Talk:National Labor Federation

message: 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  (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This quote, from a work of jouralism, is fine.Whosasking (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefit Council -- original research? 

message: 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  (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Position of the National Labor Federation 

message: 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  (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The role of the national police -- unbiased??? 

message: 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  (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statements of opinion v. statements of fact 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Overall status and objectivity 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This whole article is biased against NATLFED, and needs to be edited. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Coalition of Concerned Legal Professionals