Talk:National Education Association

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

1 References
2 Infobox Union
3 NEA,AFT and the AFL-CIO
4 Landmark Legal Foundation
5 NEA Politics
6 One sided links

[edit] References

The reference section on this article badly needs attention. Its largely worthless as it stands. - Freechild 00:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Union

I added the {{Infobox Union}} template. It is still being finalised - and comments/contributions are welcome either at the template page, or at WikiProject Organized Labour.--Bookandcoffee 18:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the infobox but I am not sure if I like what it does to the layout of the page? Robbie dee 20:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If you like you can add <br style="clear: both"> just before the History section to force it to start after the infobox. Does that help?--Bookandcoffee 04:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NEA,AFT and the AFL-CIO

Reports of increased NEA-AFT cooperation as well as potential NEA affiliation with the AFL-CIO would represent significant developments in the US labor movement, and have been posted here with relevant sourcing to Wikipedia and to news reports. Please do not delete these without explanation. Robbie dee 20:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Landmark Legal Foundation

The link to the "NEA Accountability Project" does seem topical (although the other Wall St. Journal article linked by the anonymous user was not - it made no mention of the NEA at all). However it would help to have some background on the Landmark Legal Foundation as well - there is no wikipedia article about them currently. Robbie dee 21:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The above referenced Wall Street Journal article discusses the AFL-CIO's politics. As NEA chapters will apparently be free to align themselves with the AFL-CIO this is indeed relevent.

[edit] NEA Politics

I have searched high and low on the NEA website and I cannot find any reference where the NEA asserts that it is "nonpartisan" or that it "supports Democrats and Republicans equally." Rather, like most unions, the NEA appears to be pretty solidly aligned with the Democrats on most issues, or to the left of the Democrats.

As such, the criticism from sources such as the Wall St. Journal editorial page, the Landmark legal foundation and Human Events Online, which all clearly identify themselves as right-wing or "conservative" on their own websites, cannot be understood as criticizing the NEA for failing to fulfill any claim of nonpartisanship - because the NEA has never made any such claim.

It rather appears that the critics cited oppose the NEA because they don't like Democrats, and would prefer that the NEA endorse Republicans instead or not endorse any political agenda at all. That's also a valid position and I suppose it is noteworthy enough for some mention in an encyclopedic article, but the basis for the criticism as well as the political perspective of those cited as the source of that criticism should also be noted.

Also, to the extent the NEA is criticized for supporting certain nonpartisan advocacy groups, I think that wikilinks to articles about those groups is informative and topical, so I have provided them. Robbie dee 22:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

NEA Keeps Tilting to the Left, by Phyllis Schlafly, July 25, 2006 this link has popup ads (maybe delete it or warn)

[ I see a warning was added. Note, Firefox blocked the pop up. Frankly, I recommend everyone should use FireFox wherever possible. ] --SafeLibraries 03:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The true issues here include the identification to the Internal Revenue Service of ALL monies spent for political purposes (treated differently for tax purposes), something Landmark and media sources contend the NEA has been negligent in doing in prior years (see the Landmark link).

- If there are specific, widely held criticisms of the NEA you wish to include, find a source for those criticisms and cite them directly, do not use weasel words like "some people" or unnamed "NEA members and others." Also, please include NEA responses to those criticisms, where available and appropriate, as per Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

- - Agreed. Cite criticisms, or responses to criticisms, from notable sources. Fagstein 05:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Insisting on labeling resources as "conservative" or "right-wing" (or "liberal" or "left-wing"?) is both impractical and in itself non-NPOV. Contributers are always free to add contrarian links, if they feel this necessary.

- The particular sources you have linked self-identify as "conservative" or "right-wing" and their political perspective forms the very basis of their criticism. As such, I think it is important to identify their political perspective in this case.