A fact from Union security agreement appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 September 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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
Removed section as it reads like an editorial, indeed it is titled "rationale" and seeks to put forth justifications as presented by one man - this is outside our purview and not the encyclopedia's place. 12.144.158.16 (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One person? There are more than 20 cites there! You are providing your own opinion as to whether this article is one-sided. One-sided articles fall under WP:NPOV, and removing whole quantities of properly cited, unbiased published sources is not appropriate. If you think there is NPOV, then tag the article as such. I think you are mistaking the rationale for why union security agreements exist for an excuse or improper justification. Rationales are perfectly fine: Society passes laws against pollution because the rationale is that these are market failures known as externalities; society passes laws against speeding because speeding tends to cause more deaths; society passes laws against incest because incest involves a power-imbalance in the family and has negative genetic outcomes. Rationales are fine. Wikipedia does not care what the rationale is. Wikipedia requires there be no original research by editors, full citation of sources, and sources be pubished, third-party, and unbiased. All those criteria are met here. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are not any proper cites - just a list really. A cite under contention will require proper notation as to what precisely is being referenced. Title and author is insufficient to establish anything. 12.144.158.16 (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that page numbers are missing, tag the article with the "missing page numbers" tag. But deleting citations because they lack page numbers is inappropriate. Although one must assume you are acting in good faith, your repeated attempts to delete a single section of this article repeatedly is showing your bias. - Tim1965 (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But this section presents only the reasons for and not the reasons against, among which are the portion of union dues that go to political candidates and organizations which some employees might oppose, and the fact that the common union preference for promotion and pay based on seniority disadvantages employees with less seniority but better job performance. Bostoner (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
