Talk:National Lawyers Guild/Archive 1

Archive 1

A bar association

"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)

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.[1] 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)

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

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 Wikipedia: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)

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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

Rfc

I've come over to this dispute from the recently posted Rfc. Editors of this article need to keep two non-negotiable Wikipedia 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)

Communist Party USA

I've added a section to the history section that mentions the discoverthenetwork claiim that the NLG was started in 1936 by the Communist Party USA. I feel that if this unsupported claim deserves to be anywhere in this article it is in the body, not the introduction and with proper context. --Carlosvillarreal 03:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Good move. The discoverthenetwork is a far-right conspiracist website so I'm not surprised it's got this wrong. -Christiaan 12:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Discoverthenetwork.com does not claim that NLG was founded by CPUSA. It only states that CPUSA "attorneys were among its founders."

Recent edits

How exactly can you justify a version which labels all of the NLG critics as "rightwing"? And just how “well know an opponent of the NLG” am I? Does the NLG keep a file on me? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the way forward here is to tone-down some of the prose on both sides. "under attack by right-wing critics," and "nest of terrorists" inflame more than they inform the reader; "want to be terrorists but are too scared to be" is just invective, not criticism. In this case, a bland and boring enyclopedic style might be help us out. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Amen to that. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of the criticism of the NLG is from fanatic right-wing ideologues. Pretending this is not so is hardly NPOV. The section on Kit Gage and the Palestinians is simply outlandish. Total guilt-by-association. One member of the NLG takes over a post after someone else has to step down. McCarthyism. Disgusting. Editors who include it should be ashamed of themselves.

As for Torturous Devastating Cudgel, this is an editor with a long history of edit warring and right-wing POV pushing. Note the probation ruling:

• "if TDC ... performs more than one content revert in any 24 hour period, or fails to discuss a content revert, any administrator may, at his or her discretion, block the violator for up to one week."

So let's be clear on what is really happening here: Right-Wing POV Pushing.--Cberlet 15:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

How nice of you to bring a totally unrelated Arbcom ruling into the discussion. Care to reflect on the current price of tea in China Mr Berlet? I did not fail to discuss my revert, and the article was turning into garbage. I am, by the not ashamed at all to include the "McCarthite" criticisms of the NLG into the discussion; in fact, quite the opposite. Better dead than Red I say. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Try citing properly. The CIA cite is from the right-wing ideologues at Discover the Network. Not elsewhere online. How do you support the inclusion of the material on Kit Gage?--Cberlet 15:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The cite from Google books [2]. I justify the inclusion as it is/was a criticism of the NLG and appears to reinforce the idea that the NLG has gone from defending Soviet stooges to terrorist stooges. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

<-----Revert Probation for Torturous Devastating Cudgel is for any article. See this:

• TDC placed on revert parole
• 5) TDC is hereby limited to 1 content revert per article per day and must discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page for one year. He may be briefly blocked for up to a week for violations. After 5 such blocks the maximum block time increases to a year. [3]

Already in violation.--Cberlet 16:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Tell an admin to look at if you believe this to be the case. I for one, do not believe I am in violation of my parole. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no need for any of this to become personnal, and there's no need to work it all out right now. Everything will still be here tomorrow. It looks to me like the article was more-or-less stable for a while, then Steven Argue identified some improvements that needed to be made. His edits had the unintended effect of tipping the balance a bit, and now it's in the process of settling back down.

I think it's reasonable to include notable and intelligent criticism. I don't think we need to include invective, or 'criticism' of liberals as liberal. If what is there now is only the product of right-wing ideologues, then the section needs to be balanced.

The page on Sami Al-Arian doesn't mention the guild. How central is his conviction to a page that is about the guild? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The NLG has not only made many public statemnts on belhaf of Al-Arian, but Al-Arian appointed Kit Gage to replace him at the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom . Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

So what? Still guilt-by-association touted by right-wing ideologues with an axe to grind. What role did the NLG play in appointing Kit Gage to the post vacated by Al-Arian? Who claims that Al-Arian appointed Kit Gage?--Cberlet 03:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Its a widely used criticism of the NLG. Remember, articles are about WP:V using WP:RS, not what the percieved truth of the matter is. And you might even be able to make a case on these grounds, but you certainly dont have a case simply by proclaiming it as "right wing mcarthyism" and "red baiting". Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, do you still claim that the House Select Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence does not exist? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This garbled cite that was pasted in by Torturous Devastating Cudgel is to a non-existant Committee: "The CIA and the Media: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Permanent Select." I'm the one who corrected it.--Cberlet 13:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm glad people are watching this page. --TJive 11:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"Former NLG executive vice president Kit Gage replaced Sami al-Arian as president..." If this is to be a criticism of the guild, shouldn't it be presented as a criticism? As "Mister X of Y says that ... and so the guild is bad." We should link to the criticism, not to the arguments supporting the criticism. I've added a couple of notes, but have held off on touching the disputed paragraphs until we've discussed it throughly. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

<-----Torturous Devastating Cudgel has been blocked for 24 hours for violating the 3 Revert Rule on this page. I suggest we wait until he gets back to continue the discussion concerning the edit of this section. See: [4]. --Cberlet 13:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Attorney General, Herbert Brownell said of the NLG, they are the " Legal mouthpiece of Communist party"

Though the significance of this organization as a subversive and anti-American, though perfectly legitimate legal entity rooted in at the homebase of the Free and the Brave, is over the heads of liberals who are on the same page with the intent of 'enemies of the state' I am sorry that we cannot just let this pass by under either the guise of politcal correctness or neutral point of view. Communism is not neutral and our view of it need not be either. Facts are sometimes, well . . . facts. A bit of sugary introduction about being a student organization is simply Communist propoganda.

This is a sweet line (from a wikipedia barnstar? -- hardly worth mentioning, except as having the ability to speak out of both sides of the mouth in the same sentence -- this is pure nonsense)

According to Chip Berlet, the majority of its current membership are not affiliated with communist groups, but that there are members who are cadres in communist organizations.

a read thru at a full clip will catch you tumbling wondering what you just stepped in. No, you can't speed read this article, one must pause to salute the key word 'majority'. This carefully crafted placement is the entire meaning of this double entendre. Take congress: since the communists aren't the majority its like they aren't even there. Do the democrats understand this fine point of being in the minority? I certainly would appreciate them more for a greater measure of invisibility and quiet non-existence; virtually absent, like our communist friends, the cadre leadership of the communist party -- here in the USA. This type of writing gives one an appreciation for the merits of being a barnstar recepient.

In case you lost your footing, we are in America, and this article needs a clear factual basis, not a wannabe because liberals say so everything is fine here description of an organization that continues to show its claws in the happenstances it finds itself in, magically, no doubt.

Fact: the attorney general named it for what it was then -- an arm of the Communist party (please post the cite showing his 'rescending' that claim). Not surprisingly, that little issue didn't make its way into this article. Lets rewrite this with its Communist subversion upfront and offer some 'criticism' to balance the fact with those who object lamely from within the ranks of the traitorous NLG or its sympathyzers who are either too stupid to know what subversion is or they are stupid because they do. This is an encylopedia not a brochure from the NLG. They can write their own propaganda (or pay a barnstar to do it).

Sure stupid sounds harsh, right? What other words describe those who face facts and ignore them? Yes, we could use the term liberal but it seems a bit overused. Stupid is fresh. Notice how offensive you find it? But being called a liberal has no effect, right? That is why stupid is a good synonym for liberals. This article is just one good example that everyone can get their arms around and feel the kumbaya

Wow! And I see you are inserting this alarmingly biased POV into entry and talk pages such as Alger Hiss, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Whittaker Chambers, and Joseph McCarthy. Perhaps you might visit some of the pages on Wikipedia editing guidelines?--Cberlet 16:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hook

So, because Hook spoke out against the tools of Soviet subversion is is somehow a baby eating fascist? Hook is most certainly a liberal and has been described as such during his career. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, he would not be the first liberal to become a conservative with the passage of time. Maybe that's what is meant by "progressive." Anyway, if it is going to be contentious, we need a citation before we can call anything. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Progressive

The NLG self-description is "progressive," not "liberal," please stop rewriting reality.--Cberlet 23:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Victor Rabinowitz

There should be a Victor Rabinowitz article.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 16:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Improving this article / Making clear my conflict

I wanted to let other editors know that I'm working on expanding the depth of coverage in this article.

I also want to make clear that I myself do have a conflict (I am the NLG's Texoma Regional Vice-President and Co-Chair of the Guild's Military Law Task Force). I will do my best to maintain neutrality in this article (for instance, other folks have attempted to delete all criticism of the Guild in this article, if I see that happening I will revert the changes), but do want to state my own interest for the sake of fairness. --Jmbranum (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

possible sources

APK whisper in my ear 20:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"A. B. A. Rival", Time, January 18, 1937. "The Legal Left", Time, March 7, 1938. "Aiders Aid", Time, April 18, 1938. "The Gauge of Recklessness", Time, June 21, 1954. "The Law: At the Bar", The New York Times, December 11, 1987. "F.B.I. Admits Bid to Disrupt Lawyers Guild", The New York Times, October 13, 1989. "Files Say Justice Marshall Aided F.B.I. in 50's", The New York Times, December 4, 1996. "The Last Party", The New York Times, April 27, 1997. "'Our parents had Vietnam...'" The Guardian, December 2, 1999. "LA police issued restraining order from headquarters of DNC protests", CNN, August 11, 2000. "Police defend use of pepper spray, rubber bullets at Democratic Convention protest", CNN, August 15, 2000. "Mumia's all-or-nothing gamble", Salon.com, June 15, 2001. "Fears grow over civil liberties clampdown", The Guardian, September 26, 2001. "Protesters' trials -- history on their side", San Francisco Chronicle, April 28, 2003. "More aid for those under government scrutiny", San Francisco Chronicle, December 8, 2001. "U.S. feds get tough on Americans who visit Cuba", San Francisco Chronicle, February 16, 2003. "This is not America", Salon.com, December 16, 2003. "Will America bail out Castro's most committed would-be assassin?", The Guardian, June 13, 2005. "Muni fare strike urged by activists", San Francisco Chronicle, August 30, 2005. "De-recruiter wins Long Haul Prize", San Francisco Chronicle, September 16, 2006. "Papers detail decades of FBI surveillance", The New York Times, June 25, 2007. "Catherine Roraback, at 87; pioneering lawyer in Conn.", The Associated Press via The Boston Globe, October 20, 2007. "Victor Rabinowitz, 96, Leftist Lawyer, Dies", The New York Times, November 20, 2007. "Victor Rabinowitz, lefty lawyer of Hiss, Castro and Black Panthers, dead at 96", The Associated Press via the New York Daily News, November 20, 2007. "Chavez Government Touts Referendum Monitoring by U.S. Groups", Bloomberg, December 1, 2007. "Lawyers group targets ex-Bush administration official", Los Angeles Times, March 17, 2009. "Case against William J. Haynes unfounded", San Francisco Chronicle, May 14, 2009. "Forum on "Cuban 5" spy case planned tonight", Star Tribune, June 8, 2009. "Doris Brin Walker, at 90; radical lawyer who battled anti-Communist hysteria in 1950s", Los Angeles Times via The Boston Globe, August 23, 2009. "Yoo torture controversy ensnares state lawyer", San Francisco Chronicle, December 17, 2009. Law and Morality: Readings in Legal Philosophy, pp. 711, ISBN 9780802094896 Why the Jews?: The Reason For Antisemitism, pp. 134, ISBN 9780743246200 Something to Believe In: Politics, Professionalism, and Cause Lawyering, pp. 117–118, ISBN 9780804749473 Taking Liberties: Four Decades in the Struggle for Rights, pp. 128–129, ISBN 9781891620829

Mistaken sentence about being first US bar association to admit minorities.

The introduction to the article says "They were the first US bar association to allow the admission of minorities to their ranks." I think somebody may have been trying to make the wording less repetitive in the article, and mistakenly thought that being the first racially integrated national bar association and the first bar association to allow the admission of minorities is the same thing. the National Bar Association, the country's black bar association, was founded around ten years before the National Lawyers Guild, and by definition allowed minorities into its ranks. We should change the wording back to correctly describe the NLG as something like "the U.S.'s first racially integrated nationwide bar association." --Remy Green (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

References

IJA v IJO

Someone keeps posting "International Juridical Organization" (IJO): the correct name is International Juridical Association" (IJA) – meaning the group created in 1931, to which so many NLG members belonged and also many co-founded.

Solution: I will create a new on entry on the IJA, with plenty of citations to justify the "A": okay?  :) --Aboudaqn (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Aboudaqn, the wikilink you changed lies inside a direct quote. (As an aside, this means the wikilink should be removed, but whatever.) Is your assertion that this quote does not accurately represent the original source, or that the original source used the wrong name? These two situations are very different, and it is certainly not appropriate to go around changing the text of quotes unless they are misquotations! --JBL (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

JBL, good point – so, checking out the source listed, the word "juridical" appears only once on page 5412 – which makes the whole thing suspect, since the citation states "Special Committee on Un-American Activities, Appendix — Part IX, pg. 1268." Do me a favor? See if you can find the quote anywhere at all; meantime, I'll through together a nascent entry on "International Juridical Association": deal? (FYI, I just created two entries that mention the IJA (Shad Polier, Abraham J. Isserman) and have added it to previously created entries: Maurice Isserman, Carol Weiss King. --Aboudaqn (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

JBL – Done: International Juridical Association (IJA)! --Aboudaqn (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality of lead

I don't believe it's standard practice to put "controversy" information in the lead section of articles, especially articles which have "controversy" sections. Should this material be moved from the lead to that section? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Information about controversies moved from lead to Criticism section to wikify the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Negative information removed from lead again, this is covered in Criticism section. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2017 (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." [5].--Cberlet 00:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, the vote to start it came in December 1936 – according to NLG's own official history – information I have recently added (with citation)--Aboudaqn (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2017 (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)

Outline: Will Beback, since you have protected this entry, will you now please start creating an outline (preferably based on a Wikipedian ideal for such an organization), post it here, and let's agree on it? Example: I just added membership details from 1949–1950 with proper citation – long, granted, but fascinating! – and had a colleague delete it, boom!, no discussion. Let's do a "Chicken Run" here: let us chickens get organized, please? (very appropriate for NLG!) --Aboudaqn (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aboudaqn:, the message you're responding to is more than 10 years old, as you can see from the time-stamps. Will Beback's last edit anywhere in Wikipedia was in 2014. If you'd like to start a discussion of recent edits (which would be appropriate, in keeping with WP:BRD), please create a new section on the bottom of the page. Thanks. --JBL (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2017 (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 [6] which was disputed by an article on a different site [7] 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 and/or edit anything you post that is unverifiable. --Carlosvillarreal 17:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What internal contradictions? Sourcing information from those with agendas is not disallowed, or even a reasonable objective (first listed source is the NLG itself, *cough cough*). Obviously, if you make zero serious attempts disprove my contentions, you have no evidence to back up your claims. Either do some research, or stop trolling. If you remove and/or edit on this basis, you will be forwarded to Wiki admins as an issue.

MSTCrow 22:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't plan to violate any rules, so feel free to report me. I'll be sure to report you as well. As for the NLG being listed as a source, I guess I'm not sure what piece of your previous "facts" you're referring to. No one has removed the quote you posted, for instance, because no one denies it is an accurate quote, despite the fact that it is out of context and misleading.

The problem with much of what you have posted is that it violates a key rule: "Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all differing views on a subject, factually and objectively, in an order which is agreeable to a common consensus." Pulling directly from a right-wing website without putting it in context violates this rule and ought to be enough to block you compeletely as a user if you continue to abuse that policy.

Here is more on sources from Wikipedia's policy on verifiability: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources." Sorry, but this does not include discoverthenetwork. The contradiction, by the way, is the page that says prominently that the NLG was started by the Communist Party USA and then links to an article that denies such a link can be established.

So as long as you don't violate these simple rules, policies and the other guidelines, rest assured I will not change or remove what you post. --Carlosvillarreal 01:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You're arguing that people who gather information, nevermind that it be factual and objective, from right-wing website have to be banned from Wikipedia. What you fail to comprehend is that facts are facts, and if it makes your side look bad, that's not a valid excuse for removing them. It in no way links to an article stating that the NLG was not founded by CPUSA. The only article that has any bearing on this matter is http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7494, which states that the Comintern did not spearhead the founding of the NLG, not the CPUSA. At this point, you're either making up stories, or your reading comprehesion skills are in question.

MSTCrow 02:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow that's splitting hairs. Don't you find it odd that the linked article doesn't mention CPUSA at all when it discusses the founding of the organization? Maybe its because that so-called "fact" is "outlandish" and thus begs strong sources, as the Wikipedia policies state. Do you have any other source besides discoverthenetwork?

I will add this statement from Wikipedia's Reliable Sources page - Evaluating sources section: "Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly, or about their viewpoints."

FYI - it doesn't bother me at all that there are Communists or Socialists or Anarchists in the NLG now or 70 years ago, but it is important to be accurate here because it provides a real picture of how our organization began. I should add that, if anything, the consensus is that the NLG was started in 1937 by a group of attorneys supporting FDR's New Deal. Your statement that exists on one web page is supported nowhere else. --Carlosvillarreal 03:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You also removed new sections I added to history and politics that were cited and verifiable. By your logic I should be asking for your counter-evidence. --Carlosvillarreal 03:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)