Talk:League of American Writers

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[African-American history#Jim Crow, disfranchisement and challenges|the situation of American blacks]] The anchor (#Jim Crow, disfranchisement and challenges) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Naming names in the lead

I've moved mention of John Steinbeck from the lead to the body. The League of American Writers, quite simply, included a TON of "big names" of the literary world, Steinbeck being just one. There's no good rationale for singling him out, in my opinion, since he was not an officer of the organization. Nor should we clutter the lead with a laundry list of members — although there does need to be a list added below. Other views? Carrite (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought the general reader would be more interested in reading the article if they saw it had famous writers in its credentials. Of course, that is just a personal view, I dont mind much. ValenShephard (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People are going to get to this page by searching the organization name and are probably going to have a pretty good grasp who was associated with the group coming in. There's no real mission to catch random readers with the most interesting factoids patched into the lead. Hemingway was far tighter with the group than Steinbeck, for example, having addressed one of its conventions. Carrite (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you, Carrite Aboudaqn (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On "Communist Tone"

Per the section on "communist tone" that you pulled down, here's the full passage from Harvey Klehr's book:

"By the time the Second American Writers' Congress met in June 1937, the openly pro-Communist tone of the 1935 meeting had disappeared." (Klehr, Heyday of American Communism, pg. 354).

It's pretty much a Wikipedia party foul to pull down properly-sourced material on a whim. Obviously, sometimes people accidentally mischaracterize a source or use a source tendentiously, but be really sure of stuff like that before you yank it. Carrite (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see, well that makes sense. Are you sure their communist overtone disappeared in just the meeting after 1935, or indefinately? ValenShephard (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is they consciously toned it down, although Earl Browder also seems to have addressed the 2nd Congress, so it wasn't like the Communists all started wearing silly mustaches and pretending they were someone else. Now that I've got the dates of the Congresses isolated, I can track down reports in The Nation and so forth to get an outsider view... I'm checking out Daily Worker coverage right now... Carrite (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I just would find it strange if an openly communist organisation toned down its own rhetoric permanently. Thanks. ValenShephard (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sands shifted in the 1930s… Aboudaqn (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolution

Do you have any information as to why the organisation was dissolved? I think its important to note. ValenShephard (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb throwing radical

The photograph of Waldo Frank is disgusting, both here and on his own Wikipedia entry. Where is his photograph from Yale Univeristy graduation, 1911, or his intellectual visage as captured by Steiglitz? Can permission be sought for that one? --Edward Chilton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.66.88 (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on League of American Writers. 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) 13:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]