Talk:Labor spying in the United States

Untitled

This article is still "under construction" but is mature enough to move out of user space. Richard Myers 01:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

POV and dubious statements

It certainly cannot be claimed that all workers' organizations are inclusionist in character. Even the Knights of Labor, often cited as an example for labor inclusionism, not only excluded Chinese, but even participated in pogroms against them. What about the long history of women being excluded from trade unions? What about Nazi, Fascist, and neo-Fascist trade unions? Though the second half of the statement, which claims that all corporations are hierarchically structured, is truer than the first, there are also exceptions here.--Carabinieri 18:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Historically unions have, by far, been the much more frequent targets of orchestrated spying campaigns, which are, appropriately, the subject of this article." You can hardly prove that.--Carabinieri 18:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the observations, and i have attempted changes which, i hope, will go some distance toward addressing the concerns. Please take another look, and let me know what you think. Richard Myers 20:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That does look a lot better, thanks for addressing my concerns so quickly. Yet you are still going to have to cite sources with "statistics cited by researchers" to back that claim up. Anyways, the article looks good all in all, the main problem is that it covers almost exclusively the situation in the US. I wouldn't be disinclined to re-scoping this article to something like Labor espionage in the United States.--Carabinieri 20:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I move that the POV Check be removed then. Tony Clothes 22:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

On worldwide relevance

The article includes this:

Geographic region — If this topic seems somewhat U.S.-centric, that may be appropriate. Only in the United States has the struggle between management and labor resulted in such a contingent of mercenaries who specialize in breaking strikes.<Reference>From Blackjacks To Briefcases — A History of Commercialized Strikebreaking and Unionbusting in the United States, Robert Michael Smith, 2003, page xiv.<End Reference>

The observation that this situation has occurred "only in the United States" comes from a legitimate source. However, the situation may be a bit less clear. For example, i have noted that Pinkertons have worked in Canada. While that doesn't invalidate the point, it certainly suggests there were reasons (financial incentives?) for such agencies to exist elsewhere.

I have ordered several additional sources, so this observation may stand or fall.

In the meantime, if anyone can shed additional light on the annotated statement, please do so here. Richard Myers 20:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find anything on the situation in Europe, but I have to admit, when I read the word "labor spy", the United States and especially Pinkerton do come to my mind.--Carabinieri 12:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible need for consolidation

Need to explore references to Frank Steunenberg and Harry Orchard, etc., to see if these can be consolidated... Richard Myers 11:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Move to delete / merge with "Union busting"

This article is linked to by few other articles, is titled with a nebulous jargon word, contains unverified and uncited claims or original research, and generally duplicates material covered better and more comprehensively elsewhere.

Therefore, I move that this article be either deleted or else merged with "Union busting". Tommythegun 18:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You are suggesting that a 94K article be merged with a 93K article. I don't think that will gain anything for Wikipedia.

The article is very well documented, and the term "Labor spies" is both historical and accurate. It describes a legitimate phenomena that is a part of history, and that continues today. No deletion. Richard Myers 04:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide examples of "unverified and uncited claims or original research."

Also, please give us a comprehensive analysis of the claim that duplicated material is "covered better and more comprehensively elsewhere." Specifics, please. Richard Myers 17:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this should be deleted nor merged. I do think, however, that the topic should be placed in a more historical context, with the reader referred to "Union Busting" for an explanation of more contemporary practices. While spying is certainly a component of modern-day union busting, the term "Labor Spies" seems to come from another historical era. Tony Clothes 22:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Note to other editors: At the time "Tommythegun" made the claim that this article was linked to by few other articles, it was in fact linked to by more than forty other articles — not counting talk pages. "Tommythegun" has put up a proposed deletion notice on this article three times: Here [1] and here [2] and here [3] — this in spite of the language embedded within that template which, during its display period, states:

You may remove this [deletion] message if you... object to deletion of the article for any reason... If this template is removed, it should not be replaced. (emphasis added)

Two different editors (including myself) removed the template. "Tommythegun" violated the guidelines by replacing it twice, before finally removing it himself.

The template also suggests:

Nominator: Please consider notifying the author(s) of this page using {{prodwarning|Labor spies}} ~~~~

"Tommythegun" did not perform this courtesy on any of the three occasions that he installed the template.

"Tommythegun" seeks to have this article, a major effort that took several months of research, deleted. Alternately, he seeks to have two very significant articles, 94K and 93K respectively, merged — which could only result in the elimination of much of the carefully researched and diligently referenced content of one or both. Judging from "Tommythegun's" other edits: [4] it seems apparent that these demands to shift or delete information are based upon ideology rather than any attempt to improve Wikipedia. Yet "Tommythegun" accuses others [5] of practicing censorship when they disagree with his proposed article deletions.

We are advised to assume good intentions, but with this individual and this history, it is becoming difficult to conclude that this is anything other than harrassment, or an ideological attempt to suppress information, or both.

This article isn't perfect. I know, because I wrote most of it. The other article, with which "Tommythegun" seeks to merge this one, certainly isn't perfect either. I should know, for I wrote most of that one too. This is, it seems to me, more than a coincidence.

"Tommythegun's" rationale for deletion of this article is as follows:

This article is linked to by few other articles, is titled with a nebulous jargon word, contains unverified and uncited claims or original research, and generally duplicates material covered better and more comprehensively elsewhere.

I challenge the statement on links — more than forty, it seems to me, is adequate.

I challenge the "nebulous jargon word," observing that the expression is historical, is not in any way perjorative, has enjoyed widespread usage, and that usage continues to this day. One has only to point out that Morris Friedman named his book The Pinkerton Labor Spy , and that was in 1907, to appreciate the emptiness of the phrase "nebulous jargon word" as applied to the title of this article.

As primary author of both articles mentioned in the proposed "Tommythegun" destruction merger, I evaluate the "duplication of content" between the two articles at roughly two percent. Thus, if we try to keep articles under 100K, one or the other articles would essentially cease to exist as the result of a merge.

I don't know of any unverified or uncited claims of original research in this article. Perhaps "Tommythegun" can point something out. That, at least, would be one positive result of his participation here.

Absent that, what are we left with of the original criticism?

I will happily entertain suggestions about how either of these two articles may be improved, including any realistic and positive suggestions from "Tommythegun". But attempts to eliminate or destroy content in multiple ways, accompanied by no constructive criticism whatsoever, result in a loss of respect for the suggested changes proffered by individuals such as "Tommythegun". Richard Myers 18:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between overlap of scope and "duplication of content". Not to devalue your extensive work, but the mere fact that you took the time to write 150 or 200k of content does not mean that all of it necessarily belongs in the encyclopedia. This article seems to ramble and go into excessive detail in a number of areas and lacks the formal and dispassionate tone of encyclopedic writing. Also, there's no need to be wrapping "scare quotes" around a person's name that you disagree with. heqs ·:. 22:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Biased?

I think this article should be evaluated for its neutrality. I've maked it with the {{bias}} tags--Bisected8 20:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Nearly two months have passed, and no one has contributed discussion during that time. Bias tag removed. Richard Myers 01:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone will comment on the POV tag then. The article seems clearly in the labour POV, even starting with a quote about labour oppression. Baiter 03:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, well, i think that's what comes from not reading carefully. That comment is from an individual who made a lucrative career out of destroying unions. Martin Jay Levitt was undoubtedly one of the foremost experts on the subject. He made the comment after he walked away from that career.

It is easy to label an article POV or biased. How about doing some research to add material in order to balance it? Richard Myers 00:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it has some stylistic issues that are more pressing, some of which probably add to the appearance of POV, such as using italics for emphasis instead of letting the words speak for themselves. The offending opening quote should probably be moved somewhere else to conform to encyclopedia conventions. As for the content being pro-labor, you're not going to have an article on labor spies that doesn't paint a history of labor oppression/union suppression - it's the nature of the beast and that's what published sources will reflect as well. Wikipedians seem to mistakenly assume that NPOV means taking a position in the middle between two opposing camps, i.e., so that there would be equal coverage given to all the good things labor spies did, for example. No one would suggest such a thing for Hitler-related articles, for instance, that he made some good points in Mein Kampf, just for the sake of being NPOV and not being biased against him. That's an obviously absurd example, but the principle is the same. NPOV is more things like not using value-laden adjectives (unless they're attributed and relevant), blatantly excluding opposing views, or advocating a single position. I also agree that slapping tags on articles without taking the time to state the reasons why it's POV isn't helpful or a valid use of tags, unless of course you mean that removing the opening quote would make it NPOV. bobanny 00:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits affected tagging dates

Recent edits that someone made to add additional top boxes to the article changed the dates that were in the previous boxes. For example, the statement that the article does not represent a worldwide view on the subject states the article has been tagged since December 2007. This is an error; the article had been tagged with that statement for a year or more. I considered reverting to restore the original dates, but decided that noting the changes here would be less intrusive. Richard Myers 18:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Coatrack article?

Someone needs to explain in what sense this article is a coatrack article. Simply flinging possibly questionable criticisms at an article without justifying them on the talk page is unfriendly and unhelpful.

Nearly every example of a coatrack article has to do with a biography. This article is not a biography.

What, then, does the editor believe is the "coatrack", and what are the "coats"?

In my view, the article is about its topical subject, Labor Spies. Therefore, if someone cannot offer a good reason for this critique, i will consider that the critique should not be there. Richard Myers 18:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Coatrack is probably the wrong problem in this case, however a similar situation applies in that this article is about Labor Spies, not analysis of every incident of remotely notable Labor spying known to man. There was a *huge* section on what should've been at most several sentences on how to explain what a 'Frameup' is and a summary of an example. Additionally, the summary was ridiculous and have you ever seen a Wikipedia article start with a quote - let alone a quote from a strongly biased figure. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 11:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

TheSeer, you have deleted 45K of text, without justification of any particular deleted passage. You have applied coatrack, which, now that you've been challenged, you now admit does not apply. May we conclude that you simply don't like the article?

I don't have a problem with deleting or improving individual passages in the article, passage by passage, with explanations. In fact, i expect that we all would appreciate the attention. However, i am now concerned that what we have here is an ideological bias against the content.

The opening quotation comes from one of the most successful union busting consultants in history. He felt guilty about his long anti-union career, and spoke out against the very activities in which he himself had engaged. If this is bias, it is bias of a very illuminating sort. The opening quotation is topical, and it definitely should stay in the article.

If someone can make a persuasive argument that the opening quotation should not be at the beginning, fine, let us hear that. In fact, i believe that the opening summary is weak, and it should be improved. But deletion is not improvement.

Let me recap: editing the article to improve it is fine, so long as it is done in a Wikipedia-friendly fashion, but there is no better way to have your edits undone, than to delete 45K of text without adequate justification. Richard Myers 12:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The information has been moved to Talk:Labor_spies/ToBeSummarised (admittedly, the intro wasn't placed there until just now) when I removed it. The information has a place, but if indeed the events are indeed notable enough to deserve such a large mention and analysis in the main article, they deserve their own separate articles and a summary and a link to them. However, if they don't they need only have a small summary in the main article... either way their shouldn't be any detailed critical analysis of individual incidents in this article.

Furthermore, the article is far too dependent on quotes which just leads me to believe that it is *too* biased. I expect bias in an article with this topic, and you may think that I just want to cut down the article because of an ideological opposition to the content but that would be pointless because the article is mainly historical incidents and couldn't go against my ideologies in any way. It is merely because it is *too* biased.

And to finish, coatrack was the wrong problem but like I said, a *similar* problem applies in that an issue that doesn't completely belong in the article is overdone. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 12:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you for finally providing a rationale. I have no problem whatsoever with seeing the article improved. However, you have deleted 45K of the text in a few quick edits.

I think it is disrespectful to unilaterally create such great changes in the article, without first reaching consensus with those of us who researched and contributed that 45K of content. And i believe that consensus on your massive changes, as they stand right now, would be difficult to reach, because your technique not only undoes the work of others, it makes gradual improvement of the deleted sections impossible, and it is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. For example, even one of the most liberating of editorial directives — the editing guideline that says Be Bold, also states,

but don't be reckless... substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories... should be done with extra care... If you would like to make a significant edit to an article on a controversial subject... (in) the absence of discussion and consensus, it is generally safer on controversial articles to add information (such as a dissenting viewpoint) and sources than to delete existing content, even if you believe it incorrect or non-neutral. [excerpts]

Also, your edit is a Major Edit, for which a specific Wikipedia procedure is envisioned:

Before engaging in a major edit, a user should consider discussing proposed changes on the article discussion/talk page... A major edit should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. [excerpts]

You did not follow these guidelines, and your changes should be overturned in favor of an editing process that respects the rest of us, who have worked on this article for many, many months. Richard Myers 16:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

To The Seer: how can you claim no ideology about this (and other) articles, when you've created a page that states, "There are far too many articles out there that are on a subject that Wikipedia should include but contain so much cruft, original research and poorly cited statements that short of deleting them, the best course of action is to stubbify them and remove all unnecessary information. This association is a Totalitarian one, unless it manages to attract some support."

??? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Stubbifist_Wikipedians That sounds like an ideology about all Wikipedia articles! 4.227.250.111 16:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That is completely irrelevant, Richard Myers was obviously talking about political leanings. Also, I'm not sure how the 3RR applies in this situation and to be honest, dispute resolution isn't totally a bad thing because it draws more attention to the article and someone may stumble onto the ToBeSummarised page and may actually summarise some information. The article in its previous form was ridiculously oversized and overwritten. If nothing is done now, it'll never get done. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 23:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant, you say? The result is the same: destruction of 45K of content. Richard Myers (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I live in Australia, but the result is the same, the moving of 45k of content. I guess I had better move elsewhere. Also, I created the "stubbifist" thing AFTER removing the content so you adding it into your summary as some sort of appeal to emotion won't work. Additionally, you haven't offered any reasons as to why the content should be kept other than a flimsy WP:OWN argument. Additionally, since people aren't allowed to practice their ideologies according to your edit summary, I guess you had better stop editing ALL articles related to the Labor Movement and I not touch anything about trees. The inclusionists can't fight for the inclusion of anything and the deletionists can't delete anything. See where your arguments fall apart? --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 05:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I won't be rolling back your restoration at this point, but I will unless you can offer a reasonable reason to keep the content in their current form. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 05:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Trees — as in pruning? :-) Richard Myers (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's all good! :) --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 09:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's all good if it actually happens. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 03:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

I haven't an interest in the rest of the article, but I do think someone with knowledge of the topic needs to write a better introductory sentence that explains what a labor spy actually is; the article doesn't make it clear. — mæstrosync ^{talk&contribs}, 09:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Good observation, thanks. I've added a tentative definition as a start. I think it can be refined over time. Richard Myers (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Alleged bias in this article

This article hasn't changed in any substantial way since a previous question of bias was resolved, to apparent satisfaction. Once again, it is easy to claim bias in a drive-by edit, but unless specific examples are cited, the alleged dispute is a challenge for others to resolve.

This most recent accusation of bias is the single and only edit by an anonymous IP address. At least in the previous example, one tentative example was offered. In this instance, not one example of bias has been offered.

Society has a division between capital and labor, and proponents of these two social forces do not always agree. That is simply a fact. It is actually helpful to achieve a neutral point of view (Wikipedia-wise) when proponents of two opposing sides join in discussion about perceived bias.

On the other hand, if the content accurately and appropriately reflects the topic of that article, it does not necessarily reflect bias in the presentation of that topic. Under such circumstances, the bias tag may represent nothing more than a passing editorial comment on content with which the editor may disagree.

I am removing this most recent bias tag. I would welcome seeing the bias tag replaced, if and when the editor placing it is willing to offer a specific example of bias from the article. Richard Myers (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• It doesn't help that the thing is written like some editorialised expose. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 16:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Vance International Asset Protection Team

The long section on the Vance International Asset Protection Team does not appear to have any references to labor spies. Perhaps I missed a mention, but I wonder why this section is in an article on labor spies in the first place, rather than in the more general Union busting article. If there is a connection with labor spies, it should be more prominently mentioned in this section. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

No one came up with a reason to keep this section in the article, so I deleted it. There are other smaller sections which, although they deal with Union Busting, have nothing to do with this particular article. I will be deleting them one-by-one. Plazak (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Labor spying in the United States/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The title could apply to spies who report what goes on in Capitalist circles. One of their problems is who to report to. 86.27.81.182 (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Substituted at 18:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Move to: Labor spying in the United States ?

The entire article seems to be about labor spying only in the US. Is there any reason not to change to name of the article to accurately reflect the contents? Thanks. Plazak (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Plazak:! Hope you're well. I concur that the article should be re-titled, absolutely, to reflect its focus on only U.S. examples. Your continued good work and focus in this area is much appreciated! --Lockley (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Moved. Plazak (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Labor spying in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110324225228/http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201112/6951/Themis-Looking-at-the-aftermath-of-the-HBGary-Federal-scandal to http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201112/6951/Themis-Looking-at-the-aftermath-of-the-HBGary-Federal-scandal
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201112/6951/Themis-Looking-at-the-aftermath-of-the-HBGary-Federal-scandal?page=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928075408/http://www.kplctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6343382&nav=menu66_3 to http://www.kplctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6343382&nav=menu66_3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

POV issues

The article is still substantially filled with POV-issues and has been for over a decade now. No actual measures have been taken to address the POV issues, what happens is people go in, make a few changes, and nuke the POV tag a few months later once discussion doesn't happen. The POV issues start from the second sentence of the article where the article inappropriately synthesizes and says:

• Spying by companies on union activities has been illegal in the United States since the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. According to the American Management Association, nearly 80% of major US companies actively spy on their employees.

You can't just WP:SYNTH two sources to imply 80% of major US companies are violating labor law. The second sentence doesn't actually say that they're spying on union activities but it definitely implies it. The article is full of WP:WORDSTOWATCH and editorializing. First let's go with the lede:

Lede

The quote from Sidney Howard in the lede is given undue placement to state as fact how evil labor spies are and inappropriately takes its positions as fact.

• Historically, one of the most incriminating indictments of the labor spy business...

This is extreme editorializing. Also, testimony of Albert Balanow is just a single guy testifying anecdotally about his experiences with a few agencies and should be replaced with a secondary source. The fact the article cites secondary sources is irrelevant, since the only part of those sources being used is this guy's testimony.

• The sudden exposure of labor spies has driven workers "to violence and unreason", including at least one shooting war.

The above sentence is complete bullshit and the WP:EASTEREGG linked doesn't appear to be a "shooting war". Finally, there is no coverage whatsoever on the labor spies or the employer's position. Why might employers want to use labor spies? Why did they choose to do so? The other side of this has not been presented at all.

Definition

This section is just a laundry list of attacks on labor spies. It starts off with overly prosaic uncited laundry listing of what labor spies do. It then includes a big blockquote attacking labor spies. Then we get:

• Labor spies may be referred to as spies, operatives, agents, agents provocateurs, saboteurs, infiltrators, informants, spotters, plants, special police, or detectives.

Do we really need this much detail and why isn't this cited to anything?

• While detectives investigate people suspected of crimes, the labor spy shadows and spies upon people who are not suspected of having committed any crime, nor are they suspected of planning any crime.

So basically the whole reason why the word "detective" was included was so an unfavourable comparison to detectives could be made. Labor spies are like criminal investigators but their targets don't deserve it! This is all cited to some source published by a labor union so there's probably bias there. I'm also pretty sure there is a whole profession of private detectives that investigate people for money.

• During the mid-to-late-19th century, a period during which there was intense distaste for the detective profession,

Wait, so now detectives are evil again?

• the Pinkerton and Thiel detective agencies referred to their field agents as operatives or testers.

So basically "detective" is an apt word now to describe labor spies because detectives are evil? This is contradictory.

• This, in spite of the fact that "industrial spies have played both sides against each other, and have been at the bottom of a great deal of the violence and corruption of industrial conflict."

This sentence inappropriately uses a quote in WikiVoice from the same source published by a labor union that maligns labor spies. This isn't an appropriate source to blame labor spies for violence and corruption in labor conflicts.

• Corporations are not subject to freedom of information requirements or sunshine laws, and therefore corporate practices such as spying are rarely subject to public scrutiny. However, historic examples of labor spying that have come to light provide a fairly substantive overview.

This is an unsourced whammy if I've ever seen one. You can't just synth and say that because corporations aren't subject to laws applicable to the government, that they don't receive much public scrutiny. Perhaps they have received plenty of public scrutiny. And again, there is still no information from the other side in any of this. What do labor spy organizations characterize themselves as?

Labor spy techniques

• To stop a union proponent—a pusher, in the anti-union lexicon—the [union] buster will go anywhere, not just to the lunch room, but into the bedroom if necessary. The buster not only is a terrorist; he is also a spy. My team and I routinely pried into workers' police records, personnel files, credit histories, medical records, and family lives in search of a weakness that we could use to discredit union activists.

Is this quote about labor spying or union busting? This person says those are coterminous fields. It's also violating due weight and inappropriately frames the section to have a lurid quote about how union busters/labor spies are terrorists that seduce the working man (in a literal and figurative fashion) while attempting to gather compromising information on union activists. It's also a primary source. Perhaps a scholarly retrospective would be better.

• Labor spies may employ techniques of surreptitious monitoring, "missionary" work (see below), sabotage, provoking chaos or violence, frameups, intimidation, or insinuating themselves into positions of authority from which they may alter the basic goals of an organization.

Again, you can't just drop this and not have a source. An NLRB official talking about how labor spying "broke" a union isn't an acceptable source for the prior claims and is more lack of due weight.

• A labor spy observed, "Those labor unions were so hot, crying about spies, that everything was at fever pitch and they look at each other with blood in their eyes."

At least there's a quote from the labor spy's side of the story, but it just serves to reinforce the anti-labor spy POV of the article designed to whip the reader up into a fervor about how fundamentally corrosive labor spies are.
Also, I'm just going to throw this in, but "From Blackjacks to Briefcases" gets cited a lot in this article. I found a copy and the foreword makes it very clear what the ideological slant of the book is. Here's a quote: "Professor Robert Smith navigates the thickets of this hostile subsection of labor-management relations without ignoring the puppets who strung their way through union gauntlets. He primarily trains his sights on the puppeteers who supplied these working-class Hessians. The detective agencies, secret services, and brokers in human misery that operated on..." A source that openly admits its a polemic against labor spying is not a reliable source for factual claims about labor spies. Full stop. I would sections cited only to this garbage source if it wasn't for the fact I'd be effectively section blanking. Maybe I'll do it later if nobody responds to this. Likewise for the primary source. Most of the rest of this section is just more invective cited to trash and I won't go line by line on it.
That being said, the New York Times source included is an article titled "TELLS OF ESPIONAGE IN BIG STEEL PLANTS" on page 12 or 15 (it says 15 in the printed source but 12 on timesmachine), given that the quote didn't have a page number or anything.

A historical overview

Aside from the endless invective trash cited to the Blackjacks and Briefcases source, blockquotes used to inappropriately frame discussion, and prose cited to a labor union source, "Confessions of a Union Buster" is a primary source and is inappropriate for drawing large conclusions about the history of labor spying. Some choices sentences:

• In 1936, a U.S. Senate Resolution called for an investigation of violations of the right to free speech and assembly and of interference with the right of labor to organize and bargain collectively.

This appears to presume that labor spying inherently violates the right to free speech, assembly, and interference with collective bargaining. This is contentious and shouldn't be said in WikiVoice, especially without a direct inline citation.

Case histories and analysis

I don't know who wrote this section but somehow this manages to be the worst part of the article so far. Much of it is uncited, and when it is cited, it's to a single unreliable source. "Pinkerton agent in the anthracite mines" is entirely unsourced and is just full of POV language like "lashing out over unjust working conditions". "Siringo at Coeur d'Alene" has as its first paragraph unsourced trash and second trite cited to "Blackjacks to Briefcases".

• Concurrent with the explosion, hundreds of miners converged on Siringo's boarding house. But Siringo had sawed a hole in the floor, and made his escape after crawling for half a block under a wooden boardwalk. He fled to the hills above Coeur d'Alene.

I love the unsourced regaling of Siringo's miraculous Shawshank Redemption-lite escape from what is presumably a lynch mob of some kind. What I really like though is the "Colorado's Goldmine and Mill Strike of 1903–04". The section has only sourcing to union sources, a union guy's autobiography, and a lurid "tell-all" book from the height of the crisis of questionable reliablity (Morris Friedman source). It's all topped with POV-stuff. There is nothing in this section worth salvaging. It is all sourced to garbage and the majority is block quotes about the devilry of the labor spy in this story.
At this point I've been writing for an hour and I have only analyzed half the article. But the above is part of many reasons why I put in the POV tag and the POV tag should not be removed until at least the above is addressed. I'm also degrading this article to a Start-class rating since that's what it is effectively despite the length and prose. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Okay. That's a lot. And those comments carry an emotional charge. Some of the criticism, I'd agree with, if changes are selective and done with a cooler head. Yes, the lead paragraph is kind of a wreck. I'm uncomfortable with the assertion that historical examples and statistics about labor spying in the U.S. shed any light on postwar circumstances. Labor spying does not equal strikebreaking. And so on.

But I have a copy of From Blackjacks to Briefcases here in front of me. It's a cogent, organized, decently-sourced book with a point of view, and a two-page foreword written by somebody else. It's one of the few book sources on Pearl Bergoff and those guys. It is not the "invective trash" you describe. Since you asked somebody to respond, I object to wholesale deletion of material sourced to it. I'll also shout for editor @Plazak:, if they're still around and interested, since they've trimmed this article in the past. Best

--Lockley (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Lockley: I also have a copy of it in front of me open on my computer. I would say this book particularly is more polemic than others. If it has a point of view, then it's not a neutral source. That's why it's not a good source to base large portions of the article on and that's why it's "invective trash". It's a piece produced by the labour movement for the labour movement to push a pro-labour POV on the history of "labor spying". We can't in any way pretend that this article has a neutral point of view when large swathes of it are based on this single source with a very strong POV which it actively acknowledges. The source is in no way a neutral retrospective on the labour movement and at best should be considered a primary source for the labour movement's opinions on all this. It's certainly well-researched and is a high quality piece of propaganda, but it's a piece of propaganda nonetheless. That makes it "invective trash" for an encyclopedia that needs a WP:Neutral point of view.

This is pretty much the problem with this entire article. Much of this article is sourced to sources that have a very strong point of view. It's impossible to believe that "Siringo at Coeur d'Alene" is a neutral recounting of the event when it's almost entirely sourced to "Blackjacks and Briefcases". Perhaps if it cited a neutral source recounting the events and used "Blackjacks and Briefcases" as an ancillary piece representing how the labor movement viewed the events, it would be OK. But it doesn't and will continue to have POV issues as long as its based almost entirely on a source with a strong point of view. Ditto for the rest of the article. I really don't want to see this POV-tag removed again once a few surface-level edits/removals are made to the prose. The issues are more deep-rooted than that and many other editors have brought that up. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)