Talk:National Labor Federation

Untitled
Please post all comments at the bottom of the page.

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 &#123;&#123;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)

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.

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 &#123;&#123;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)

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 &#123;&#123;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)

I notice that the neutrality of this article has been questioned. I once attempted to edit some objective, factual content into a version which displayed no neutrality whatsoever, after running across Whosasking's post on another site, inviting people who knew something about NATLFED to contribute to an article. Whosasking later conceded that his invitation was not well considered, since he was attempting to obtain factual information which would have been primary, rather than from published sources. From this experience, from viewing what is available now, and from the above discussion, I would submit that there is NO comprehensive viewpoint-neutral source which could make this article anything but NPOV. There are a small number of articles from local daily and weekly newspapers which qualify as primary sources that are informed and viewpoint-neutral. Most of them put the federation and its constituent local organizing drives in a modestly favorable light, which enrages those who are hypercritical. Almost everything else in print is either from a local association's own publications (by definition not neutral, even if factual), and dubious pamphlets from a small cadre of people who have devoted decades to denouncing this method of organizing, for no discernible reason. Chip Berlet, for instance, has made a career of bashing NATLFED: he may be morally and factually correct, or absolutely wrong and malicious, but he's not neutral. Until there are several book-length source materials from objectively detached scholars, or a wealth of articles of similar caliber, there will be NO basis for a thoroughly informed secondary article, based on credible primary sources, which is viewpoint neutral. There needs to be viewpoint-neutral material objectively weighing Mr. Berlet's hysterical fixation on denouncing the organizations, for example. And frankly, outside of those who have had direct contact with the work of one or another local association, 99% of the American population could care less, which may account for the dearth of scholarship. .Llawnrodded (talk) 10:04, 18 August2008

There are a number of dissertations and papers by or reviewed by scholars on different aspects of Natlfed. One that is publicly available is a masters thesis by Timothy Bowman about the Texas Farm Workers Union and can be found at: http://www.farmworkermovement.org/essays/essays/Timothy%20Bowman%20Texas%20Essay.pdf. This is a paper that has alot of research behind it. I find it notable in that it does not mention TFWU as ever being part of natlfed and does not mention Gino Perente as ever being an organizer with TFWU. Others included a masters dissertation about California Homemakers Association in it's beginning stage written in 1976 by Joyce Burris Shupe who volunteered for a time with CHA. The paper is entitled "The Sociologist Looks at Community Organizing, A Field Study with the California Homemakers Association". The author was a student at California State University in Sacremento. A paper was was written by a Stonybrook student, Charlotta Beavers about the history of Stonybrook student's participation in the struggle of farm workers on Long Island and includes the beginnings of EFWA as well as the history of the UFWOC boycott. It was also well researched. The problem with these two writings is that they are not publicly available except by going to a library and copying the first, or through the author. I have copies through some sources, but have been unable to get permission to publish them from the authors who own the copyrights. There is paper entitled "Families Who Wait for Natlfed Survivors" by Sarah Bollinger at Columbia University on the views of some families of natlfed cadre which is also copyrighted and I am unable to publish. There are numerous articles in the New York Times during the late 60s and early 70s on UFWOC and farm workers in Long Island. They are perhaps notable in that they do not mention Gino Perente and put other names to acts which Perente claimed credit to. There is a site with firsthand participant essays on the work of UFWOC at: http://www.farmworkermovement.org/. There are a number of firsthand accounts of the NYC boycott and work in Texas. They are again notable in that they do not mention Gino Perente or any natlfed cadre. There are also FBI files on Gino Perente and Natlfed available on-line which are notable for what they say about the FBIs involvement or non-involvement and the raid in 1984. The content may not be viewpoint neutral but the fact that they exist and are viewpoint neutral material on what the FBI did and did not do is. I came across these various materials while I was trying to do some objective research on the truth or non-truth of information I was given by natlfed. For those who don't know me I should say that I was a natlfed cadre for 14 1/2 years from 1979-1994. Although I certainly have ambivalent feelings about the experience I wanted to be objective about what it was and wasn't. I would estimate the amount of press and scholarship existing on natlfed is about the same as for organizations of their size and activity in the US - as well as public interest. Although Chip Berlet may indeed be biased, he is a respected scholar. If he demonstrates he uses journalistic ethics in producing viewpoint neutral material I would consider it viewpoint neutral. AThere is no human being who is "viewpoint neutral". However, professional news publications and academic instituations have protocols and policies in place to try to ensure that their articles and publications are as close to this as possible - and if not are clearly marked as opinion. Robin Fahlberg September 4, 2008 Fahlbrs (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the TFWU paper. I have downloaded a copy for further reading. It looks very interesting. I find the references to copyrighted, unpublished materials whose authors will not permit publication less convincing. When I see an article published in a widely circulated academic journal, or even a non-academic magazine such as The Nation (yes, I'm sure you've read The Domestic Workers Rebel), I know that it is subject to not only formal peer review, much broader than a thesis, but also is available for comment, additional articles, counter-points. Perhaps the authors know their work is not sufficiently well researched to be authoritative. I have talked to individuals not connected with NATLFED who personally knew Perente as director of the NYC boycott, which is not a basis to present it as fact in a Wikipedia article, but leads me to wonder why authors of other compilations left it out, or whether their work was too superficial to observe it. Likewise, Antonio Orendain certainly spoke of knowing Perente for many years -- if Fahlberg was cadre during the period described, she has most likely heard that herself, at least on tape. That doesn't mean Perente didn't exaggerate or make things up, I have also read obituaries of labor organizers who died at 80 in the 1990s, with the same name as labor organizers Perente described being lynched in the 1960s in northern Califorina. Probably he just got the name wrong?

Chip Berlet is a respected scholar? Respected by whom? For what? He is a fairly capable generator of plausible propaganda, but what other credentials does he possess? (Oh, I have no doubt he has a degree, which I don't, but that alone doesn't impress me much.)

There are many valid cricitisms that can be made of the work of various local organizations which make up NATLFED, and many positive reasons they remain viable in the communities where they still exist. I find the genre of "ex-NATLFED confessions" and "families of cadre waiting..." to be pathetic (and I note that Fahlberg's previous contributions to presently deleted articles were NOT of this nature, they were informative and well written). Everyone who made a commitment found something positive and beneficial about this method of organizing; some later concluded for a variety of reasons that it was not for them, after one year, five years, fifteen years, or twenty years. The most reliable sources, in my opinion, are articles by local daily newspaper reporters who spent a week or so volunteering and then wrote freely about what they observed. They had the least ax to grind, the best access to direct and prolonged observation, and the greatest freedom to write it up as NEWS. (E.g., Atlantic City Press, can't recall if it was 1977 or 1979). There were at one time some reasonably informative articles about the local associations where the real work of NATLFED goes on, one of which I wrote and Fahlberg contrinuted to, and I am disappointed that Wikipedia cannot tolerate them, in the absence of anything better being available.Llawnrodded (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Simply because someone consistently has denounced Natlfed as a cult, and provided backup evidence to support their analysis does not mean that they are not objective (or as objective as anyone can be). It also does not mean that their analysis is right either. If someone consistently supports Natlfed does that mean they also are a propagandist. If you think that the only reason that Chip Berlet has any credibility is because he has a college degree then you have done little or no research on his credentials. You can start with Wikipedia. I have my disagreements with Chip Berlet, but that does not mean he is not a scholar or a journalist, and it does not mean that he does not adhere to a set of journalistic ethics. What are your credentials that allow you to comment on what is or is not a reliable source? The Wikipedia guide states:

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources. In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers. Special cases may arise; and editors should be careful not to exclude a point of view merely because it lacks academic credentials. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is."

Sources such as CCLPs "The Verdict" which was used in Malbrain's last edit would at best fall in the special cases. I think it is appropriate, but should be indicate that it is Natlfed's own publication. I think that we need to be careful what is and is not used. If someone wants to publish a personalised account of Natlfed activities then perhaps a blog is a better vehicle for this. I personally never met Tony Orendain or heard him on a tape, although I wouldn't be surprised if he did endorse Gino Perente for a variety of reasons. But that is personal conjecture. It has also been said that Robert Barnes was paid by Gino to back up Gino's stories of organizing with the Machinists. There is also evidence from the FBI files that Gino was in California during the time he said he was in Texas. I have not added anymore edits on the history of Natlfed from my personal experience because it does not fit the wikipedia requirements for verifiability and violates the orginal source rules. Robin Fahlberg Fahlbrs (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the ZNET article:

"WFWA has been organizing farm workers and other low-paid workers in California since 1983 with the understanding that workers must organize regardless of race, gender, age, nationality or education. WFWA is a free and voluntary, unincorporated membership association, joining low-income workers and their families with students, professionals, clergy, business owners and other concerned community residents. Together they work to improve living and working conditions seeking to eradicate the inequality farm workers experience. They don't receive government funding or any benefit that would compromise their decision making process. WFWA is run entirely by volunteers who learn basic "on-the-job" skills, offering training programs in Systemic Organizing Methodology, which combines traditional forms of organizing techniques"

I did not write the section that Fahlbrs edited. This cite is evidence that the position that the organization does not receive government funding. I would like to revert her edit and add a cite to the previously cited ZNET article to the section instead, but I'm open to suggestions.

karl m &#123;&#123;User electrical engineer}} (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote from ZNET I went to the ZNET website to see what the criteria for submission and publication is. There does not seem to be any review process for accuracy. That is the problem I have with the above quote. The wikipedia rules are pretty clear about what constitutes a reliable source. I think you can cite just about any of the mainstream media articles as a source for the statement that WSWA does not take government funding. I think most of them are in agreement. There are plenty of articles that agree that benefits are provided, and that there are canvasses and organizing of low income workers. But there are many subjective and unverifiable statements like "seeking to eradicate the inequality farm workers experience". The Joyce Burris thesis verifies the organizing and benefits for the early years of CHA. It does not verify that the organization is run by the membership or AC/OC - in fact the opposite. It states that cadre made the decisions in all cadre meetings. The early organizing work in Suffolk County is verified in the Charlotta Beavers paper, although the efforts seem to be much more unorganized and spontaneous than claimed by Natlfed. They also seem to have been more of a coalition effort. That TFWU has a long history as a union representing farm workers, and that the Foster Firm represented them in a number of legal battles is verifiable through the thesis mentioned above and the public court record. That the Foster Firm was part of Natlfed is verifiable by the FBI files and mainstream media articles. Current efforts of the benefits program and organizing are descrived in an article by Nate Leskovic in the Boston Underground. This site may however have a problem on reliability. I looked at the site and there does seem to be an editing process, but it is not described and there is nothing mentioned about verifying facts in an article before it is published. There is also support in the article about NSWA from a local paper. I think what you have to be careful about is the subjective claims such as the one highlighted above. That is of course only my opinion. It is also my opinion that the claims about abuse, manipulation, and deceit belong in the sections about volunteer recruitment, treatment of full-time organizers, and the overall structure of the organization. The actual work in the community is verifiable, but needs to be described as what it is and has been - not what Natlfed thinks it is building - this has not happened yet so should not be included as fact. Robin Fahlberg Fahlbrs (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The paper on TFWU is fascinating, and represents exactly the kind of detailed, dispassionate, unbiased but interested scholarly work that would be needed to assemble a secondary article on NATLFED with any integrity. Unfortunately, there isn't much work of this caliber. It also raises interesting questions. The author says that TFWU disbanded in 1982. All of the close work between TFWU and NATLFED began in 1983. There were of course prior contacts. Orendain and Perente knew each other from UFWOC work in California. Diane Ramirez, long-time EFWA Suffolk Operations Manager, came to Suffolk from Texas, where she had been working for Tony Orendain at TFWU. But either the author of the paper, who cites phone interviews with Orendain, has an incomplete picture, or there wasn't a TFWU during the post 1983 period discussed in NATLFED publications and classes. A lot more research would be needed to answer that question. Certainly Orendain himself was working with Perente for some years after 1983, both in New York and Texas. Many people have heard him on tape, and not a few met him during that period.

Along the same lines, there are plenty of people, most of them no longer with any NATLFED entity, who remember Gino leading the NYC UFW boycott in 1971. A few still have the famous "Viva la Revolucion" boycott button, which may or may not have given George Meaney his first heart, atack, as Gino liked to claim. Others remember the usual UFW events at shopping centers, or Perente dropping by the Catholic Worker houses in lower Manhattan. Its not like there is nothing to any of that history. Unfortunately, until someone makes the rounds to interview them, writes a primary research paper quoting them, and publishes it, those recollections will not fit into the Wikipedia format.Llawnrodded (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting enough there are some additional articles that have popped up on the Internet from local Texas papers about strikes in the onion fields after 1982. There seemed to be some confusion as to who was leading them. It would take some painstaking research to figure out what exactly was happening. Most likely this would have to be done in Texas in the microfilm rooms of old newspaper articles. The same for many of the struggles that Natlfed participated in. There are local articles - I remember seeing them. It would take some interviews and some willingness of ex-cadre to be truthful as well. I'm not sure Diane actually came from Texas. When I met her the story was she was with SNCC - did I get the acronym right? Then when Gino wanted some authenticity with Texas all of a sudden that's where she came from. Mitch Cohen also has many stories. Although Gino may have run the Manhattan boycott for a time, Mitch Cohen ran the Suffolk County one with Arthur Mitchell for a couple of years. And remember, Mitch Cohen was an EFWA organizer for at least 2 years when it started. So, yes to get an accurate picture of what did and didn't happen would take some serious research. If I was independently wealthy I might undertake some. I would like to know why Natlfed became what it became. Some serious research in California might be worthwhile to. The original CHA work did result in bargaining rights for domestic workers. Same with Upstate NY - there were some significant legal victories there. Robin Fahlberg Fahlbrs (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In 1973-1974, when Ramirez was newly arrived, everyone at EFWA understood she came from Texas, and, Orendain was known to ask, during the mid 1970s, when she was coming back. Having a background with SNCC is not inconsistent. Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee was primarily active 1961-1966, and as Student National Organizing Committee after 1966 it began to fade away. Lots of people went from civil rights to anti-Vietnam War activity with some UFW work somewhere in there. Of course, when Gino found it useful to play up her biological family connections, she morphed into Diane Runkle Ramirez in the 1980s -- not clear if Ramirez was a married name or a movement name. Mitch Cohen... no, he was not an EFWA organizer for at least two years. He was nominally Operations Manager of the upstate office for several months in 1974, but most of the time, he was absent. His real dedication was to his Red Balloon Collective, occasionally satirized as The Pink Dirigible. NATLFED failed because it's founding premises, however noble and hopeful, were not borne out in practice, and, because the social atmosphere in which full time volunteer commitments might be made by ten or fifteen people at a time in one locality faded, leaving one or two full-timers trying to be a movement. But the real point, for discussion of an article, is that Wikipedia is no platform for any kind of reliable article to be assembled on THIS subject. Too much of the data is not in primary published sources, although it is in the memories of people with actual experience, and, too much of what is published is not only biased, but fabricated or distorted by that bias. Llawnrodded (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a clarification - Mitch Cohen ran the UFW boycott in Suffolk County with Arthur Mitchell for a couple of years - I didn't mean Suffolk EFWA. Many of the volunteers were from Stonybrook and formed some of the initial volunteer base for the Railroad Ave. Center and then EFWA. This is documented in individual essay account of the UFW from UFW organizers and in back issues of the Stonybrook Univ. student newspapers. Thank you for the information on Diane Ramirez - I wasn't sure and no one with firsthand information would say anything. I agree that Wikipedia is not the best venue for factual information on Natlfed as that mainly lies with primary sources.Fahlbrs (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The role of the national police -- unbiased???
The recent edits by user pettybourgoiseving are problematical. First, the article already suffers from an unbalanced point of view and introducing the position of the national police as fact into the article lead doesn't help any. The FBI makes assertions. The courts determine which assertions are facts. This unsourced conclusion should be removed.

Second, the assertions about the position of the attorney in the farm workers victory by CCLP are completely unsourced and should be removed.

Third, the mischaracterization of the Mutual Benefit Association and Strata Organizing as vehicles to deny participants wages due is ludicrous.

karl m &#123;&#123;User electrical engineer}} (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed lead incorporating the changes and concerns of user:pettybourgoiseving:

The National Labor Federation (NATLFED) is a network of local community associations, run exclusively by volunteers, that aim to organize workers excluded from collective bargaining protections by U.S. labor law. NATLFED consists of several dozen mutual benefit associations and their organizers who conduct canvassing in working class neighborhoods and coordinate assistance programs operated by members of the associations.[2] According to literature printed by the groups, these benefit programs entitle members to emergency food, clothing, medical and dental care, legal advice, child care, and job referrals.[3]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation believes that NATLFED is a communist front organization for another organization known as the Provisional Communist Party of the United States,[1] but the groups have denied having a political affiliation.[4][5] Press accounts of the groups affiliated with NATLFED sometimes praise their social work[6],[7][8][9][10] sometimes raise concerns about their lack of transparency[4][11][12], and sometimes condemn the organizations for harsh treatment of volunteers.[13][14][15]

karl m &#123;&#123;User electrical engineer}} (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Statements of opinion v. statements of fact
Quotation from WP:RS:

Statements of opinion "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.

"There is, however, an important exception to sourcing statements of opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs (see: WP:BLP#Sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source).

"Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully."

karl m &#123;&#123;User electrical engineer}} (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Quotation from WP:SPS

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.[nb 4]

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

"Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.[nb 4]

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

"Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer"

karl m &#123;&#123;User electrical engineer}} (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Overall status and objectivity
I started a new segment to simply note that the article is much improved from what it was five or even two years ago. There is much in it that I, as a reader, consider dubious, unreliable, or biased, but for the most part, it is attributed, not stated as fact. It is true that Berlet says X and Whitnack says Y, for whatever that may be worth. These quotes are balanced with quotes from people who remain inspired and enthusiastic by their participation, and the content of what the mutual benefits associations do, on a day to day basis, in local communities, is reasonably well presented. I had not really expected to see the day when this much progress would be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.198.100 (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It has gone from 'fabulist propaganda clearly created by someone who is obviously unbalanced and has a personal axe to grind' to 'overall very misleading but plausible-seeming propaganda, mostly written by one or more people who have personal axes to grind'. I guess this does count as progress. Of course, it is still being used to paint a whole bunch of groups, at least one of which (and probably more) is not nor ever were even affiliated with NATLFED, as evil fronts for the TERRIBLE COMMUNIST CONSPIRACY, but I guess that's the price you pay for ... um ... being in the wrong place at the wrong time when a witch-hunt is going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:290F:E6:B4EC:A2BA:ECD:F40F (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This whole article is biased against NATLFED, and needs to be edited.
Starting from the very first sentence: "that claim to organize workers" instills doubt and shows the articles bias. It's fine to have a section about criticism where the accusations of being a cult and of harsh treatment of volunteers etc. etc. as long as there is real evidence, but it's all sprinkled throughout the article, creating bias. We need to allow readers to make their own decisions after reading the facts. Down in cadre recruitment, "their aggressive recruitment" is another show of bias. Someone needs to go through and see how biased this article really is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inkleafclover (talk • contribs) 13:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Please feel free to remove these terms. As an engineer I deal with garbage-in garbage-out every day, and these terms were left in as noise in 2007 for the reader to use in evaluating the power of Systemic Organizing. I'm certainly open to using new methods that achieve objectivity.

karl m &#123;&#123;User electrical engineer&#125;&#125; (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal
List of NATLFED entities and Communist Party USA (Provisional) should be merged into this article. These articles have been very infrequently updated since the 2000's. These articles cover the same topic. A merged article would make it clearer to the reader how closely tied these organizations are. A merged article may also make them easier to find via a search engine. IMO, the only argument for keeping the articles separate is length. SocDoneLeft (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Coalition of Concerned Legal Professionals
I have a friend who had a working relationship with NATLFED and so I looked up the Wikipedia article on it. The article off-handedly refers to the Coalition of Concerned Legal Professionals as some kind of NATLFED affiliate. My wife has been volunteering for the Coalition for many years and has a friendly relationship with it, and so I read this with considerable concern. Do you have any proof of this? I have no skin in this game personally but just want to know if you can back this claim up. Thanks. Jeepers Superman! (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)