Talk:National Lawyers Guild

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)

Hiss joined IJA early, not NLG: By 1937, when NLG officially launched, Hiss was already well established in Government (and in the Ware Group), so joining the NLG might have had a negative impact for either a Federal Government official or CP member (or spy): NLG was considered pro-Communist, etc., from its start. The fact is that Hiss had joined NLG's precursor, theInternational Juridical Association (IJA) by 1933, shortly after its formation in 1932 – and many of his lawyer friends (and soon-to-be fellow Ware Group members) had already joined (e.g., Lee Pressman). A main source for this information is long-time NLG member Ann Fagan Ginger in her biography of NLG co-founder (and IJA founder) Carol Weiss King, page 123. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboudaqn (talk • contribs)

References

Open invitation to re-outline and re-complete NLG entry?

Would anyone like to join me in creating a new outline for NLG and then filling in details?

It seems this entry has enough interest – and has also suffered from many rather needless fights over content...

Do people have examples of other entries on similarly mixed-reputation organizations to recommend?

I'm interested in filling out the history and membership of NLG prior to 1950 as factually as possible.

Clearly, if only thanks to HUAC reports on the NLG and related groups up to 1959, there is plenty of "negative" information to collate and state clearly (and clearly attributed). There is also an online history of NLG, published by the NLG, which I have started to mine (see new paragraph on December 1936). There is Ann Fagan Ginger's biography of Carol Weiss King. There must be many biographies about the many, diverse members of NLG over the years upon which to build both this entry and those related biographical entries. If we get membership at points clear, we can find people interested in those members...

Today is August 6, 2017: please reply by August 31, 2017. Let's get a little intelligent, coordinated crowd-sourcing going! --Aboudaqn (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

2020 protests

Information related to the 2020 protests regarding the murder of George Floyd, police brutality in general, Donald Trump and very specifically Portland Oregon involving NLG should be added to this article.Juneau Mike (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you have examples of sources that discuss this? --JBL (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Venezuelan election monitoring

Let's discuss the Guild's monitoring of the recently decided Venezuelan election. A Truthout article says that the Guild monitored the election and provides a quote from its president. Why is it controversial to include the facts that:

• The NLG monitored the election and
• the Venezuelan National Electoral Council (CNE) said Nicholas Maduro won with 51.2% of the vote?

Burrobert (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The notion that this group of cranks is a reputable election monitor needs reliable sourcing. thena (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Calling someone a crank is not a very persuasive argument. A few points:

• Regarding the reliability of Truthout, there appears to have been two previous discussions on the RSN, [1][2], neither of which discussed Truthout in detail or found it unreliable.
• The statement that "the Venezuelan National Electoral Council (CNE) said Nicholas Maduro won with 51.2% of the vote" is not controversial. It is all over the internet. Why remove it?
• What source were you using to say that the "NLG defended the conduct of 2024 Venezuelan presidential election in which incumbent Nicholas Maduro claimed victory"? Burrobert (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• An actual RS would clearly note the nondemocratic nature of the election in the context of this group's "election monitoring". The statement "the Venezuelan National Electoral Council (CNE) said Nicholas Maduro won with 51.2% of the vote" is wildly incomplete and misleading – any RS would clearly note that election conduct was not free and fair, and that the stated result has been challenged. thena (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Why do we need to connect the Guild's election monitoring with the US State Department talking points that you mention? What we put into an article is limited to the sources available. For example, we can't include here Trump's statement that "When I left, Venezuela was ready to collapse we would’ve taken it over, we would’ve got all that oil it would’ve been right next door"; or mention Chris Murphy's discussion of the US’ coup attempts in Venezuela. There are no sources connecting the Guild with these, so we leave them out. Burrobert (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand Thenightaway's position at all. This version seems unobjectionable. --JBL (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to that version. I object to the version stating that this group of cranks is an election monitoring group and that Maduro won the election, citing non-RS. thena (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

This version seems OK to me.

But I think TruthOut is probably a borderline and slightly fringey source - would be good to see if other RSs mention this to be certain of considering it noteworthy here or elsewhere. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The TruthOut article is actually reblogged from Common Dreams. Sporadic RSN mentions of both sources suggest that neither are widely considered reliable BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned above that the reliability of Truthout has not previously been discussed in detail on the RSN. The same holds for CommonDreams. Truthout has been used as a source on Wikipedia around 900 times and CommonDreams about 3,000 times. Both sources employ editorial control of content. CommonDreams has been around since 1997 and Truthout since 2001. Burrobert (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)