Talk:National Labor Federation/Archive 1

---

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

---

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)