Talk:Chinese Staff and Workers' Association

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese in New York City (assessed as Mid-importance).

Organized Labour Low‑importance

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Numbers of members, relationship to Local 318

I realize it's important to get the facts right about CSWA. However, in both cases where you made edits, the published sources I have are much different than your edits. If there is a dispute about the number of membes CSWA has, I would suggest that a) a published source be cited, and b) both numbers listed with a mention in the text or in a footnote that there are disputes about how many members the organization has. Additionally, every history I have read about CSWA indicates that CSWA existed first, organized the restaurant workers (who then formed Local 318 with HERE), and then Local 318 broke off. Again, rather than just changing the direction of that relationship, it would be helpful to cite a published source and then point out (either in the text or in a footnote) that the history of the organization is unclear or in dispute.

I've no axe to grind here, I just want to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines regarding citations. The changes you made are very important to the understanding of CSWA, so it is important that those Wiki guidelines be followed rather than just make fundamental changes without cites. I'm sure you have more access to CSWA history than I do, so I'm sure you could find some citations really easily. - Tim1965 17:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making deleations of cited stuff, and adding uncited stuff

Geekattack10, if you want to make changes to this article, you will need to provide citations. Wikipedia's policy is that every article which has facts which are or can be disputed should be cited. I've provided citations for the statements in the article. You may have personal knowledge of CSWA; Wikipedia, however, does not permit original research, which is to say that you can't use your own personal knowledge to change an article.

Under Wikipedia's verifiability policy

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. ... Any edit lacking a source may be removed...

If you wish to make a correction to the article, you should find a published source which says what you want it to say. Then you should add it to the article, and provide an inline citation. You should also then make it clear in the body of the article that there is a disagreement over what happened. "Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text."

The statements already contained in the article about the sequences of events and what happened (men with clubs, explosions, etc.) are cited with two mainstream journals. "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."

Because the statements are cited, and cited by two journals published by respected publishing houses, you should not remove them. If you wish to provide an alternative timeline of what happened and when, write some sentences, provide good inline citations, and let the readers judge for themselves what to believe.

Wikipedia will be better off if you do that, and your edits will be more believable and credible to readers if you follow these rules. Thanks!!! - Tim1965 02:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mate,

I'm Sorry

I removed one of them because the citation is datted before the event and i replaced it with what comes from the CSWA website--Geekattack10 03:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSWA's Web site might not be accurate either. Having worked for unions for a long time, I know how self-serving some publications can be, and I know that many organizations just don't know their own history very well. (One union I worked for didn't even know how many members they had or where they worked, until I spent three months figuring it out for them.) I agree that the published sources might be inaccurate, too. Maybe all of this occurred; maybe none of it did. Wikipedia's solution is to keep all the statements in the article, and then note the dispute between sources.

You're right that the one sentence had it wrong (e.g., the article was dated 2001, and the sentence read 2003). I double-checked the article, and it's the sentence which was wrong, not the source. That's been corrected in the sentence now.

I changed the article today (Aug. 15) to reflect all the statements. In time, maybe a better source will be published which will make things clear. - Tim1965 20:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Working on CSWA's Website and when it goes live it will updated and be corrected. That should clear everything up. the one about the bomb outside the office is definitly wrong but i will leave it up until i update our history on CSWA's website somethime by the end of the year. The website right now is a complete joke.--Geekattack10 21:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 13 changes

User 173.52.182.27, thanks for your Sept. 13 contributions to this article. However, anyone can claim to be an organizer for the CSWA. Since your identity cannot be verified, those changes can't be retained in the article. In part, they constitute original research which Wikipedia does not permit. In part, they are not verifiable, which Wikipedia also requires. I very strongly encourage you to read Wikipedia's guidelines on citing sources, find sources which support your edits, and re-add those edits along with inline citations to the sources. That would not only meet Wikipedia's guidelines, but also help make the article much improved! Thank you!! - Tim1965 (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC) (also posted to User's Talk page)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chinese Staff and Workers' Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]