Talk:Solidarity Center

message: I was sad to see that the quality of this article had so deteriorated since I last looked at it a few years back. There is not even a pretense of NPOV with an opening paragraph stating that ACILS is largely "engaged in 'labor imperialism' ". Not "critics alleging", not "some observers believing" not  even "independent researchers claiming"- just a statement made as if an objective fact. Worse the research quoted is from the researcher who apparently believes his or her research to be a matter of objective fact. On the talk page this researcher backs up his or her credentials with the claim of being a former Marine Sergeant. I really would like to spend the time improve this article but I just don't have the energy at the moment to get into a revert war with this Kim Scipes. 
So instead I will ask Kim Scipes: Please read other wikipedia articles on controversial subjects and find a way to incorporate your research into the article so that it does not appear as position of the article but rather a position of a researcher. Wikidia articles are not personal thesis statements so if you want to incorporate your personal research into an article (which is bit touchy to start with) please find a way to do so so the article as a whole presents an overall picture of this institute. This would include the viewpoint of the org itself, viewpoints of its allies, veiwpoints of its critics, viewpoints of other observers. If you are indeed a university level professor. It is fine to have a POV and that POV can be presented in the article. But it cannot be the POV of the article.  Please look at other quality articles in wikipedia. Joel s (talk) 06:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: SERIOUS NPOV ISSUES IN THIS ARTICLE

message: The Solidarity Center had a puff piece up here earlier on its work in Haiti. A new article gets to the bottom of their activities in Haiti.  This was published by a mainstream labor publication, one of the largest in the United States- Labor Notes.  See http://labornotes.org/archives/2006/06/articles/f.shtml
:Link is now dead.RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Haiti Info

message: Dear Dr: I am assuming good faith in that you accidentally deleted my comments, however "page history" is a very useful tool. So... Dr. Scipes, if I may, my orginal arguements followed by a brief rebuttal. Please remember that the talk page, as well as the article itself are not your exclusive right. Posting on wikipedia does not allow you to have hold control over the words you donate.  Additionally, I apologize for my intital exicitement/ bold words of my orginal comments, but I am just a recent undergrad, so I haven't completely absorbed the concept of colligellity. 
My orginal words:
== My orginal arguements== (hold on a moment, will post shortly) V. Joe 21:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assuming good faith/ talk pages

message: All of the sources under: articles are all highly left-wing and POV. If it is really part of a “Bushite conspiracy, wouldn’t Time, Newsweek, etc want to publish it. Has anything been done by the right-wing press either? This article needs balance. Thanks  [User:Valentinejoesmith|V. Joe]] 21:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to add {fact} templates to unverified claims, but there are too many to do so.  Instead, I added {sources} to the top.  The links provided (which are way too POV to be the only sources) need to be linked as references to specific statements.  More balanced links should be found.  --Tjss(Talk) 21:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: As I stated when I wrote my objection, I don't really have "a dog in this fight" when it concerns Union activity or the AFL-CIO. However, I also don't think the article should stand "as is." Words like despised, whatever the Doctor's qualifications do not have a place under wikipedia: NPOV. Further, the evidence you offer is merely a resubmission of what you have already posted previously. I still don't feel that Chavez's government was really Democratic or that.  This writer: well, M. le Docteur, I have a wiki-name, and I use it. I don't use my real name, and that is my privledge. Do you treat your students in a like manner? 
You are indeed against imperialism and oppression, well, so am I and virtually everyone else. I am also agaisnt incest, racism, cancer and political assasination. I am also agaisnt indifferent wikipedia articles. Therefore, I suggest that you consider writing about something that interests you, but that isn't a part of your job.  Cheers, and thank you for your time. V. Joe 21:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A brief rebuttal

message: I replaced soapbox/blog/rant with past "official" posting from the organization itself.  If you are a critic of the organization, you should not be erasing their contribution and replacing it with your own POV.  This action goes against the spirit of Wikipedia.  This website is not a soapbox for your views.  Create your own website for that.
Poccs 04:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that the "official" posting is particularly valid either without balance. It seems to me that critical examination and editing is exactly within the spirit of Wikipedia.--Bookandcoffee 04:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I'm afraid that I disagree. It has been my experience that "official" and "objective" are two things that you rarely find together. It is a bit naive to say that you "can't argue with the content unless you believe the organization is lying." Things are never that simple. The ACILS wants to project a good view of itself - who doesn't? I don't fault them for that - but this article isn't (just) about what the ACILS says it does, it's about what Wikipedia say the ACILS does. (That sounds a bit ominous doesn't it... jeez :) Hopefully a number of interested editors work from outside sources, and eventually reach a semblance of the truth; including an honest assessment of the criticisms, and critics. I would contend that editing toward that goal, rather than reverting (a process which is almost inevitably temporary) would be a better course.--Bookandcoffee 06:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: EDITS

message: Poccs, it's not legal for Wikipedia to post things from other websites.  It's a copyright violation for Wikipedia to do so (and all material on Wiki must be licensed under the [GFDL]).  If you have problems with the article as it stands, you are welcome to edit it, dispute facts, etc, but quoting the organization's own description is not kosher.  (It's not encyclopedic either.)  Katsam 10:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert from Solidarity Center's self-description

message: :"An AFL-CIO employee labeled these workers as "revolutionary ideologoues" (Monthly Review/2005)."
The AFL-CIO has thousands of employees.  Was this person a local organizer or John Sweeney?  Furthermore, whoever this person is, it must be shown that such a quote is reflective of a significant group or faction, unless that person is not a significant leader themselves.  --Tjss(Talk) 17:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revolutionary ideologues 

message: This article has been taken over by people critical of the Solidarity Center.  A decent article (one that is useful to a significant portion of society) would include a history of the Solidarity Center, a summary or its stated goals, and other stuff that doesn't immediately paint the topic as a front for the CIA.  --Tjss(Talk) 17:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's needed 

message: I think this article should be started over. It was orginally written by someone with a clear bias, whatever his qualifications. When writing an enclopedia article, one does not say that Hitler was evil, one simply gives his deeds and lets the reader draw his own conclusion. Additionally, if you are writing an article about, say, the Britsh Empire 1910-1930, you had better interview both Winston Churchill and Eamon De Valera if you want balance. I think this should be started over, written at first as a stub, and then slowly expanded using both the ACLU Solidarity website, critical sources, and State Department press releases about it. Otherwise, you are going to continue to get left-wing rants... and right-wing rants that attempt to refute them. (Which will convince no one, being slogans shouted back and forth. I also think the "Haiti" section of this article has been taken over by Aristide partisans, who is both a defrocked priest and a failed president/dictator/whatever who blames the US for his departure. V. Joe 19:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  I don't think we're allowed to replace the current text until we have something better.  Let's start a subpage here. --Tjss(Talk) 03:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Concur

message: I don't think I dominate the article. I haven't actually edited it much, although I have made my views known on the talk page. I do not think that the ACILS is as important as people are trying to make it and I also do not believe that it is a CIA front. Ideally, I'd like to see a much shorter, much more factual article that is little longer than a stub. Cheers
V. Joe 15:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Also

message: I have reverted to version by trini-socialist, which will surely get my membership in the "vast right wing conspiracy" revoked. And I was enjoying the hot tub at the Club. Darn. I have reverted to this version to eliminate both right and left-wing rants that were attached. Incidentally, it isn't very polite to make lots of large changes without concurance in a discussion. Since neither the right-wing anoy. partisan nor the left-wing anoy. partisan bothered to discuss their edits... I just reverted. Cheers V. Joe 15:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: Why, this Yank asks... is the United States not supposed to advance its strategic influence? Isn't that one of the things that any government is supposed to advance? V. Joe 18:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "United States Strategic intrests"=

message: The user making unsigned comments needs to get an account, and then read the policies regarding Wikipedia content.  I have needed to rephrase or remove many references to the coup in Haiti across several articles.  That is not because I do not agree that there was a coup--there most certainly was--but Wikipedia is not a place for polemics and political writing.  It is an encyclopedia.  Furthermore, personal expertise is not a justifiable reason for including things.  No original research is allowed.  Independent sources (not the various left-wing blogs and magazines) need to be cited for inclusion here.  --Tjss(Talk) 18:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsigned comments 

message: I don't want to step into the bonfire already roaring here, but there are a number of mainstream resources which outline the history of the ACILS and its predecessors.  Here are some:
*Carew, Anthony. "The American Labor Movement in Fizzland: The Free Trade Union Committee and the CIA - Central Intelligence Agency." Labor History. 39:1 (February 1998). (An excllent piece which relies almost exclusively on original documents in AFL-CIO archives.)
*Cox, Robert. "Labor and Hegemony." International Organization. 31:3 (Summer 1977). (One of the initial exposes of the FTUC—an ACLIS predecessor.)
*Douglas, William A. and Godson, Roy S. "Labor and Hegemony: A Critique." International Organization. 34:1 (Winter 1980). (Good critique of Cox's article, although later research would undercut most of Douglas and Godson's arguments.)
*Foner, Philip S. U.S. Labor and the Vietnam War. New York City: International Publishers, 1989.  (Excellent book about the AFL-CIO's manipulation of domestic public opinion, inside and outside the labor movement, largely on behalf of anti-communist and CIA goals)
*Frutiger, Dean. "AFL-CIO China Policy: Labor's New Step Forward or the Cold War Revisited?" Labor Studies Journal. 27:3 (Fall 2002). 
*Kelber, Harry. "AFL-CIO's Dark Past: AFL is Funded for Covert Activity by CIA." Labor Educator. November 15, 2004. 
*Kelber, Harry. "AFL-CIO's Dark Past: Meany Hired Ex-Communist To Run International Affairs." Labor Educator. November 8, 2004. 
*Kelber, Harry. "AFL-CIO's Dark Past: U.S. Labor Secretly Intervened in Europe." Labor Educator. November 22, 2004. 
*Kelber, Harry. "Do Solidarity Center’s Covert Operations Help American Labor on Global Problems?" Labor Educator. December 13, 2004. 
*Kelber, Harry. "Kirkland Built A Secret Global Empire With U.S. Funds to Control Foreign Labor." Labor Educator. December 6, 2004. 
*Kelber, Harry. "U.S. Labor Reps. Conspired to Overthrow Elected Governments in Latin America." Labor Educator. November 29, 2004. 
*Sims, Beth. Workers of the World Undermined: American Labor's Role in U.S. Foreign Policy. Boston: South End Press, 1991.  
:I would caution on using Kelber as a primary source. The Labor Educator is a newspaper, not a research journal, and Kelber has a distinct point of view he is pushing. Personally, I would not rely on Kelber as my only source for a fact; I would also seek back-up (Kelber got his information from somewhere!).
:The Sims book is useful, although dated (nearly 15 years old). The book does not rely on much original-document research, and South End Press is not without bias. Nevertheless, the Sims book is useful as a source of information from other countries, non-U.S. labor unions, etc.  I would think the Sims book is useful for putting things in context, as a finding-aid for non-original-document sources, for information which would not appear in Carew's, Cox's or Kelber's pieces (e.g., non-U.S. sources), and so on.
:Foner's book is very well done. Foner has a bias, but he works very hard to adopt a neutral viewpoint in the work. And, as he does in all his books, Foner documents everything five or six times over! It's no surprise that labor leaders try to influence the opinions of union members (duh!), but there is much useful information on labor's overseas activites in this work, too.
:Finally, biographies of AFSCME and its president in the 1960s, Jerry Wurf, discuss how entangled AFSCME was with FTUC/ASLIC. Such works may also contain useful information. (For example, when Wurf took over as president of AFSCME, he found that a number of AFSCME staff were in fact agents of the CIA and FBI--undercover as labor staff, but fully funded by the intelligence community and doing only intelligence work.) - Tim1965 00:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some resources

message: ACILS has obviously been a tool of the state department in these countries. It would be good to have more information on their work in other countries though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.217.39 (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good critical analysis of Venezuela and Haiti

message: Having not checked this page for a while, I went back, added and cleaned up some of the sections--I added a number of citations, including several things I have written, with links to the original article so people can see the argument and extensive documentation.  Note that two of my references have appeared in peer-reviewed academic articles.
By the way, to clarify:  I did not rewrite the entire article--I didn't touch the Haiti section at all (which I did not write initially)--and I left a lot of the original material as it was.
I am troubled by some of the comments on this "Talk" page--one person, in particular, seems quite willing to believe that Hugo Chavez was not democratically elected in Venezuela.  You don't have to like Chavez or his policies, but let's not distort facts.  And the facts are that Chavez was democratically elected in 1998, 2000, and 2006, in elections certified clean by multitudes of international observers.  Not only that, but when Constitutional changes were voted on by the people (as required by the Chavez inspired 1999 Constitution), and Chavez' proposals were defeated, Chavez accepted the results.  So, just because the mainstream media in the United States has a real attack attitude toward anything that Chavez does--and you can really see their bias when comparing their coverage of Venezuela with that of Pakistan under Pervez Musharaf (sp?)--I don't think it's appropriate either their reporting nor their style herein.
The problem with ACILS is that the AFL-CIO (and the NED, of which ACILS is one of four core "institutes"--along with the international wing of the Republican Party (headed by John McCain), the international wing of the Democratic Party (headed by Madeleine Albright) and the international wing of the Chamber of Commerce, whose head I do not know) don't want people to know about their operations.  Read Stanley Gacek's work, and see responses by Robert Collier, Steve Ellner and Lee Sustar:  they point out, again and again, that Gacek's work might not live up to the highest standards of veracity.  In fact, in my peer-reviewed 2007 article, I seriously consider Gacek's point of view and reject it.
Kimscipes (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Above contributor - as long as you continue to hijack the ACILS Wikipedia entry the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article will be disputed. (Comment by User talk:70.169.160.170, an editor in the DC metro.)
KimScipes, how old are you and when do you plan to check out?  After that, maybe this page can be posted with some legitimate content.  What kind of a person writes an article and then uses other articles he wrote as documentation of the veracity of his comments?  I'm glad to see that most of the people commenting on your postings look on them as a sad joke.Observant Guest (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated Material, with extensive resources

message: This organization/department was formed in 1997 but the History section is discussing the AFL's (not the AFL-CIO's) involvement in WWI and the Spanish-American War.  There might very well be a need for an article called Foreign Policy of United States trade unions or something similar.  This content is not relevant to this article, however.RevelationDirect (talk) 07:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also removed stuff about Reagan, the Cuban revolution and WWII.  No objection to the content, it's just not on point for this article.RevelationDirect (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: History Section

message: Okay, let's start knocking these out starting with the less contentious ones:
*Self Published Sources:  Going through all the sources, I only found one item that looked like it was from a blog and I removed it. This link is self-published I guess but it's a link to a bibliography of published work so I left it.  If anyone feels strongly, just remove that.  I'm removing this issue.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Working through the long list of Multiple Issues at the beginning of the article

message: While I've removed most of the tags on this deficient article, most of the works still remains with the two that are left.  It needs the following:
* A Programs section to show what the organization generally does to provide balance with the criticism section.
* General cleanup to make itmore readable and flow better.RevelationDirect (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Remaining Issues

message: Please note a new discussion at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard.
I have removed or edited sections that have violated the NPOV, reliability, BLP, COI policies of Wikipedia, in my humble opinion.
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#American_Center_for_International_Labor_Solidarity|Conflict of Interest Noticeboard]] 

message: This is an organization which may or may have been fairly desccribed as a front for the CIA and its current role with the US government's foreign policy remains controversial. There is likely never going to be one authoritative viewpoint here so it's critical that there be reliable sources from different perspectives on what is a prominent part of this article. 
Instead, the earlier criticism section has been removed and there's only two sentence about the CIA's funding and influence. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central Intelligence Agency