Talk:American Federation of Teachers

message: *The discussion of the Federacian de Maestros (FMPR) was one-sided (it did not cover AFT's charges or views, the views of the U.S. district court, the views of previous FMPR presidents who supported AFT, etc.) and inaccurate (whether most members knew of the AFT affiliation is irrelevant, as most union members' connection are to the local union, as it should be; the actual delinking of AFT and FMPR occurred after AFT pulled FMPR's charter, not because the decertification vote was validated). Additionally, most unions suffer decertifications. They are not usually noteworthy unless otherwise discussed, which the section on FMPR did not do. Tim1965 19:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: To have a section on the early history of the AFT and then speak of its creation later on in the article is redundant and inefficient to the economy of the article.  The article should concern itself with the reorganization of these sections.--Kenneth M Burke 21:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand, the relationship between the UFT and AFT might be confusing to readers.  By no means do I mean to intrude into your work in any way.  I can offer suggestions if you like.  It seems to me that the introduction to the article is good, and the early history is good, but I think most of the growth could be improved upon by clarifying the UFT and subsequent history.  Many of the details seem to be random facts.  Perhaps the article could be reworked by reorganizing the major ideas and working some of the details into a timeline.  I believe this could be done in four steps.
# Briefly introducing some of the history of the UFT into the early history.
# Deleting the section on political and civil rights activities to say something more concrete about their activities with the creation of the UFT (maybe opening up the opportunity to discuss important policies).
# Provide a coherent transition into the strike and expansion from the creation of the UFT.
# Taking all the random dates in the history and making a comprehensive timeline to leave a coherent article.
I would be more than happy to work with you on the article. I am an agreeable individual and easy to get along with.  I'll look around Wikipedia for some creative timelines.--Kenneth M Burke 06:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Early History and Creation

message: I did a quick assessmnent in the comments section as per MrMacMan's request.  G'luck. Haus42 02:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessmnent comments

message: Hi.
I was thinking we should note in the controversy section of the article their creation and distribution of the animated video "Tax the Rich: An Animated Fairy Tale", specifically the scene where one of the rich people was shown urinating on a group of people. It caused a large degree of controversy, with Breitbart, Fox News, and NewsBusters reporting on it and, in the case of FOX, even questioning Ed Asner on it. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tax the Rich controversy. 

message: Donna Shalala did indeed serve as Secretary HHS from 1993 to 2001, but she has never served as a US Senator from any state, certainly not Illinois.
Jessemckay (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: right--I fixed it.  Rjensen (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donna Shalala 

message: I have found some articles and journals that would make this page more credible and verify the already proposed information. This is just a heads up that I will be doing some minor edits to try and improve this page. Please let me know if you have any advise or critiques about my work.
Bonnie Gaston (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your good work so far! Safehaven86 (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding citations 

message: Substituted at 07:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I followed a blue link to this article from National Caucus of Labor Committees, apparently this article used to have a section of the Ocean Hill Brownsville strike?--Kiyarrlls-talk 01:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ocean_Hill-Brownsville_strike 

message: The graph shows a dramatic jump in membership  around 2013/2014.  Such an extreme change should be discussed, and, if possible, explained. Kdammers (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  jump in membership 

message: This section seems to be non-neutral and mostly lacking in notoriety. Only one of the "four documentaries" is linked to so the rest are non-notable and the only thing listed is that these films exist. 2601:541:480:18A0:3470:8702:BBFC:4590 (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Reception