Jump to content

Talk:National Caucus of Labor Committees

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mediation, arbitration,
requests for clarification, and
other discussions about the
LaRouche movement, 2004-2008
Long term abuse subpage, LaRouche accounts
ArbCom clarification/enforcement,
AN/I, 2005-8
Arbitration 2006
Arbitration 2005
Arbitration 2004
Mediation 2006 and 2007
Mediation 2004
Article talk 2004-2007
Template talk
Categories
This box:

2004 topic

[edit]
[edit]
When I click this link, I get a message saying that it is unavailable. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC);[reply]
You're right - it uses a dynamic link from a search rather than a hard link to the specific document. You can find the document by searching from this page.[1] If I can't figure out a way to make a direct link I'll move it to a "further reading" section and add a notation on how to access it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rd-party confirmation for category: COINTELPRO targets

[edit]
I should think that the FOIA document should suffice. However, Dennis King also claims the NCLC was a COINTELPRO target. [2] --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC);[reply]
There are several books about COINTELPRO, and none of them mention the NCLC. That program ended in 1971, and this allegation concerns 1973. The matter covered in the King book, which I certainly agree is a reliable sources, is about Tony Papert, who isn't even mentioned in this article. The criteria for inclusion in the category is that entries should be "confirmed targets". Let's keep looking for confirmation, and in the meantime we should leave off the category.   Will Beback  talk  17:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
::Hey, guess what! Dennis King says the Tony Papert was a founding member of the NCLC.[3] Is that "confirmed" enough for you? --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC);[reply]
When Tony Papert gets an article then we can add it to the category.   Will Beback  talk  01:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
::::Don't be silly. Papert was targeted for his role in the NCLC, which is clear from the source. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC);[reply]
The trouble with using Google Book's snippet view is that you only see snippets. In the broader context, it appears that the King is referring to the SDS Labor Committee, not the National Caucus of Labor Committees. It's pretty well known that the SDS was a target of COINTELPRO, as confirmed by reliable 3rd-party sources.[4]   Will Beback  talk  06:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
::::::It is well known that the NCLC is a continuation of the SDS Labor Committee. That, combined with the FOIA document (which in and of itself is solid proof,) establishes that the category is appropriate. The fact that you have a book, as yet unnamed, which omits this is no reason to delete the category. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC);[reply]
"It is well known that the NCLC is a continuation of the SDS Labor Committee." What circles do you travel in that this is well known? We don't even mention this "fact" in the article, just like we don't mention Papert. Regarding the letter, it is here strictly for decorative purposes. It's not a usable source.   Will Beback  talk  17:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
::::::::::It may not be in this article, but it is in Lyndon LaRouche. It's also in the Heritage Foundation report on LaRouche, which is cited in this article.[5]. And why exactly is it that the FOIA document is not a source? The government doesn't willing divulge information about its covert operations, and FOIA is typically the only way to get that information. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC);[reply]
Please re-read WP:PSTS. If we started using primary source files for Wikipedia articles, such as this one, then we'd be in serious violation. The FBI?FOIA letter never even mention "COINTELPRO". As for SDS Labor Committee and Tony Papert, they aren't mentioned in this article. If they are really important parts of this topic then we should start by adding them. For the record, are you saying that you think Dennis King's book is a reliable source?   Will Beback  talk  01:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
::::::::::::Generally, I would agree with your assessment of King's book at the mediation cabal page, that it's "reliable for facts, but his interpretations are not neutral." By "not neutral," I would mean "given to heavy-handed propaganda and far-fetched conspiracy theories." You have asked me before for a blanket endorsement of King as a source, and as always, I refer to WP:REDFLAG -- it depends entirely on how exceptional the claim is. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC);[reply]

Since we both agree that King's book is a reliable source for facts, I've gone ahead and added material from it. I've made a general rewrite of the origins of the NCLC and other history material. Some of the sources conflict or at least don't agree, so it may have to be much longer if we want to fully reflect all views. Regarding COINTELPRO, as a compromise I've created Tony Papert as a redirect to this page, and added the "targets" category to it. Since he appears to be an important member, I've added his name to the list of "selected members".   Will Beback  talk  05:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should National Caucus of Labor Committees be removed from Category:COINTELPRO targets?

[edit]
Should National Caucus of Labor Committees be removed from Category:COINTELPRO targets? Leatherstocking (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC) ;[reply]

Comments by involved editors

[edit]
See previous discussion. We have solid sources that demonstrate that the NCLC was originally called the "SDS Labor Committee,"[6] and that the Labor Committee was a target of COINTELPRO.[7] There is no reason to believe that the FBI discontinued COINTELPRO activity against the NCLC, and good reason to believe that it did not, in the form of this photostat of a document obtained by FOIA lawsuit. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC);[reply]
We have a source that says Tony Papert was a target. Papert is in the category. The FBI letter is on an entirely different matter, and came two years after the end of the COINTELPRO program. Further, it's a primary source. There is ample scholarship on COINTELPRO and none of it seems to mention the NCLC.   Will Beback  talk  16:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
::Are you arguing that Papert was a target because of some aspect of his personal life, and not due to his leading role in the Labor Committee? That's hardly plausible. And would you be so kind as to name the "scholarship" to which you have so often referred? --Leatherstocking (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC);[reply]
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm saying there's no 3rd-party source that confirms the NCLC was a target of COINTELPRO. If you want to see the books written on the topic then "COINTELPRO" has a list. I checked a couple and could not find any mention of the NCLC or LaRouche.   Will Beback  talk  00:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by uninvolved editors

[edit]

Socks

[edit]

Postings by socks of banned user struck-through.   Will Beback  talk  02:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Caucus_of_Labor_Committees&oldid=1271955144"