NPOV issue – balance:
:: The inclusion of the rival organisation “because of these perceived shortcomings” infers that said perceived shortcomings are either widely understood or previously explained. Moreover, this sentence does not fit within a sub-topic that should be describing the industrial approach of the organisation and would be better suited in the history section or a newly created criticism section.
Social position section:
While the social position of the SDA may be a valid concern to readers, as indicated by Pjr92 it is considerably weighted in terms of detail and prominence of placement without a counterpoint. According to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Balance, neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence.
:: For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.”
:: NPOV issue – undue weight:
:: Review of the reference lists reveals that at least 12/42 refer directly to same-sex marriage. On review of the edit history, it appears that this section weighted considerably higher when first added. Taken together, this may be interpreted as biased sourcing. This may cause problems when assessed against the NPOV criterion – does not indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.
:: The guidance for reviewers says that reviewers should "at a minimum" compare the article's claims against its openly accessible citations. The GA criteria require that the claims in an article comply with WP:V, the sourcing policy. Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles says, "Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained. At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable ... and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says)”. CezarWd7 (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up issues 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Have had discussions with organisers and could use a "criticism" section
SDA no longer appears to be representing members, and acts on behalf of organisations "in interest" of their membersWhile this article may be bias https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/gold-standard-porter-praises-union-that-stripped-workers-of-1-billion-20190919-p52sxj.html this is reflective of the SDA and it's operations
I'm looking at things like this also "The SDA has become the nation's leading voice for protecting and expanding public holiday rights and entitlements across all Australian states and territories." what is going on here  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevecam (talk • contribs) 17:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm kind of surprised that there is no mention of the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union, or the SDA policies that led to RAFFWU's creation.  --James (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral? Criticism?  

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Hi, JamesHenstridge, the part of MOS:NOTSEEALSO which I was referring to in my edit summary is, 'As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body'. The link you added already appears at the end of the 'Industrial approach' section in the sentence, 'In 2016, the rival Retail and Fast Food Workers Union was formed because of these perceived shortcomings.' Meticulo (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Three out of the four remaining links in that section fail that test.  Do you think they should also be removed? --James (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Yes, I do. Meticulo (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: See also