Misplaced Pages

Talk:National Lawyers Guild

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.198.65.27 (talk) at 17:38, 10 March 2006 (→Protected). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:38, 10 March 2006 by 71.198.65.27 (talk) (→Protected)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

"The NLG is not like the ACLU. The NLG is a Bar Association (professional organization) with very strong political leanings. The ACLU is an organization of anyone and it is dedicated to protecting civil rights, primarily First Amendment rights." 

above moved from article Niteowlneils 16:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alger Hiss

What is the documentation for the edit stating that Hiss was a founding member of the NLG? I have never heard nor seen evidence of that and I don't recall it being mentioned in Victor Rabinowitz' book which documents the NLG founding. Unless there is some documentation, it should be deleted. In addition, even if Hiss was a founder, which I think is unlikely, there were other more prominent founders whom it would make more sense to mention.

According to Lenora Fuller, who knew Hiss in the 1930s when he was employed at the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, reported Hiss was one of the "organizers" of the Lawyers Guild. This information is available in the FBI Silvermaster file. One may suspect, given the association, and given the results of a massive Google search, the organization may have taken steps over previous decades to sanitize references to a list of its founders. Also, I beleive that information can be corroborated in the records of the 1952 Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. Nobs01 5 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)
Well, I think this info. should be removed then. The NLG had many prominent founders, why single out Hiss, particularly when the only record of his founding is from FBI files from a time when he was being prosecuted. I doubt the NLG "sanitized" anything given that they were openly supportive of Hiss and his case and still are to this day. This reference smacks more of a political smear than NPOV info appropriate for an encylopedic entry.
Then it is incumbant upon the NLG to produce a satisfactory history of its founders, not like what I have encountered so far. It doesn't look good. Nobs01 6 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)
Well, this isn't a polemic to which the NLG must respond. It is an encylopedia article which should make an objective report on the subject.
The objectivity which is lacking is the NLG's history, i.e. who were it's founding members. If the Hiss reference is to be deleted, then some refernce needs to be made about the evasive nature of the NLG publishing a straightforward account of its origins.Nobs01 6 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)

The NLG archives, including correspondence, agendas, minutes, etc., are located at the Tamiment Library at NYU. There is absolutely no evidence that the NLG has done anything to obscure its history. The fact that you couldn't find the founding documents of a nearly 70 year old organization by doing a google search is not evidence of any "evasive nature." Tamiment Library NLG Archive

Thank you, I appreciate your research very much. I have visited that site before in reference to Jack Fahy and a few others. My intention is not to go over ground the SISS already did in 1952, but if this article is to be expanded, it should begin with a section on the groups founding and history. To what extent Hiss had involvement, is not necessarily the focus of the organizations history. (Incidently, the site itself shows a partial gap from 1937-1947) Again, very much appreciated. Nobs01 6 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)

Blanking

WP:Vandalism - "Blanking - Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit."

Calton and the others deleted the significant majority of this article. That meets the definition of blanking above, so please quit vandalizing here. - Col. S


Actually, you're wrong. What the afformentioned users were doing was a response to this article not reflecting wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy. Also, the article contains a lot of information that if factually inaccurate. Removing information that isn't correct isn't blanking. Brannigan 19:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the people who are adding the libelous and false material in mass quantities to this page are vandalizing. - CV

Neither side has vandalized the article. This is a dispute about content. Please handle content disputes with civility and do not refer to legitimate content edits as vandalism, even if you disagree with the changes. Use this talk page to discuss the matter with other editors. Gamaliel 04:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Temp Protection

This page has been placed under temporary protection, due to vandalism blanking by randon IPs, and removal of sourced information for partisan reasons. If you disagree with any factual information currently in the entry, please counter-source, do not just remove it saying "source X is bad because it's not my political faction."

MSTCrow 16:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly inappropriate. The dispute is obviously one of content and not one of vandalism, and as a person involved in the content dispute, you shouldn't be locking this page. I'm removing the protection. Gamaliel 16:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless I missed it, I don't see your name on Misplaced Pages:List_of_administrators. Please don't add protect tags to articles unless you have adminstrative powers and can actually lock those articles. Thank you. Gamaliel 16:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Unfortunately, there isn't any central, easily located entry on what powers are relegated to Admins only.
MSTCrow 17:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What NPOV Is, and Is Not

Some editors have been removing factual information from this article, claiming it is "NPOV." It may be that some editors have not read the NPOV guidelines, and are unfamiliar with what constitutes NPOV, and what does not. Factual information, especially fundemental information, on the NLG, or any other entity, is NOT NPOV, even if the facts place the entity in a negative light according to your subjective interpetations. For instance, it is not NPOV if the NLG's founding by the Soviet controlled CPUSA is listed in the article. It would be NPOV if someone said something along the lines of "NLG was founded by CPUSA, and is therefore evil/bad/etc." You are free of course to defend the NLG's founding by the CPUSA, but being a POV, that would have to be on your userpage, LiveJournal, personal website, etc. If you have facts that you feel portray NLG in a better light, you are free to post them in the article, but not to remove factual information simply because you feel it makes NLG look "bad."

MSTCrow 17:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


This may not be a POV violation, but it is clearly inaccurate. That is the problem. If you can site where this information comes from, "according to ..." for example, then maybe we can discuss further. Until then, I will continue to simply remove the false information. Even articles on right-wing websites admit the NLG was founded by lawyers, some of whom were closely tied to the Roosevelt administration, some of whom may have been members of the Communist party, but that's it.

For the record, calling us a far left organization is POV. While I happily call myself "left wing," many if not most of our members would disagree that we are a "far-left" organization.

Carlos

Tidy up of article to stop it looking like a CIA hack job

  1. First of all, MSTCrow, I'd kindly request that you refrain from reverting newly wikified text.
  2. What the CIA, a disreputable organisation to say the least, has to say about anything is of very little importance and certainly doesn't deserve to be anyware near the beginning of the article, if in it at all.
  3. An introduction should, at the very least, explain what the organisation itself believes to be its point of existence.
  4. The NLG, and most every other leftist organisation do not oppose globalisation but corporate globalisation.
  5. "(which were composed of high anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiments)," is POV
  6. There are a number of areas where some editors seem to be throthing at the mouth to tell readers that the NLG love terrorists, "post-conviction" even. Have a little respect for readers and link to relevant Misplaced Pages articles. Readers are quite capable of working things out for themselves.
  7. The term "far-Left" is largely a subjective term and it means different things to different people. "Leftist" is fine. Again allow people to make their own judgement based on the substance of the organisation.
  8. I couldn't find any organisation called the "Open Borders Lobby", which gives me strong reason to believe there has been some cutting and pasting going on. Please be sure not to use copyrighted material!
  9. I also made some rearrangements of info to allow the article to flow better and not look like a CIA hack-job. Please keep in mind readability when ordering parapgraphs.

Christiaan 02:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

  1. Huh?
  1. You seem to have a strong POV against the CIA...in any case, shouldn't readers be allowed to decide for themselves?
  2. It does.
  3. What's the difference?
  4. Facts are not POV. The fact of the matter is, the NLG supported a highly anti-American and anti-Israeli document. Take that as you like.
  5. So you're saying that the facts make you think the NLG supports terrorism? Not my problem.
  6. I disagree.
  7. Ok, open borders lobby.
  8. I'm not sure if anyone who is complaning about a "CIA hack-job" should be an editor. It's especially laughable, as if you had bothered to look into my userpage, I'm an anarcho-capitalist, not exactly CIA material.
MSTCrow 20:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Lawyer make up of NLG

"Many if not most American lawyers representing organized labor or the American Civil Rights Movement have been or are members of the NLG."

This is useful information if it's true. Worth tracking down a source for this and adding back to the article if need be. Christiaan 02:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Rfc

I've come over to this dispute from the recently posted Rfc. Editors of this article need to keep two non-negotiable Misplaced Pages rules in mind: neutral point of view and verifiability. Most Wikipedians familiar with these policies would agree, I believe, that verifiability requires that sources be cited in most articles, and especially for controversial information. Additionally, when information is controversial or dubious, even slightly so, reliable sources should be used. If no reliable sources can be located, the information should be removed. As it stands right now, large portions of the "politics" and "membership" sections of this article are unverified (the link to the obviously POV website in "membership" notwithstanding). Generally, POV should not be used to verify POV. - Jersyko·talk 20:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

My quote (as Chip Berlet) on this entry is taken totally out of context. It should not be cited to the biased right-wing hysteric Horowitz, who has fraudulently cooked the quote to misrepresent it, but to the original article which is here; and which deals with how mass democratically-run organizations deal with cadre groups who have members who participate. The entire lead on this entry reads like a McCarthy speech. The NLG was accused of being a communist front and listed by the Attorney General in the 1950s. The NLG sued and the AG was forced to rescind the listing and the claim. Red-baiting fanatics have repeated the charge since then. --Cberlet 21:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. I just replaced it with the full two-paragraph original version, which is IMO even more telling of who belongs to the NLG than the excerpt by Horowitz. -- ColonelS 23:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Progressive

"The National Lawyers Guild was founded in 1937 as a national progressive bar association, an alternative to the then racially segregated American Bar Association." .--Cberlet 00:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the page due to edit warring and excessive reverting. Please find a consensus on this talk page. -Will Beback 00:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Will, as you can see from the talk page and history, I have attempted multiple times to get people onto the talk page, and work out their complaints. It does not seem fair or prudent that you have protected the page after one of their edits, and not one of those of us who are trying to get them onto the talk page.
MSTCrow 01:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Page protection is not an endorsement of any version. Thanks for trying to get a discussion going. -Will Beback 01:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
What happens if, as I suspect, they don't bother to use the talk page?
MSTCrow 01:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

MSTCrow has a valid point - I've been seeking protection and help in fighting all the vandals and revert wars on this page for several days (first request for it was on 2/24). Will Beback and the other sys-ops ignored all these requests for help, but the second Chip Berlet shows up and switches to his own version of it they step in unasked and impose protection. That looks fishy to me. Sometimes this may be a coincidence and it may not be intentional which version gets corrected, but considering that Will Beback was also one of the editors involved in the dispute over similar NLG issues at Chip Berlet only a few days ago the timing is VERY suspicious. Anyhow, now that it is protected I'm not holding my breath for the vandals to start using the talk page. -- ColonelS 03:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, damned if we do, damned if we don't. I encourage everybody to try to find a consensus and, regardless, to avoid edit warring. Thanks, -Will Beback 03:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Quite a bit of what MSTCrow and Colonel$ have been putting on this page has been easily and verifiably disputed. On the other hand, MSTCrow referred me to a page on a site created by David Horowitz which was disputed by an article on a different site created by David Horowitz to verify his "fact." Here is the text from that right-wing article (not perfect but still more accurate than what has been plastered on our page by folks with a political agenda and libelous information):

"The National Lawyers Guild was founded during the Great Depression as a pro-New Deal, progressive alternative to the segregated and comparatively conservative American Bar Association (ABA). Although many have alleged that the Communist International (Comintern) spearheaded the Guild’s creation, it is probably mistaken to attribute a sinister purpose to the Guild’s earliest existence. There were elements within the early Guild that were dedicated communist revolutionaries, without a doubt, but these were by no means the only actors within the fledgling organization: future Supreme Court Justices, New Deal supporters, civil libertarians, and other liberals were among its earliest members."

It is also quite clear that the versions posted by both of these individuals has often violated the POV policy. Phrases like "far left" for example. I welcome discussion on this page and look forward to seeing a list of the "facts" from both of these two and a way to verify each so that we can move forward. --Carlosvillarreal 04:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Can you find evidence that run counter to those at Discover the Networks?
Yes, I posted it above. There is counter evidence on another one of David Horowitz' sites. Discover the Network should not be used for verification purposes. --Carlosvillarreal 21:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Would you deny that the NLG is far-left? Or are you simply concerned that some people might have personal biases against the far-left?
I would deny that the NLG is "far-left." I certainly don't consider myself "far-left." I can only think of a handful of members who might fit this description. I would describe Horowitz as "far-right" but I'm certainly not going to put it on his page because I recognize that it is a very charged word based on my opinion. --Carlosvillarreal 21:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
MSTCrow 06:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
People have vilified the NLG for years. Here we should report what the NLG has to say about itself, report what most reputable published sources say (which in this case varies), and then include some charges from hard-right blacklisters such as Discover the Networks. Please note that few serious scholars and journalists consider Discover the Networks or Horowitz to be credible sources.--Cberlet 13:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, really, Mr. Berlet, the NLG is vilified for quite legitimate reasons. As for serious scholars (I hope you're not equating serious with only left-wing), I disagree, and as for journalists, they simply are beyond being taken seriously by anything but a small, rapidily aging demographic. While I'm at it, I'm also curious as to how you came to the conclusion that the late Murray Rothbard is a racist? Separate topic, you can reply on my talk page, if you'd like. The Intelligence Report prints such peculiar things.
MSTCrow 04:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm trying to work with you guys. Slander and defamation of sources you disagree with doesn't work. If you have counter-evidence, present it. If not, I'm going to fix the page myself, as I've made a good faith best effort to work with those who have had complaints.

MSTCrow 05:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
If I don't hear back from anyone in 48 hours with a coherent defense, I'm going to revert to the original article, which I might add had citations and sources, even if others don't like the conclusions that might be drawn from them.
MSTCrow 04:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. You have an interesting defense. I found this statement on a website with internal contradictions and an obvious political agenda, but unless you can disprove it I'm posting it as a fact. Sorry, but I will continue to remove anything you post that is false. --71.198.65.27 17:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)