Talk:International Association of Democratic Lawyers

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Can people be political subjects?

In making a massive revert and now repeating it, I think the question above is highly relevant. The argumentation and referencing in the article is largely a Cold War-ish hangover, coloured by the sentiment that people essentially cannot make any decisions for themselves. No-one really disputes that IADL is a left-oriented organization, or that is was clearly identified with the communist movement during the Cold War years. But to state that any criticism of US policy essentially stems from intervention by foreign intelligence services, connected to an empire of darkness with purely evil motives, is highly disturbing and, in my view, bordering a very misantropic way to look at political activism. Adding 'useful idiot' to the See also section or various categories like 'Covert organizations' just makes the POV statement more evident.

During the Cold War years, both sides accused whoever issued a word of criticsm of being an agent of the opponent. Soviet media would go to great length to state that the Solidarność movement was merely a front of Western intelligence agencies. Similarily, Iranian media has repeatedly stated that the 2009 protests are merely the result of provocations by US and Israeli intelligence agencies. Based on a similar logic used in this article and with similar use of references, one would be able to rewrite those articles to state that those movements were 'covert operations' of the CIA. --Soman (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article does state that "any criticism of US policy essentially stems from intervention by foreign intelligence services". The article states that IADL has been a well-known front organization of Moscow according to an array of books and papers, and dozens of more references can be added. If literature states that Solidarity was a "merely a front of Western intelligence agencies", please add references. Gazpr (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But just look at the opening sentence in your version: "International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) is a front organization founded by and affiliated with Russian intelligence services.". Even if one were to look aside pov other issues, that is not an attempt for neutral presentation by any means. It completly fails to describe the article subject in an understandable way, to even mention what the organization is (i.e. an international organization of lawyers). Would you say that you have done any effort to find a balanced portrayal here? --Soman (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Puppet Claims

I've noticed that from time to time on this page references appear about IADL or its constituents being Soviet or Stalinist puppets (I'm paraphrasing here). I've deleted one such comment as being irrelevant, but does anyone else consider that potentially politically motivated claims dating back over two decades are relevant to what is effectively a short and descriptive article, particularly since no such references is made as to the organisation's views today? Essentially, are such comments encyclopaedic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Knight (talk • contribs) 21:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and POV

Just added sources and POV check tags to the article. I'm a little concerned that it begins by listing the IADL as a front organization, then goes on to use the IADL's own website as a source, particularly in regards to the "affiliated organization" section. Do these organizations self-affiliate with the IADL and do they do so in acknowledgment of the "well-known front" discussed in this article? (I don't think the US listed National Lawyer's Guild does and, therefore, wonder if the article goes a little to far in regarding these associations as fact.) These source concerns lead me to question the article POV; it seems to leave out many interesting facets (IADL has consultative status at both the ECOSOC and UNESCO) in favor of pointing to a conspiracy.

I think the article could be improved by deleting the associations section, or at least by further exploring the deeper relationships between the IADL and the other groups so as not to leave them all seeming co-conspirators in a soviet plot. The article could use more depth and research as a whole: are there opposing viewpoints? how did it gain official recognition in Europe and at the UN if it is well known to be a front? why does the organization's website mainly (or exclusively) list an agenda of human rights concerns if it has a more devious purpose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolark (talk • contribs) 04:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revert deletion of citation of Robert Chandler's book

I've noticed that earlier citation of Robert Chandler (25 August 2008). Shadow World. Regnery Publishing. pp. 304–305. ISBN 978-1-59698-580-3. was deleted. I have vetted the books author Robert W. Chandler: he got a PhD. of political science from George Washington University, and he retired from USAF as colonial. The publisher Regnery Publishing publishes Conservative and anti-Communist books, and has published books from Newt Gingrich etc.

Together, this meets the criteria of WP:RS, even though I don't agree with their conservative POV. This doesn't look like a fringe view as the remover said. So I've put back citation of the book.

Keep in mind that disagreeing with the POV of a citation is not a reason to remove it. You can cite other WP:RS for a balanced view.

Happyseeu (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Chandler source is clearly not NPOV, is fringe (by any reasonable definition given the bulk of its content) and not even a history of the IADL at all (so not relevant to a discussion about it). Chandler, whatever his academic credentials, is also associated with fringe views himself which have more to do with current day conservative American politics than any reasonable (or accurate) commitment to any discussion of the IADL itself. The fact that the Chandler book (as a piece of work) is clearly a conspiracy theory tract promoting some rather spurious arguments and unsupported claims about the Obama presidency, the 'New Left', post-1991 Russia, Latin America and radical Islam, does not help the argument that it is WP:RS, even reliable as a source in general or useful for discussing the IADL as an organization. Any actual engagement with the Chandler book would suggest that it is fringe and unsuitable as WP:RS. I also question the source's overall relevance, its accuracy and its usefulness in understanding either the current development of the IADL or its history.

I also wish to suggest that the constant reverting to the Chandler reference and the general referencing to McCarthy era sources and understandings of the IADL is disrupting the purpose of this article (which is primarily a short descriptive article with some background context and not an in-depth one) and essentially engaging in right-wing muck racking against a respectable organization (which is recognized by ECOSOC, UNESCO, UNICEF, and others). An actual history of the IADL, as you note, would require much better sources - ones unlike the completely unrelated and unreliable Chandler source.

Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.71.50 (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2015 (AEST)

Article on International Association of Democratic Lawyeres

The only thing useful about this article is a link to the website. To my mind, it would be better to have no article at all than one so clearly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meredithtax (talk • contribs) 21:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on International Association of Democratic Lawyers. 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:

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) 21:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IADL filed an amicus brief on March 16, 2020, urging the ICC to confirm its jurisdiction over Palestine

The International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) filed an amicus brief on March 16, 2020, urging the ICC to confirm its jurisdiction over Palestine. IADL bureau member Richard Harvey wrote: The ICC’s normative power and legal authority will be strengthened by confirming its jurisdiction over the State of Palestine, including the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, and opening an investigation into the Palestinian situation. Thereby the equal rights of all peoples to justice for international crimes will receive much-needed affirmation
- Sourc: Marjorie Cohn in Trump Is Trying to Hide US & Israeli War Crimes by Attacking the International Criminal Court, TruthOut, (8 July 2020)

posting this here for any editor that's interested in posting something about that... thank youGaneshaSis (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nuremberg prosecutors

Why was the sentence "Many of its founders served as prosecutors at the Nuremberg trials" removed? The source says "IADL was founded in 1946 by a large group of lawyers, many of whom served as prosecutors at the Nuremberg trials". Burrobert (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]