Talk:National Labor Federation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the National Labor Federation article.
Article policies

Please post all comments at the bottom of the page.

As someone who'd used this page as a jumping off point for both myself and others to explore NATLFED's contested identity, I think that it's a real shame tha the whole thing, including the links to ongoing discussions, has been deleted. I'd also add that the existing paragraph is not actually undisputed either. Many have questioned whether NATLFED organizes workers who can't form labor unions, or if it simply provides them services. The two are different. -matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.2.202 (talk • contribs) 21 June 2006 02:07

Contents

[edit] Doeden = Perente?

I know of no articles in print about this group that contain both the names Doeden and Perente which deny that they are the same person. This wikipedia page is the first thing I've read that doubts this assertion. Whosasking 18:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Doeden/ Perente Link

If you go to the site http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/304593.shtml there is a discussion by ex-cadre of Natlfed. One of the comments by Jeff Whitnack has a link to an affidavit submitted by an FBI agent in support of the search warrant for the 1984 raid. It describes what efforts were made to establish that Perente was Doeden. I am sure that if anyone writes Jeff Whitnack, he would be willing to share the research he did to link the two as well. When I was in Natlfed from 1979-1994 Gino never denied that he was in fact Jerry Doeden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahlbrs (talk • contribs) 13 March 2006
I'd have to opine that Gino, while most knowledgable about his life as a younger man, is the least credible possible source, because the matter qutestions his own identity and veracity. He denied the existence of the party to Newsweek following the 1984 raid [1]; is this evidence that the Party did not exist in 1984? Whosasking 17:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Print denial

Well, I was able to find a denial, in print, that Perente was the person he was alleged to be. It was printed in the Public Eye (a publication vehemently opposed to natlfed) in 1984 under the heading "Statement of the National Labor Federation," but it doesn't use the name "Doeden." Here is an excerpt from the statement: Whosasking 17:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ed Note: The following statement, apparently transcribed from a dictated tape cassette recording, was circulated among NATLFED members and contacts.

December 26, 1981

(Public Eye slander is being presented to left organizations, that Eugenio Perente is really (John Doe). The F.B.I. caused the arrest of two different names on exactly the same charge. Public Eye's only source can be a Suffolk County search and arrest warrant, which attributed the information to a protected police informant. The other is a copyrighted news story by San Francisco Examiner's Ed Montgomery, who exposed Cleaver, Franklin and Rubin. There are no other sources. Both "militant activity" cases in California and New York were defeated.)

Dr. David Shapiro announced today that [. . .] Jeff Whitnack, along with Sally Pinkus, acting on behalf of Public Eye had linked Perente once again to "John Doe" a linkage which had previously led to the strangest case of FBI double jeopardy every seen. "Gino and the man were claimed to be the same person, head of an underground northern California army or something," said Shapiro. "This was exposed in a headline searing Bay Area press campaign involving the Berkeley Gazette and San Francisco examiner, while others like the Chronicle stood strangely silent. Gino said it was by-lines and copyrighted by Ed Montgomery, Hearst's Pulitzer Prize-winning feature writer whose name is mentioned from Jerry Rubin's book to every cold war trial in the Bay Area. The stories led to a Northern California manhunt and raid involving 60 FBI officers and 17 Placer County Sheriff's officers participated. Secret army hell. They were armed with fully automatic stories suddenly changed to the "John Doe" name only. "John Doe," though claimed to be in possession of a mammoth Maoist (?) gun horde, was hustled off to an adjoining county without additional benefit of magistrate. The charges were dropped. Gino denies the whole story. "I'm no goddamn Maoist,' he said." [. . .]

Gee, a Pulitzer Prize winning author, the San Francisco Examiner, the Berkeley Gazette - sounds like some credible sources to me. The ones writing this are Gino's followers and what does Gino say -- "I'm no goddamn Maoist." Doesn't sound like a denial to me. I was there from 1979-1994 and he never denied it to my knowledge. Only statements like this, that beat around the bush. The story in the Public Eye had sources - it was not just made up. Now, one can argue other possibilities, but there are credible sources that say that Gino WAS Gerry Doeden and that's probably all anyone could ever get (some credible sources) for any news organization. The affidavit of Agent Herman in support of the warrant does give his sources and they are not Ed Montgomery. -- Robin Fahlberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.10 (talk • contribs) 14 June 2006 23:53

[edit] New Discussion

For reasons similar to those I have listed in DISCUSSION of the biography of Perente, Gino, I have deleted almost the entire content this article, leaving one undisputed paragraph for those who wish to pursue their own fact-finding process. They will not find it through Wikipedia. I note that SOMEONE has deleted the much more factual and objective articles on EASTERN FARM WORKERS ASSOCIATION (which I wrote and someone added some excellent factual material to) and on CALIFORNIA HOMEMAKERS ASSOCIATION (which someone else wrote and I added a few edits to, and which lists the ONLY remotely objective primary source of all these articles). As I wrote with regard to the Perente bio:

Those who are interested fall almost exclusively into two categories: those who are deeply and sincerely devoted to Gino Perente's life work and memory, and those who deeply and sincerely despise him, and want the world to know it, even eleven years after his death. Likewise, the paucity of "primary sources" are all subject to one of two criticisms: they either rely on information provided by Perente's closest associates, or they rely on personal anecdotes offered by, and compiled by, his most bitter critics. Llawnrodded 13 June 2006

That's two strikes: no foundation of neutrality, and no credible primary sources.

There does not seem to be much interest among authors and academics in preparing a thoroughly researched biography (whether laudatory or critical) either, which means in the forseeable future, no credible primary sources. If Wikipedia expands its scope and purpose, to serve as a platform for collecting primary sources, then perhaps a format could be developed in which each contribution is protected from edit by those of contrary prejudices, while none are presented as definitive or reliable. All would then serve as source material for anyone who cared to compile something more comprehensive.

That apparently can now be applied to all articles on this entire subject. So let's just shut the whole thing down. -Llawnrodded 13 June 2006
Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Farm Workers Association and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Homemakers Association. Those articles were deleted because most of their claims were not verifiable. Do you understand the policy that [t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.  ? Whosasking 15:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
That's an opinion. There are those of us who loved him and hated him and what he did at the same time. We want people to know the truth because we have many friends still working in Natlfed. I added a number of items to the EFWA article. They were from personal knowledge. I could have posted them and then used the post as a source. I tried not to be one sided and added the NOC side also. I think I am about the most credible primary source you can get for what happened in the Upstate EFWA organizing drive, given I was OPS for 12+ years -- Robin Fahlberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.10 (talk • contribs) 14 June 2006 23:53
I believe the purpose of this page is to develop a consensus about what should go in the encyclopedia article, not so much a discussion to establish truth or falsehood. Wikipedia's scope is limited to verifiable facts, so the authority and credibility of the editors is not an issue, only the authority and credibility of the sources that they cite. One of the editors has challenged the sources, but has failed so far to offer sources with contrary interpretations. In the absence of verifiable documentation of the group's oral history, shouldn't we revert the article and start working on NPOV in a verifiable way? Whosasking 16:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Point well taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.10 (talk • contribs)
Given that there are only three or four people who've made substantial contributions to the natlfed articles, and given that hardly no one else cares enough to vote for or against the deletion of CHA and EFWA pages, what should happen to the page? I don't want to take unilateral action, I'd like to form some kind of agreement about what can be included and what isn't supported by good sources. Whosasking 04:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
There are scores of published sources about the National Labor Federation and related groups. To claim otherwise is false. Many of these articles are not available on the Internet, but are available from online newspaper and magazine archives, and inter-library loan. I have restored the text. Please post all future comments at the bottom of the page. Deletion of 99% of the text without a vote for deletion is against Wikipedia policy.--Cberlet 02:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Why do volunteers allow themselves to be recruited?

I added a bit to the section on volunteer recruitment. The problem here was not anti-Natlfed bias per se, but rather an absurdly shallow treatment of the central problem of how people get recruited. It makes no sense to portray recruits as simply mindless and passive victims forced to join against their will. There is certainly deception and manipulation in the recruiting process, but these are not the only factors, nor are they the main factors in all cases. Although I did not cite sources for what I added, I think most of it is self-evident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.14.139 (talk • contribs) 27 June 2006 08:29

"Another point of view concedes NATLFED does indeed fit all the criteria of a cult, but that the same could be said of not only almost all Marxist-Leninist parties, including the ruling party of the old Soviet Union, but perhaps also the United States Marine Corps and many corporations, churches, scout groups, etc. "
What cite exists for this claim?--Cberlet 19:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
As for objective sources - there are none. Newspaper articles may have some guidelines towards content, but they, as all other sources start with information given by a person. People are not objective no matter how hard they try to be. If you trace any source back through it's sources and through the source of the sources and so on, you will find that they come back to this. All that can be relayed is what is said from other sources and if those sources are identified then people can decide for themselves how much credibility to give them. First hand information from people who were in Natlfed may end up more objective than newspaper articles and more accurate. But, if it is first hand, it should state the source. Every newspaper that published a story stating that Natlfed fit the definition of a cult, had sources and stated them. Instead of inferring that anyone that states that Natlfed fits the definition of a cult has an anti-Natlfed bias or is a critic, state the source of the information. If it is your own knowledge from participation or others then put this as the source. You can say that ex-members state that another view is ..... and then put the ex-members names in parentheses as the source. Or something like the X Marxist Leninist Party does this and that also and put the source of this fact in parentheses. Quite frankly I doubt that you will find a source for almost all other ML groups having the same characteristics because this came directly from Gino and he never backer it up with facts either. Robin Fahlberg
Yes, I agree -- FIRST HAND INFORMATION FROM PEOPLE WHO ... karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 18:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What has happened to this article?

This article has deteriorated into a dismissive rant; the contributions have added links (mostly to politicalcults.blogspot.com) but not facts, and its current tone casts current NATLFED volunteers as deranged fools.

No one except the editor is served by an "encyclopedia" article which hits the reader with the words like "cult," "pose," "perpetuate," "apocryphal," "exaggerated," and "apparently," and "[not]...actual" in the first paragraph.

If the article dismisses NATLFED (for all its evil), the readers will dismiss the article.

Is there anyone who wants to see this article cleaned up (returned to NPOV, links to all the online articles added or restored, and conjectural, unsupported claims of demonic intent deleted just as surely as the unsupported, self-serving claims of importance? Whosasking 04:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sinve I haven't seen any discussion here, I've tried to rewrite the article with footnotes, links for fact-checking, and as removing much of the POV terminology as I could perceive. The article probably still needs POV work (to correct errors in both directions), still more fact checking, and editing for length. Whosasking 03:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the professional rewrite. It's difficult for people to be objective on this subject and you've done a very good job. (RSF)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahlbers (talk • contribs) 23:31, 16 April 2007
This article is a hideous, propagandistic joke. It's nice to see that capitalist think tanks have so much time and money on their hands that they can put the fresh-out of Young Republican Communications Professionals on the assignment of writing such an execrable, ridiculous entry. My god. I have never been so aghast at a Wiki entry. At least you can tell which way the power runs. The NLF clearly doesn't have the staff and money to exercise any countervailing checks on this mockery of Wikipedia. THIS SITE IS 100% STRAIGHT UP PROPAGANDA. I feel gross just having run across it. Yuck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.175.165 (talk) 23:44, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very puzzled

The article's lead is dominated not by a brief description of the group but by criticism of the group from a specific point of view. While this info may be relevant to include in a "controversy" section, it's simply confusing to call the group a front before its been explained exactly what the group is fronting. Dybryd 00:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the lead, but your criticism of the tone of the article as a whole remains valid.Whosasking 01:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your work -- I can see you've done a lot to improve this group of articles. Sorry to have offered drive-by criticism without any constructive help. I know nothing about the topic and was looking up a member group for my own information, and was bewildered by what I found. Dybryd 01:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, now we know there's someone out there who saw this page and thought This can't be right--this is just too weird. Whosasking 22:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Are there any outside observers who'd like to comment on what the article needs to merit removing the POV tag? Whosasking 00:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. The article is lacking any position from the organization itself. I am obtaining copies of published materials and will be correcting the article shortly.

Malbrain 5 SEP 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbrain (talk • contribs) 15:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diminished discussion value? Should be moved to WikiRhetorica (If any)

"to volunteers to the captive audience of full-time volunteers at the NATLFED office.[8]" This quote from the elaborate in vain 'article' smells oxymoron from a counter revolutionary of some sorts. I found this 'article' through a false cult link which may be another loop of demonizing some 'rogue' movement. Redefining cult as opposing religion or opposing politics is irrational. Encyclopedias used to be promoters of rationalism and sci. truth in the name of enlightenment (Encyc. entry in The American Spectrum Encyc., 1991, p. 357). 69.119.148.106 17:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)wikici Aug. 11,2007

[edit] FYI: deleted pages still online

The wikipedia pages on EFWA and CHA that were deleted from wikipedia in June 2006 for lack of verifiability are still online at Wikinfo which does not have the same editorial standards as wikipedia: http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/California_Homemakers_Association and http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Eastern_Farm_Workers_Association These pages present the history of two of the entities as the natlfed leadership presents it. Whosasking 16:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of NATLFED?

Is anyone interested in creating a page outside wikipedia (say, on wikinfo) to collect some of the assertions that don't comply with wikipedia's policies (WP:CITE and WP:NOR) ? Whosasking 16:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

This article contains several passages that constitute original research by the individuals in question. Merely creating a web page to record individual experiences does not constitute a "reliable published" accounting of the material demanded by wikipedia policy, and this stuff should be deleted as personal opinion. —Preceding comment added by Malbrain (talk • contribs) 23:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I think that using source material from a newspaper merely to insert Original Research into the article via quotes is also a violation of the wikipedia policy. The opinion statements of Whitnak and others should be deleted. What was the analysis of the publication's author? What facts did the individuals contribute? incorporate (or leave in as appropriate) that into the articleMalbrain 16:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Three quotes in the article (from Whitnack, Berlet, and Lalich) merely state opinions about the group, and do not assert facts. I wouldn't call it original research, though. It's that quotes which illustrate opinions about the group must meet a higher standard than factual claims. (The fact of the opinions must somehow be significant.) I've replaced one of the quotes, and removed the Whitnack and Berlet quotes. Whosasking 17:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This is nonsense. These deletions violate Wikipeida policy. The fact that quotes from a reputable published source state opinions is not WP:OR. Read this policy more carefully. Lalich has a PhD and has authored a book. Please stop attempting to sanitize criticisms.--Cberlet 14:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"The original motivation for the "No original research" policy was to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas."

Having an individual's personal theory quoted by a newspaper or web-blogger without journalistic investigation, is a thinly veiled insertion of original research into the article and should be called for what it is.Malbrain 16:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not what the policy means. Lalich has a PhD and has authored a book. She is an expert. Her quotes that are published are not Original Research. This is a total misrperesentation of the policy.--Cberlet 14:14, 11 September 2007 UTC)
Please address the question. We're talking about individual personal theory, not Dr. Lalich.Malbrain 16:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The policy restricts Wikipedia editors from inserting text that reflects their Original Research into entries on Wikipedia. This is a well-established and well-understood policy. You have totally misinterpreted it. I am restoring the quote. If you doubt this interpretation, ask for assistance on the admin noticeboard or seek outside comments.--Cberlet 18:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

{{helpme}} I had trouble adding a cite to the direct action section. I'm getting an error I don't understand. Can anyone assist?? Malbrain 18:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.
It was missing some quotation marks. KTC 18:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources

A subset of the wikipedia policy on reliable sources is WP:SELFPUB, on the use of self-published sources which don't pretend to check facts. The policy permits their use when "...it is relevant to their notability, it is not contentious, it is not unduly self-serving..." I have removed the section "Other featured 2008 campaigns," since the list of media campaigns and slogans makes no claims about what the group has done or does, but does serve associate the group with its self-proclaimed ideals.Whosasking 03:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious claims

  • "The organization itself accepts no government funds, yet ensures that the community-supported associations are available to those in need 24 hours a day, 365 days a year."

Please find a reliable source for these claims.Whosasking 03:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you expect me to demonstrate a negative. Should I cite the federal, state, and local government expenditure audits to demonstrate there's no money there? I suppose I could ask the Chronicle to meet me out front and take a quote.Malbrain 16:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I am asking that for the article to make the claim "The organization accepts no government funding" that it must cite a journalist who repeats and believes the organization's vocal claims that it does not, no more. The second part, that the organizations are available, is so vague that I don't think it can be fact-checked, and should be excluded for reason of being vague.Whosasking 17:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natlfed's claims on their self-published literature not facts

The claims that Natlfed and Natlfed affiliated literature, including the calendar make should be stated as claims, not facts. Since there are no published reports from Natlfed, and no studies or other objective means from others to back these claims up they cannot be stated as facts. R. Fahlberg 9/10/2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahlbrs (talk • contribs) 16:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you take a closer look at the article on General Motors. Most of it is drawn from corporate material.Malbrain 16:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Unlike claims made in NATLFED literature, GM's claims about the size of its workforce and revenue are not contentious. I interpret this to mean that statements that few people would disagree with do not have the same fact-checking standards as claims that editors actually argue over.Whosasking 17:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is not fact but a Natlfed interpretation of history

I'm sorry if the stub nature of the background section has confused you. It is intended to be more of an editor's preface that preceeds the article. I put it out there unfinished. I have more reference material on-order and will complete the background section shortly.Malbrain 16:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Difference between corporate material and Natlfed Literature

Public Corporations are governed by law and monitored by several governmental agencies. They must publish accurate reports or face fines and other penalties. The process of this reporting is known and the rules and protocols are also known. This is entirely different from Natlfed. There is no defined or publicised way of knowing how they are written, or the basis for the claims. I am all for having them in this article as what Natlfed says about itself is important and belongs in an encyclopedia article. But, the claims need to be characterized as just that.

For example, the following are not objective statements of fact but interpretations of history and the situation of US workers: “The aftermath of the Second World War brought both a new prosperity and the rise of a military-industrial complex in a cold war that guaranteed that future war remained inevitable” “few US workers, recognized or unrecognized, are still employed in large scale factory operations, new methods are needed to go beyond historic organizing tactics issued from the factory gate. A copyrighted manuscript describing the method of "systemic organizing" purports to teach participants a ways and means approach for unrecognized workers to obtain benefits that are needed and are rightfully theirs in a manner consistent with their best overall interest. At the same time unrecognized workers can materially see the benefits of organization in general as well as how to build their own organizations in specific.” Robin Fahlberg, September 11, 2007

[edit] Contentious material

  • few US workers, recognized or unrecognized, are still employed in large scale factory operations

Would you like me to find a source for this, or can it stand on its own?Malbrain 18:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you use actual numbers, or words like fewer, or percentages. You could also document with percentages or relative terms the shift from the manufacturing industry to the service industry. There are still large numbers of workers in manufacturing/factory situations, although certainly less. Showing the change or shift in industry might be more illustrative of the need for other methods, and less contentious and open to challenge. Since you said you are not finished with the section I will hold any edits or comments for a couple of weeks. Robin Fahlberg, September 11, 2007

How about a simple link to the following source:http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2004/01/dispelling_the.html?t=archive Would this be sufficient?Malbrain 20:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How about using the 11% figure. 11% of 135 million is over 14 million workers. It's hard for me to reconcile 14 million workers equals few workers. Something like " In 2004 only 11% of the workforce were factory workers." Robin Fahlberg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahlbrs (talk • contribs) 20:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The intent of the article is not to spoon feed sanitized data. Let the school kids do their own research, n'est pas?Malbrain 20:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You're going afield--the purpose of this article is to present verifiable facts about NATLFED in a neutral tone, not to summarize any number of decades of labor history in the United States. Background information that helps the reader understand the self-described scope of NATLFED's operations is helpful; background information that doesn't help the reader understand what NATLFED is belongs elsewhere.Whosasking 20:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
From what I read, NATLFED is the practice of Strata Organizing under the slogan "you can make a difference." This requires a section on what "strata organizing" is and where it came from in the first place.Malbrain 21:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Natlfed claims in their literature that they practice strata organizing and they have a version of history that they put forth to explain why. There are many legitimate verifiable sources which say that this is not their practice. The version of history put forth is not well sourced either. There is no transparency in Natlfed to provide any objective verification of their claims. That is why there is an insistence that these be portrayed as claims not fact. Robin Fahlberg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahlbrs (talk • contribs) 21:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Resolved.
I've made your suggested changes to the section. ThanksMalbrain 22:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's not tuen this entry into an advertisement for the cult. NATLFED is an entity. The excuse of grammar is poor. Let's talk about these proposed changes and whether or not they meet NPOV standards.--Cberlet 00:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, how about an enumeration of each NATLFED in the article and we'll decide if it's a reference to an entity, or if it needs organizer along with it. I've already declared the first occurrence needs organizer with it. If you agree, please restore my change to this one.Malbrain 07:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


"NATLFED consists of several dozen mutual benefit associations which conduct canvassing in poor neighborhoods and operate assistance programs for working poor members of the associations." This is clear. An organization can conduct projects, with or without "Vols."--Cberlet 14:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


Since the NATLFED organization itself is the product of organizers materializing a network, and since the mutual benefit associations are independent "thirty offices, called entities around the US", and since an organization cannot be separated from its members, I want to include the organizers here, too, making the second lead sentence read: "NATLFED organizers come from several dozen mutual benefit associations...".Malbrain 16:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not appropriate to insert NATLFED jargon and contested NATLFED claims into the lead text.--Cberlet 20:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Is this an objection to the lead sentence or the second sentence?Malbrain 17:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Network

In my opinion the development of the NATLFED article has stalled on the definition of what a network is (or is not). I'd like to standardize on the wikipedia mathematical definion: "In Graph theory, a network is a digraph with weighted edges. These networks have become an especially useful concept in analysing the interaction between biology and mathematics..." are there any objections? Malbrain 19:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is simply ridiculous. Yes, I object. It is obscure and silly. Please seek outside comments before any further editing. --Cberlet 20:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Please provide alternative motion when objecting. This will simplify and speed development greatly. What definition do you propose we utilize?Malbrain 20:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I find what you are writing to be confusing and almost unintelligible. Please write in plain English. The issue is whether or not NATFED is a group. It is. It does projects. The rest is cult jargon nonsense, and we should not plop it into an entry.--Cberlet 21:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
In my field, groups are either closed or open under operators. I certainly cannot support replacing network with group. What exactly do you propose for the lead sentence.Malbrain 21:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you seek outside Wiki editor comment before making any more of these highly disputed editorial changes. I have reverted the addition of jargon. I will make no more edits until outside comments are collected. I suggest you do the same.--Cberlet 22:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand your position -- you'd just as soon delete ALL the jargon and start over. However, not everyone is as advanced as you are in your professional practice.Malbrain 18:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The appeal to technical definitions for the word group is ridiculous. The issue, as pointed out below, is that the organization's literature and third-party descriptions of it use different terms to describe what it is. If there is no terminology that is broadly accepted, I suppose both should go in the lead.Whosasking 14:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Please stick to the subject. This section defines Network. Do you have one, or can we stick with:"Any system of lines or channels interlacing or crossing like the fabric of a net; as, a network of veins; a network of railroads." -- websters 1913 Malbrain 17:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitions of network from wiktionary: network(1) "Any interconnected group or system (network of roads)" Oxford American: network(2a) "A group or system of interconnected people or things (a trade network)" Webster: network(3a) "an interconnected or interrelated chain, group, or system (a network of hotels)." I am having difficulty understanding your objection to the use of the word network--I fail to understand why you have proposed definitions from outside common English usage, or what changes you suggest be made to the article.Whosasking 17:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.

While I utilize an unequivocal approach to work, I will yield to the 'or' operator and accept "group OR system" in the definition of network.karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 20:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting Definition Section -- Premature action

If we cannot agree on the definitions of the words used in the article, how can anyone make sense of the transactions affecting the article's content? In my opinion, until the NPOV dispute is resolved, we need common definitions.Malbrain 22:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardgins Edit: "Since the NATLFED organization itself is the product of organizers materializing a network, and since the mutual benefit associations are independent "thirty offices, called entities around the US". If you check many of the verifiable sources, this statement is disputed. Although literature put out by Natlfed may describe the mutual benefits association as a loose network, newsarticles dispute this and purport that they are part of one centralized organization, run by a cetralized adminsistration. Because of this I would suggest either leaving it out of the first paragraph or putting claim language in with the opposing point of view as well. Robin Fahlberg. Fahlbrs 11:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I had quoted those passages from the article. I can't tell what your point is, exactly -- what is the dispute? The word "network" appears in several sections.Malbrain 18:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The logical implication operator that says "since a then b" is a polemic in a proof. Malbrain 22:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
to extend "what is the dispute" further -- Do you think there is an irreconcilable difference between network and "centralized"?Malbrain 22:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
for example: in biology a network of nerves serves the body as a whole.Malbrain 22:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Or, perhaps you became entangled with the material posted immediately before what you read that says: "An organization can conduct projects, with or without Vols.--Cberlet 14:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)" I know I certainly found it remarkable. I assumed he meant volunteers on his side of this fight.Malbrain 22:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, Malbrain, but I find your edits and comments incomprehensible. Is anyone else having this problem?--Cberlet 02:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you referring to the text, or the marginalia? One is referring to a proof, and the other to the theory behind the proof. Hope this helps.karl m 16:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The addition of a glossary is wholly inappropriate for this type of encyclopedia article. The style guidelines require that jargon be defined when it is first used, and urge that jargon be kept to a minimum. Further, the summary of the group's mission and description of itself is both confusing and largely irrelevant contains irrelevant material.Whosasking 14:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Your analysis of the goal is well taken. However, the current status of the article is NPOV dispute. The inclusion of the definition section is proposed to guide participants in the arena through the resolution of the status. My position remains: the article lacks any position of the organization itself(see above).Malbrain 17:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, I would like my contributions to the article NPOV dispute to be clearly identified by word definitions retrieved from [[2]] karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 20:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military-industrial complex

I have removed the sections on the military-industrial complex, which features an anachronistic quote from President Eisenhower acknowledging the existence of the institution. The quote serves only to illustrate, without reference to NATLFED, who the editors imagine NATLFED's opposition is. This is off-topic. I've put the relevant quote about scope in the "Strata organizing" section.Whosasking 16:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Per the practice of wikipedia theory in this arena, you can do what you like with the material. Do you agree with the goal of resolving the NPOV dispute status?Malbrain 17:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the NPOV concern is that there was too little material from NATLFED describing itself. I object to text that purports to present NATLFED's position without quoting NATLFED organizers, publications, or publications verifiably referenced by organizers or publications.Whosasking 19:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I intend for the definition from the Britannica demonstration that there were/are two competing networks being constructed. The Britannica makes it clear that the "Complex" was/is a network -- just like our lead calls NATLFED a network. The two are in conflict with one another. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 19:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Direct Action section

I have removed the section on "Direct action" because it contains nothing but rhetoric. Sentences like "The National Labor Federation has called forward... asking members of all strata to give their summer vacations..." do not contribute significantly to the reader's understanding.Whosasking 16:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I had thought that lining up MBA and cadre recruitment required some objective destination. What is your understanding of the purpose of MBA and cadre recruitment?Malbrain 17:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Give me a couple days; I believe I can replace this with a clearer quote illustrating NATLFED's self-described purpose.Whosasking 19:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not clear to me what you did about this. I've been looking for a section replacement, but found none. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 19:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The quote that I've found, from Invest Yourself (1999 edition), is

WSWA brings together all groupings in their historic self-interest and offers coordinated action to fight the programs and policies serving to exacerbate poverty conditions. Volunteers provide advocacy for those needing assistance with federal welfare requirements, immigration and on-the-job problems which must ultimately be solved through the establishment of a worker's plebiscite so that a living wage is achieved for all.[1]

However, I'm not sure that the article needs more statements from the organization about what they say about their purpose. I was hoping for outside comments as to whether the article needs more pro-natlfed material or not.Whosasking 22:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I still think that the criticism of the article as a description of deranged fools requires some explanation of how the Mutual Benefit Association lines up with cadre recruitment. E.g. cadre are recruited to do what, exactly. I know from personal experience that Direct Action was and is a primary goal of the Federation. What is your proposed alternative here? karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 20:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
My "deranged fools comment" referred to this revision, not the current article. Whosasking 17:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theory, Proof, Verification -- a triad

One of the editors removed the link to "Strata Organizing: A Proven Method for Organizing Unrecognized Workers." I consider this to be about as close to vandalism as one gets. Any one care to fess up?Malbrain 18:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Replaced, though the same material can be found in Sociology and the Unrecognized Worker.Whosasking 19:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Resolved.
Thanks.
With the edit I made just before the link, I'm trying to differentiate between a professional book written by an individual and a peer-reviewed conference article which seems more powerful on the face of it, but I've run into the problem of redundancy of expression -- saying the same thing twice. I've used the Essential Organizer several times, but not all editions contain the same table of contents. Could you take a look at this situation and make a recommendation? What does your copy contain? Thanks, karl karl m 03:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strata and Systemic Organizing Section

I've rewritten the claim that Systemic Organizing is a peer-reviewed, successful method to read that it is described in a peer reviewed paper. There is a big difference. I'll try to put some thought into this section today and do some edits over the weekend. I think there are some verifiable sources that show some successes in the local MBAs. The other side of this is there are also verifiable sources that show that some local MBAs are not successful. I'll have to look through the source material to see if there is any source that links the successes or non-successes to the systemic organizing or strate organizing method. RFahlberg.Fahlbrs 13:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I am well familiar with entity failure -- as a member of the Redding Advisory Committee, I've been called for each and every one since 1977.karl m 17:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I as well, as an OPSM in Upstate NY for 14 years. But personal experience is beside the point in a wikipedia article. The sources have to be verifiable, not personal. The discussion above gives links to the definitions and rules of editing. There are legitimate, authentic, verifiable sources that say that Natlfed does not use it's purported method of systemic and strata organizing. There may also be verifiable sources that say it does. Either way the article is an encyclopedia article, not a political polemnic for either position. RFahlberg. Fahlbrs 18:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--Cberlet 01:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I will personally begin the process of investigating the table of contents for the Essential Organizer in Stockton, CA today.karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 10:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introductory section

As promissed I have reoriented the lead-in section. I've only gotten through the first chapter of the book, so I've noted this as a stub section, again. Any comments?karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 20:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please cite material from NATFED publication. Do not turn this article into the history of the US Labor Movement. If you can find a cite that mentions NATLFED, or is from NATLFED, fine. Otherwise please stop adding text to the entry.--Cberlet 22:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Please understand that these things take time. Is your position that NATLFED has nothing to do with labor and is merely xxxx? AGAIN, what is your proposed introduction. You come here and do nothing but revert everything. What kind of position is that?karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 00:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
OR do we proceed with LIQUIDATION as you suggest by your actions.karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 01:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
(ed. note) The term liquidation relates to the deletion of the entire article from the encyclopedia. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 20:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion above about whether "the whole article should be deleted." It shouldn't; there are sufficient sources to establish notability and verifiability. You have added content to the article which states generalities about the labor movement and the military-industrial complex which have nothing to do with NATLFED, and Cberlet and I have objected to these additions. NATLFED has nothing to do with the labor movement and the military industrial complex unless either a reliable source or an unreliable (official NATLFED) source says otherwise. Please, do not add more content that is unrelated to the topic of the article (even if supported by reliable sources).Whosasking 22:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essential Organizer Source/Reference

I have made arrangements for sections of the Essential Organizer, available on request. Karl Malbrain, 753 Quail Run Circle, Tracy, CA 95377.karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 05:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(ed. note) The request must be in writing. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 20:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what else my father did for the war

He told me that he participated in an experimental ship-to-ship apparatus that flashed lights (directly into his eyes) at 90+ WPM. I can only just type 90 WPM with my fingers, and read 13 with my ears.

Of course after the war was LORAN, .... karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 09:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Single v. two phase commit and Operations System

I lost a good friend this year, Jim Gray. He wrote the letter to CAL that resulted in my BSEE degree in 2002. I first worked with Jim in 1969 on the CALTSS [[3]] project, and then again in 1971 on Advanced Logistics System.[[4]]karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 09:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am really very sorry, karl m {{User electrical engineer}}, it is clear that you are sincere, but based on the above posts, I worry that your emotional and personal issues may be such that your discussion posts are not meaningful to many of us. Are you sure you should be spending so much time editing this one entry here on Wikipedia? I wonder if other editors wich to comment on this?--Cberlet 17:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
So you've noticed that I suffer from medically controlled bi-polar disorder. Whenever I conclude someone is deliberately lying, it can be unpleasant indeed. Thank you for your concern.karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 01:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE: I've progressed in diagnosis to certified schizophrenic. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 02:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Entity Failure -- formal consensus

I would like to fill out the consensus formed above: put forward by Robyn, an entity OPSM and seconded by myself as Advisory Committee Member in Redding, and thirded by Mr. Berlet, that NATLFED responds to (or is responsible for) entity failure. Does anyone disagree? karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 02:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Not only do I not agree, I have no idea what you mean. Sorry.--Cberlet 02:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe that I put forward an idea that Natlfed responds to or is responsible for entity failure. While this may or may not be true, and people may or may not agree - depending on one's point of view, I think it may better be discussed in a different forum. There is a Yahoo discussion group for Natlfed, I think the link is in the list of references. This is probably a better forum for that type of thing. Above I was referring to ensuring that a statement that Natlfed employs a successful organizing method called strata organizing be sourced. I am going to drop out of this discussion and the editing process for a month as my job responsibilities need some attention right now. I also simply do not know where to go on this. I thought we had a pretty objective article before the NPOV was added. RFahlberg Fahlbrs 11:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I also wanted to add my condolences for the death of your friend.Fahlbrs 11:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I registered on your external site as you requested.karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 21:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE: I have been suspended from participation in the ex-NATLFED Yahoo group. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 22:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of Content

I know the style of presentation material must astound some readers. I'm learning the difference between SOURCE and REFERENCE. My experience comes from analyzing ANALOG COMPUTERS and their OPERATORS. Some of them induct analysis from noise using positive feedback, others amplify SOURCES using negative (linear) feedback.

My formal training is almost entirely digital.

Hope this helps karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 16:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title XX and the unrecognized worker -- reference cite needed

[[5]] material was published by NATLFED under the NATLFED logo in the late 1970s. Does anyone still have a copy? karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 15:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editor: Status -- RFP?

All of the other wikipedia articles I've worked use the "expert" system of development. In private e-mail, the co-editor admits limitation of knowledge on the subject. Are there volunteer editors able to step in? karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 21:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(ed. note) RFP = "Request for Participation" karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 20:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Preface

I added the preface section to provide the three (current) editors an opportunity to specify their unique points of view. I see this was reverted. Do you have an alternative to put forward? karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 17:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the preface "This section is a stub section until further notice" because it buried the lead. The article itself clearly isn't a stub. If you believe that one of the sections needs to be expanded, there are templates for that. Also, modifying the text of the article to solicit the perspectives of the editors is against policy--that's what the talk page is for.Whosasking 20:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the three (current) editors have perspective seems to be well known. I modified the page under a marginalia that documentation for those perspectives was desired. If the article is to finish, the NPOV tag needs resolution. What is your strategy for resolution of the dispute? karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 21:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I am really sorry, but you are not making any sense to me. Your text entries generally do not appear to be either useful or very coherent, and much of your discussion text is obscure, convoluted, and just plain hard to understand. I think you need some time away from the keyboard to think about other issues that editing Wikipedia. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I think someone needs to say it. Sorry, I don't see any other resolution right now.--Cberlet 22:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've taken your advice, and in addition to my job duties [[6]], I have added work in two areas: completion of my linked-in network and recontacting (undergraduate) nerd-pack volunteers. [[7]] karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 14:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toward NPOV consensus

This article has a disagreement between several editors who each have personal acquaintance with the subject matter. What does the article need to resolve NPOV dispute? 16:15, 21 September 2007

[edit] obituary articles as news sources

I've found a NATLFED spokesperson in the referenced obituary for Kay Brownell, CCMP board member [[8]

Are there any objections to incorporating this reference into the article?karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 16:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've also found the reporter to go along with this:

Winfield Baggett, Bay Area leader in integration Eric Brazil, Chronicle Staff Writer

(ed. note: Mr. Brazil is now retired)

Saturday, September 29, 2001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbrain (talk • contribs) 16:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As best I can tell, the above link is to an obituary for a CCLP board member; it doesn't make any claims about CCLP itself. I don't think the information in the obituary is important enough to put in wikipedia, nor is it relevant to the article. Whosasking 17:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I had thought from the transactions above that statements from NATLFED could be sourced if they originated from a spokesman. Is this correct? karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 18:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The obituary doesn't say anything about NATLFED/CCMP. It isn't a quote in which a board member explains what CCMP hopes to do, it's a funeral notice that says in lieu of flowers, send donations to CCMP. The article doesn't say anything about the subject of the article. Whosasking 18:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You're missing the point. We now have the name of a NATLFED spokesman -- that's been the sticking point, as far as I know. What is the problem now? (ed. note: Correct name of association made above CCLP -> CCMP) karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 20:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The name of a CCMP board member doesn't contribute anything to the article. The reason both Cberlet and I objected to the Eisenhower quote and background from Labor's Untold history was that it was irrelevant to NATLFED. The death of an organizer is relevant to NATLFED, but irrelevant to the article about what NATLFED is/does/claims to be.Whosasking 22:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abstract from NATLFED theoretical spokesperson

[[9]] contains the following abstract for the National Labor Federation. Are there objections to incorporating this material into the NATLFED article on Wikipedia?

Mark Levine, Western Service Workers Association, explained (450) that he re-directed his PH.D.to service when he discovered U.S. economic policies were mirroring pre-WWII policies in Germany which replaced higher paid workers with lower-paid ones, scapegoating and punishing workers. Levine used extensive volunteer help to enable these workers as an organized voice for change at WSWA functions. They have combated the downward wage effects of enterprise zones, in a deficit-laden California slashing education, health care, child care, and disabled services.

Such structural effects are present in U.S. academia not just on the streets and among unrecognized workers.

karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 20:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the above source is an unusually articulate summary of a quote from a NATLFED spokesperson. Feel free to include it as long as the article doesn't become repetitive.Whosasking 22:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
OK -- that's a motion by myself, and a second. Does Mr Berlet concur? karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 22:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Resolved.
And thank you Mr Berlet for participating in the consensus process. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 13:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FASCISM -- RFD (request for definition)

With the new lead pull quote comes the requirement to define fascism. This term is not in my webster's 1913 dictionary. I'm open to definitions. Thanks. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 22:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Putative definition from Britannica: "political ideology and mass movement that dominated many parts of central, southern, and eastern Europe between 1919 and 1945 and that also had adherents in western Europe, the United States, South Africa, Japan, Latin America, and the Middle East. Europe's first fascist leader, Benito Mussolini, took the name of his party from the Latin word fasces, which referred to a bundle of…" karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 22:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything on the entry page. And it is not an adequate definition of fascism in any case.--Cberlet 21:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The pull quote refers to the practice of sociologists in pre-war Germany. If that's not fascism (or NAZISM) what is? karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 22:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who are the organizers and who are the reactionaries

I've made a relatively minor edit to the lead section. If you're not interested in consensus, please refrain from voicing opinions.karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 19:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And where does this claim come from?--Cberlet 21:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Consensus has two common meanings. One is a general agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action. The other is as a theory and practice of getting such agreements (for information on the practice of achieving formal consensus, see Consensus decision-making). -- is this what you need? karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 21:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BOLSHEVISM or metaphysics -- dispute resolution

A casual reader might infer that I give in too easily, and/or mark items resolved prematurely. For example, in the recent call for consensus over the pull-quote by Dr. Mark Levine, Mr. Berlet TRANSLATED its position from one section to another. With my mathematical background, I intrinsically know that the mere act of changing coordinates of an object in a particular field does not require work. THIS DOES NOT MEAN I ENDORSE METAPHYSICS, but rather that I am all in favor of any motion that helps me reach my goal as a Bolshevik. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 12:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}} My last edit to the "Recruitment Section" resulted in a rollback to previous material. If you look at the history page for the main article you can see the problem. Thanks. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 14:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, Malbrain, but you seem unable to understand some of the basic rules and concepts governing editing and discussions here on Wikipedia, even though at least two of us have tried for some time to point you towards the explanations for guidelines and policies. Your activity here is getting increasingly hard to follow and it is often very difficult to understand your convoluted language and references to mathematical theory. I do not doubt your sincereity, nor your wish to edit here constructively, but in fact you have become a disruptive and tendentious editor, even though you are unfailingly polite. Please consider taking a break from Wikipedia.--Cberlet 15:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I have issued a formal complaint against your policy of reverting my edits before they are finished.karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 17:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Malbrain, your recent edits have added material that is confusing, poorly sourced, and out of place. On the balance, these contributions have made the article worse, and Cberlet has rightly promptly reverted them. Please, stop adding more jargon and jargon-loaded quotes.Whosasking 03:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, you're right, Jargon is a general problem. I sent you private e-mail under the slug: Mexican Standoff. You have yet to respond. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 17:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] recruitment section

The reference for this section, the Political Commissar's handbook, is freely available for inspection at any of the 40+ NATLFED offices. I don't see how this is any different than the already approved references to the Essential Organizer. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 23:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undocumented and jargon-ridden claim

This was added:

  • The Formation
    The National Labor Federation proper is itself part of a larger organization that includes labor unions known as the American Formation. For example along the Rio Grande the Texas Farm Workers Association operates on both sides of the U.S./Mexico border to first organize migrant workers before they become mainstream NATLFED recruits.

According to critics, the TFWA is one mechanism through which people are recruited into a cult. They also observe that the "American Formation" is a fiction in the minds of the leaders of the cult. As someone who was involved in NATLFED, karl m {{User electrical engineer}}, don't you have a conflict of interest here?--Cberlet 12:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's the "Texas Farm Workers Union" and the answer is NO CONFLICT! karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 22:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

helpmeI believe your actions constitute a violation of the THREE REVERT RULE. Any comments from administrators? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbrain (talk • contribs) 14:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've checked my field notes. I've personally spoken with TFWU President Antonio Orendain about organizing the Rio Grande Valley in 1995 in San Francisco, investigated the border cities of Matamoros, ReyNosa, and Laredo in 1986 while operating out of Monterrey, and have confirmed with his daughter, Nina, yesterday. What is the Go_ Dam_ Proble_? karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 15:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Antonio Orendain is carrying literature from the Western Farm Workers Association, according to his daughter, Nina. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 15:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Material challenged . . . must be attributed to a reliable, published source.

– wikipedia policy on verifiability, WP:V

I challenge the accuracy of the above statement "The National Labor Federation proper is itself part of a larger organization that includes labor unions known as the American Formation," and the two contained links do not back up this assertion--they don't mention the National Labor Federation at all. Your interviews with Orendain's daughter are fine, but they are original research, a category of source material not permitted on wikipedia. Please do not include further claims of wide influence until/unless you can find a verifiable, published source to confirm them.Whosasking 16:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again I am faced with premature reverts. The required reference will be available shortly:

What about Texas? The forgotten cause of Antonio Orendain and the Rio Grande Valley farm workers, 1966--1982 (Cesar Chavez, California) : (Dissertation) [DOWNLOAD: PDF] (Digital) by Timothy Paul Bowman (Author) Availability: Sign up to be notified when this item becomes available. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 16:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Bowman's thesis is a reliable source for the article on the Texas Farm Workers Union, but I have a copy, and it doesn't say a word about the National Labor Federation. It is simply not relevant to this article.Whosasking 17:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to make such a fuss over the ommission of the word 'remnants of' why can't you just edit the section yourself -- e.g. "Remnants of the TFWU are still organising farm workers in the Rio Grande Valley along the border cities of Matamoros, ..." and save us all a whole lot of grief!! karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 08:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The relationship between NATLFED and TFWU has not been more than mentioned in the reliable sources, and I consider the assertion that they cooperated dubious. Whitnack mentions TFWU perhiperally, and court documents indicate that Orendain was a guest of Perente's in New York. These hints aren't really enough to say that TFWU does/did collaborate with NATLFED.Whosasking 15:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, Fine. I'll continue working the material to EXPORT MORE CREDIBILITY. Thank You. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 17:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jargon? from the Political Commissar's Handbook

The criticism of my edit to the recruitment section was JARGON: "Jargon is terminology that relates to a specific activity, profession or group." I used the term Commissioner: "An officer having charge of some department or bureau of the public service." to describe the operators of a Scheduling Network. How is this specific? It seems quite general to me. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 22:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In this case, "department of the public service" always means a government office. The use of the word commissioner outside the context of government service is nonstandard and is unduly self-serving in a way that the title "operations manager" is not.Whosasking 15:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
No, the Political Commissar's Scheduling Officers are not OPERATIONS PERSONNEL. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 16:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logosophy v. Philosophy

"The term "Logosophy" itself is the combination of the Greek words logos and sophia, that the author had adopted to mean "Creative Word or Manifestation of the Supreme Knowledge, and Original Science or Wisdom", respectively. The word tries to denote multiple aspects, among them a doctrine, a new line of cognitions, a method, and a technique."

I believe that the conflicts over the article's development can be summed up in this section. The tradition of NATLFED is story telling, NOT ANALYSIS. The analysis comes later, after the organization is built. For 30 years it is a work always under construction, it never ends, and its beginnings are more than a thousand years ago. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 08:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to create a repository for the oral history of NATLFED, that's fine, but such material from the tradition doesn't meet wikipedia's editorial standards until some credible third party has taken it up and written about it.Whosasking 15:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your considered response. Are you speaking for both yourself, and Mr. Berlet? karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 16:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So, the reader must ask himself -- where would it all end if it all started before the time of Homer and remains nothing more than another tale today?

I gave this answer already!! When the government SOURCES and the organization SOURCES are the same. How do I know? The answer stems from modelling theory -- if the ANALOG COMPUTER CANNOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONE AND THE OTHER, you have a revolution plain and simple. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 23:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That wikipedia is not a collection of oral history is my interpretation of WP:NOR and WP:V. If you disagree with these policies, you really should find some creative outlet other than wikipedia.Whosasking 17:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Since the Wikipedia is derived from the original work of Homer, I don't really see what your conflict is about. If two sources emit the same analysis and information, they must be the SAME SOURCE. If the government has the same sources as NATLFED, it means that NATLFED has revolutionized it.karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 23:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who really said it?

The first paragraph of "Strata Organizing" reads "According to the organization..." However, this sentence is sourced to the U.S. Department of Labor, which provides support that the info is true, but not that it represents NATLFED's "view of current economic and historic forces." What has NATLFED actually said about this topic?

A small example, but this is the kind of lack of clarity about attribution that I find whenever I begin to dig into the article.

Dybryd 20:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. The error was introduced by editors WHOSASKING and SPELLMAN. Why don't you ask them what on earth they're trying to do. I initially supplied the material for this section, and they insisted on "improving" my work. The important point is that both government sources and organization sources agree. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 20:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. Having more carefully reviewed the page history, I think I understand the trouble here. The best of luck to you all! Dybryd 23:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to your invaluable input we've established that NATLFED generates revolutions as a preliminary. THe only thing remaining is the PARTY OF AGENTS who take the simple ones through to victory! karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 09:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out. It seems that a paraphrase of a quote from a NATLFED publication was augmented with a footnote to support the claims made by the quote. I have removed the claim and the footnote becuase the claim is not central to the argument and isn't controversial besides.
Dbyrd, would you care to elaborate on "the trouble here"? This article could use attention from a disinterested party, and a recent request for comments has generated none. Malbrain, I can't understand you, in either your comments to the talk page nor your nonsensical and unsourced claims about Bolshevism.Whosasking 17:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The trouble has been obvious all along. There are the forces of progress/change/revolution, and the forces allied against the NATLFED constituency. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 23:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Malbrain, I am still having trouble understanding you. Some of your contributions have been valuable, and have been kept. You have expressed concern over the fact that most of your contributions to this article have been removed, mostly by Cberlet and myself. Some of the material we've removed has been material that has nothing to do with NATLFED.[10] Other times, you have added statements of fact that are not supported by reliable sources.[11] Other times, you have added things which make no sense.[12] Yet other times, you add things which are not direct quotes, but are excessive in their praise of the organization and out of place in an encyclopedia.[13] Sometimes your additions have links which look like sources but don't say anything about NATLFED.[14][15]
I would suggest that if you want to add anything to the article, you must have a reference for it, the reference actually has to say something about NATLFED, and the article can't, on the balance, veer into advocacy for or against NATLFED.Whosasking 21:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought that was the problem with the entire article -- it was entirely anti-NATLFED advocacy, without position from the organization itself. Sounds like time for deletion to me. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 21:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, if users CBERLET and WHOSASKING will stipulate that NATLFED is indeed a revolutionary organization, and not a cult, we might begin anew. I had spelled all this out in this section above, but it didn't take. I'll try again:
When the government says the same thing as the organization, it can only mean that the organization has become the government, and that particular battle is won. Agreed?
Secondly, winning all battles is not important in and of itself. You need Bolshevik leadership that can determine which ones together with other ones will achieve the distance necessary to victory. Not the BEST OF ALL POSSIBLE VICTORIES, JUST A SUFFICIENT ONE. This is all specified in the "Explanation of Content" section that was reverted. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 22:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You seem to believe that the article, as it stands now, is unduly biased against NATLFED, and that it should be corrected by augmenting it with more self-description. I respectfully disagree, and I do not trust you, as a NATLFED spokesman, to judge the article for balance. This is why I have been seeking outside comments.
NATLFED is not a revolutionary organization on wikipedia until reliable sources assert that it is.
The rest of your comments do not make sense. "...organization has become the government..." "You need Bolshevik leadership" don't have anything to do with editing this article, I'm sorry.
In these edits, you assert that the "associations... coordinate assistance programs operated by members" and that

NATLFED pursues a course of organizing based on the view of current membership leadership who form Councils, which contend that...

Please find a reliable source which says the benefit programs are run by members, and a source (reliable or unreliable) for the assertion that the leadership forms councils and the councils contend, or remove the changes.Whosasking 07:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Please be advised that this is the 40th anniversary of STOP THE DRAFT WEEK and that your request is going to take second priority. I'm busy arranging press coverage for the commemoration at: KCBS, SF CHRONICLE, STOCKTON RECORD. Your patience will be appreciated. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 07:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way, cadre set examples in discipline for members to follow in practice. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 07:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I've located example sources where Organizational spokespersons state the role relationships of members and volunteers to the benefit programs. I will add additional material to the article as appropriate. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Malbrain, this page is not free advertisement space for NATLFED recruitment. Please consider that fact when adding text.--Cberlet (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute -- packing the page

I believe that the article is currently derived from the point of view of organizational detractors, many of whom operate from analysis developed twenty years ago or more after what I believe are extremely shallow and/or narrow investigations.

I've done research from other points of view of and posted the findings on my on talk page, and I think that the NATLFED article benefits from their inclusion. There is certainly no consensus that the organization, its history and practices, are the result of the activity of "deranged fools."

I would ask that user cberlet make some positive contribution and analysis towards balancing the article between the organization itself, and its critics.

In my course of action, I've left the article portions written by others pretty much alone.

karl m {{User electrical engineer}} (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the wholesale deletion of material by user cberlet. Reporting and analysing facts from third party sources in the article is not propaganda. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In particular, the material in dispute was added to answer the question from the top of this discussion page, "As someone who'd used this page as a jumping off point for both myself and others to explore NATLFED's contested identity, I think that it's a real shame that the whole thing, including the links to ongoing discussions, has been deleted. I'd also add that the existing paragraph is not actually undisputed either. Many have questioned whether NATLFED organizes workers who can't form labor unions, or if it simply provides them services. The two are different. -matt"

karl m {{User electrical engineer}} (talk) 06:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Try adding material in an NPOV way, so that claims are cited to the sources, not as statements of fact. Try discussing edits here first. You are not "Reporting and analysing facts" but adding text from one POV and failing to write it properly so that the page remains NPOV. Why do you think that "links to ongoing discussions" are appropriate?--Cberlet (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think they're appropriate, and I appreciate the recent edit by whosasking to remove them. I quoted the matt's entry in its entirety as a reference.
I had thought that the information on the mechanics of the recruitment process in general was already introduced into the article from your own publication from 1984. It was developed by you from the point of view that these mechanics are unnecessary by design and evil in purpose and intent -- but the position of the organization is the maxim that anyone not philosophically opposed can make a difference, and the mechanics of the process materially guarantee the openness of this policy in practice. I'll look into developing additional sources on the mechanics of the recruitment process. In the meantime I would propose removing all the POV material derived from your 1984 publication from the article in its entirety under the policy on self-published sources drawing conclusions about other parties. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The point is to cite what reputable published sources state on either side of the dispute. This is a controversial page, and to post unsupported text, material not backed by the cites provided, and garbled original research, is just not acceptable. Nor is deleting material from an edited magazine. I understand that you seem to have difficulty abiding by the policies of Wikipedia, and encourage you to seek assistance in editing.--Cberlet (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not clear on your position. Do you maintain that your 1977 article describes the mechanics of the recruitment process? And if so, why have you chosen to delete the material from the recruitment section based on it -- given your knowledge of the situation why didn't you add a reference, yourself, to correct the problem? karl m {{User electrical engineer}} (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Read the published materials, summarize them in an NPOV way, post them, and properly cite them. That's all I am asking. If you cannot do that, please do not attempt to edit the entry. It is not up to me to figure out what you want to add and then do the work for you.--Cberlet (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think your position is in violation of wikipedia policy: "Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community. In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected." karl m {{User electrical engineer}} (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The text you are posting is not substantiated by the cites you are providing. It is not about consensus. I went back, read your edits, compared them to your cites. No relationship in most cases, vague but garbled text relationship in others. The text you are posting is not properly related to the cites. Whole sentences appear to have no relationship whatsoever to the cites you provide. Is this not clear? How else can I explain it?--Cberlet (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry that my disability prevents you from easily seeing the larger picture. I've tried to get you to break-down your objections to the material into smaller pieces, and I thank you for your effort to do so. Right here I'm focusing on the particular segment of the recruitment section that talks about 3x5 cards and the organizational maxim that anyone who is not philosophically opposed can make a difference. You removed this. The question for consensus is why? I'm not focusing on your other deletion to the strata organizing section, which I've accepted.

I'm also concerned that you are trying to unilaterally introduce a new status of "controversy" over the article and this discussion. The current dispute is NPOV, not controversy. The current framework is consensus building. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cites for Text

Malbrain: consider your following post:
  • "Recruitment to volunteer with one of the organizations derives from the maxum that anyone who is not philosophically opposed to the organizational effort can make a difference." Needs Cite!
  • "3x5 cards are used to systemically record the interests, abilities, and participational history in relation to the entity strategy of each personal or institutional contact the organizations acquire through outreach, referral or other voluntary activity." Needs Cite!
  • Cite Provided by Malbrain: [16] "EFWA Operations manager requests assistance"
Question for Malbrain: Where in the cite provided is there any reference to the text you posted?--Cberlet (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I'll start with point 2. From one source already included in the article:

Harvey Kahn Public Eye, Fall 1977

"But before long, the organizers, who appear fatigued from overwork and undernourishment, have assembled files complete with 3 x 5 index cards which show personal data on most of the community's activists."

"CDR are almost completely occupied by clerical work, which entails phoning, typing, and filing forms and 3 x 5 index cards in the 12 or so boxes of files. For each contact made by a cadre, there is a card made out in triplicate; one for the master file, another for the FIIN (financial input) file, and the third in the VOL file, for example."

"The 3 x 5 cards begin accumulating: name, address, schooling, activities and political background. Thus, before organizing efforts were launched names go to cards and cards go in order."

For point 1: NATLFED 2008 calendar, "You can make a difference" (already cited in the article)

"What do doctors, lawyers, stockbrokers, government workers, trade union members and businessmen have in common with farm, domestic, office, temporary, seasonal and service workers?

"All are part of an economy that relies on ALL of them to function properly. All own the ability to work together to improve conditions in this nation. All depend on each other for their livlehoods, as purchasers and sellers of goods and services, and find their lives and livelihoods disrupted or threatened when money is removed from the pockets of workers in their community.

"Free and voluntary membership associations have used a mutual benefit approach continuously since 1972, bringing together low-income workers and galvanizing them into a potentially effective force to eradicate proverty and the medical and social diseases it causes."

"YOU can play an active role in changing the future course of history by volunteering your time to help those less fortunate help themselves, to build organization that will address the needs of those who have the least. You can chose organizing as your profession. Volunteers are urgently needed to do the hard work of uniting all the strata of our working communitities to meet the challenges the increasing poverty in our nation has placed upon all of us!

"We hope you will do whatever you can, whether as a full-time organizer, a part-time volunteer, a supporter of efforts in your community, or a patron of local supportive businesses."

The photograph was meant to portray an actual in the field, at the point of practice, determination of whether an individual is philosophically opposed, or not.

The question for consensus remains, why did you not insert the point 2 cite yourself, as part of a consensus building approach? karl m {{User electrical engineer}} (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.(Wikipedia:Verifiability)

If you want to add material that someone disagrees with, you must provide an appropriate citation.Whosasking (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank You for your response. I do appreciate that the ultimate burden of proof lies with the promulgator of a change in direction. However, the question I'm having trouble with is the responsibility for building consensus. The cites demanded by user cberlet were both already in the article. He didn't come here and ask for clarification, he just unilaterally reverted. I haven't done that with any of his material which in my opinion is ePOV. Do you want me to go through the article and point by point challenge all the POV material for deleteion? Can you please provide an opinion on that question? karl m {{User electrical engineer}} (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
In case it's not obvious, user cberlet himself is the editor of the article of one the cites in question. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding examples

In a recent revert, user whosasking removed an exterior link. What process do you wish me to use to refer to exterior sources of examples to illustrate concepts in the text? These are not intended to be formal cites. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. (WP:OR)

The link in question, http://www.alaskajournal.com/stories/022005/mov_20050220005.shtml doesn't say anything about NATLFED that you actually repeat in the article. It is a brief biography of someone which mentions that he is on the organizing committee of AWA. The links that you add should be of higher quality--advertisements, announcements, press releases and entries in databases of organizations are simply not good links.Whosasking (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I guess I'm still in the middle of the NPOV dispute between the position of the organization and the position of user cberlet. However, the role of the Organizing Committee members to the Mutual Benefit Association and its organizers is key to understanding NATLFED in specific and the recruitment process in general. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Role of the Organizing Committee

I've located a source in the Volume 31 Issue 1 (July 2007) Shasta County edition of the "California Service Worker" in an article entitled "Spring into action"

Volunteers and resources needed for woodcuts

"We are still seeking someone who can provide an automatic splitter, a truck and trailer, more volunteers and people who can sponsor the gasoline costs," said Advisory Committee member and volunteer Raymond Lauritzen. "If you have wood or land to assist with this project, or can become a regular volunteer, we need to hear from you right away to build a 25 cord stockpile to help our members get through next years winter!" Jack Kersey, owner of Jack's Total Printing pitched in by donating printing of a leaflet advertising the woodcut.

"The firewood benefit is more important than ever since WSWA members report they only get a busy signal when calling the government utility assistance program LIHEAP ("Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program") and the program has been reduced to providing assistance every other year."

This paragraph in the article is proposed as a cite for the claim that Organizing Committee members step forward to guarantee organizational survival and growth into new areas.

karl m {{User electrical engineer}} (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am really sorry to say this, Malbrain, but it appears you are simply unable to follow even the most basic guidelines for editing entries and providing cites. Please consider seeking outside assistance before spending any more time on what is so far a not very constructive though increasingly time-consuming discussion.--Cberlet (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, I don't see your position. Are you saying the cite is inappropriate? or are you saying that the claim is not supported by the cite? or is this a personal attack on me as an editor?
I think the cite is appropriate under the policy for self published sources. As I understand it, they may be used as long as the article doesn't unduly rely on them, and they don't make claims about other parties.
I think the claim derives from the cite. Admittedly I use logosophy rather than philosophy in making claims, but I don't think there is a wikipedia policy against this.
I do sense a personal attack. I understand that I have attacked you, personally, of having a point of view in your self-published "expose" articles on the National Labor Federation in 1977 and 1984. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, Second Pass:

An organizing committee is created that includes, among others, community leaders willing to at least lend their names to the new effort. For example, an Advisory Committee member with the Western Service Workers Association in Redding in 2007 took a lead role in organizing a firewood benefit for the Association's benefit program.

"We are still seeking someone who can provide an automatic splitter, a truck and trailer, more volunteers and people who can sponsor the gasoline costs," said Advisory Committee member and volunteer Raymond Lauritzen. "If you have wood or land to assist with this project, or can become a regular volunteer, we need to hear from you right away to build a 25 cord stockpile to help our members get through next years winter!" Jack Kersey, owner of Jack's Total Printing pitched in by donating printing of a leaflet advertising the woodcut.

karl m {{User electrical engineer}} (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add material about the benefit programs, use the newspaper articles which talk about the benefit programs, not press releases from the organization asking for help. The class-action lawsuit in California and the fact that Ashland distributes firewood are described in quality, uncontroversial sources.Whosasking (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
As you are the primary existential editor, I appreciate your suggestion, and I agree to follow through on your analysis on how to improve the article's quality. I also thank you for leaving intact the change I made to the Organizing Committee membership criteria to remove the POV conclusion. Perhaps the Redding woodcut article belongs in the section on the newspapers and how they unify the various strata around a common action. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but you appear to be unable to follow Wikipedia guidelines. Please seek assistance from a third party editor to help you with understanding Wikipedia guidelines.--Cberlet (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coalition against Physician Assisted Suicide

User cberlet removed an edit I made to the role of CCMP and WSWA in the physician assisted suicide coalition in California. I present the following cite in support of reverting his edit.

On March 21, (2007) in both Sacramento and Los Angeles, groups of concerned citizens took time off work to attend rallies and "informational picket lines" in order to protest AB 374, which would legalize physician-assisted suicide. The Northern California group met for instructions and reminders of public policy talking points at the Sheraton Hotel in downtown Sacramento. The activity was led by the Coalition of Concerned Medical Professionals (CCMP), a group who serves those who are poor and uninsured, and Western Service Workers Association, which supports low-income workers—both members of the Californians Against Assisted Suicide. Joining were people from various other coalition member groups including California Disability Association, Catholics for the Common Good and California Nurses for Ethical Standards—as well as a number of individuals alarmed by the proposed legislation. See more pictures from the Sacramento picket line.[[17]]

karl m {{User electrical engineer}} (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a news announcement in a church news letter that says no more about CCMP than you've quoted. If you're so desperate for sources that you have to cite it, yes, it's evidence that CCMP has lobbied against pro-euthenasia legislation in CA. It isn't evidence that systemic organizing represents the most successful approach to community organizing.Whosasking (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Benefit Council -- original research?

Would the addition of the following passage satisfy Mr. Berlet concern over WP:OR? (Again, this passage is from an already cited newspaper article)

"Our goal is to form a worker's plebiscite, giving the workers a real vote," says Woolcock. "What most people vote for is the lesser of two evils offered them. A real say is stating real needs and having the resources to meet them. There needs to be more of a voice for the working people."

karl m {{User electrical engineer}} (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This quote, from a work of jouralism, is fine.Whosasking (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How does cite support the sentence?

Here is the text added by Malbrain: "The policy of the organizations is that each member in need who benefits from the programs should find some way to assist the next member who comes along."

Here is the cite: December 18, 2006, JCFC offers heating help for the needy, By Robert Plain for the Mail Tribune [18].

Where in the text in the newspaper article is there anything even remotely connected to the text that was added?--Cberlet (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In exchange for volunteering labor — either cutting or loading wood, or office work — JCFC will deliver wood to a client.
"It's a system of reciprocity," Dooley said.
An additional cite: "California Service Worker" Shasta County Edition, Vol 31 #1 p8 (discussing Benefit Plan II): "A volunteer Benefit caseworker meets with the members to develop a mutually participatory plan of action to close the chronic gap between income and expenses low-income workers face." ... "It's a self help program," said Sager. "People get an opportunity to become a member to join the fight for a means to survive and learn how to take control of their lives and deal with some of the problems we collectively face. If you think this makes sense and want to learn how to be a community leader, se need you to join us right away. All you need is a desire to learn and a willingness to work"
Another cite already in the article, quoted above (You can make a difference), "Free and voluntary membership associations have used a mutual benefit approach continuously since 1972 ... "

karl m {{User electrical engineer}} (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The second two references you propose are self-published, and are not suitable as references for assertions of fact. The first reference says that JCFC gives out firewood and helps people with utility cutoffs. It doesn't say anything about their policy other than what you've quoted above, and it doesn't say what you are trying to say. Please, stick to what the reliable sources say.Whosasking (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Position of the National Labor Federation

I plan to include another section to illustrate the organization's position based on this source from the 2008 NATLFED calendar (Fight famine in America too):

"For 36 years, hunger and malnutrition have been addressed daily by local association volunteers committed to the principle that every man, woman and child is entitled to adequate and appropriate food, clothing, shelter and medical care as basic human rights.

"Activities such as door-to-door food drives invovle the community in building emergency food benefits. Businesses support supplemental food distributions with fresh foods that provide budget savings to help families narrow the gap between incomde and needs, while recipients learn to solve not only their own problems, but those of other low-income working women and men."

karl m {{User electrical engineer}} (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you plan to add to the article with this quote? What factual assertions about organizational rhetoric do you want to add? I am concerned that you are merely adding quotes and slogans without adding facts.Whosasking (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)