Talk:Taft–Hartley Act

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Taft–Hartley Act article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 23, 2004.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organized Labour Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been selected for the Organized Labour Portal Article Of The Day for June 23^rd.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Freedom of speech Mid‑importance

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech 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.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"According to First Amendment scholar Floyd Abrams, the Act "was the first law barring unions and corporations from making independent expenditures in support of or [in] opposition to federal candidates".[2] However, there is no language in Taft–Hartley that actually bars such contributions and, upon a careful reading of the cited article, it can be seen that Professor Abrams is merely hypothesizing about what could happen had the Supreme Court decided the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission differently."

The second sentence is saying that the first is irrelevant. This is silly. Why does this section even exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.228.144 (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War

I replaced a dead source on this article with a live one that was nearly identical. Recently I made an edit on another article that apparently was objectionable. Upon reverting the edit to that article, MrOllie reverted the edit I made to this article without explanation. I disagree that my edit was objectionable in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salzano1 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping for a second opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salzano1 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's an unreliable, self published source. See WP:RS. It's also redundant with a citation that's already in the article. - MrOllie (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]