Jump to content

Talk:American Civil Liberties Union/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Contradictions

The first update needed is that point that the organization supports the 2nd admendment for states rights over its mission statement for individual rights, and add the link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller where the supreme court has ruled that this is an individual right and the aclu still mentions in several chapters that they disagree with this, further contradicing their mission statement from section 1. I would like to see an official update added to clarify what their current position really is since it is now unclear, or if they no longer have one due to the ruling, can obmit it.

Second, under controversies, they under state the case documented here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curley_v._NAMBLA Where the entry's assertion was a visit to a website, but ignores the 8 publications from the group detailing how to commit the crime found, and the assertion that the 2 men were members. The ACLU did not win the case by asserting any free speech defense, but on the technicality of their status as a corporation or association. It was worth it's own seperate entry on the list bulleted. People can judge the merits where within. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.190.32 (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

= One of the most biased wikis I've ever seen

Almost the entire thing is written as a partisan hackjob, constantly tossing out strawmen that the ACLU is some sort of democrat entity and the critcism solely is coming from "conservatives" or "republicans"(ie. pretending it's all some partisan game). A complete and total lie. Numerous ACLU lawyers have resigned from the ACLU because they realized that the organization is a corrupt and hypocritical one. There is basically no criticism of the ACLU in here at all. None. People of all stripes and politcal spectrum have major problems with the ACLU's continual hypocrisy, such as the ACLU's support of suppressing the free speech anti-abortion portestors at abortion clinics which completely flies in the face of their supposed staunch defense of free speech.66.190.29.150 (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you do have a point but believe it or not the ACLU does alot of good things for society as well.. South Bay (talk) 07:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
If you think that something needs to be added to the article to make it more balanced, then be bold and add it- as long as you find a reliable source and cite your statements. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I would happen to agree with the anonymous IP user that this page is definately written in a partisan tone. After reading it fully, I've come to the conclusion that it's definitely biased. I found no reference to any criticism of this organization, which is mind boggling. Wrightchr (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hahahahaha, oh my. I remember a few, not many, ACLU lawyers resigning over having to support the constitutional rights of Nazis. One of the few instances of resignation regarding the actions of the ACLU that have ever occurred. But yeah, they TOTALLY quit because "hurr corruption". You conservatives are hilarious. 124.169.91.46 (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Things which deserve more prominence in the article

Should mention the ACLU's traditional blanket opposition to all Nativity displays, Hanukka menorahs, and memorial crosses on public property. It's one of the things that the ACLU has done which was arguably not very essential, yet succeeded in annoying a large number of people (and resulted in the current state of U.S. law on the matter being determined by a series of 5-4 Supreme Court decisions which have ended up satisfying no one). Also, the Skokie, Illinois Nazi march should really receive a section of its own, and not be buried in the timeline, since it was a major event in the history of the ACLU which received extremely broad media coverage at the time, and led to a large number of cancelled ACLU memberships (not to mention giving rise to a memorable scene in the Blues Brothers movie). AnonMoos (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that the Skokie march needs its own section, especially since Wikipedia has a full article on the subject already elsewhere that the curious reader can jump to. What would you include in this section that is not already covered in the timeline entry? Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
We have a separate article on the Supreme court decision, but not on the effects that pursuing the case had on the ACLU. Since this is arguably the single most important event in the post-McCarthy era history of the ACLU, burying it in the timeline obscures its real significance. AnonMoos (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, this is definitely not "the single most important event in the post-McCarthy era history of the ACLU," and it's not buried in the timeline, it is placed where it should be- in the appropriate dated part of the "Notable historical cases" section. No other case has its own section in this article, and I see no reason that this one should. However, you still haven't answered my question- what would you include in this proposed section that is not already included in the paragraph? Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
My experience is that, for much of the country the Skokie case is the single thing that the ACLU is known for (be that pro or con). I would also favor adding a section to discuss the impct on the organization. Some people resigned as a result, it's used in ACLU literature explaining their values, etc. Take a look at the Aryeh Neier article to see what how this could be done. In the mean time, I've this article to the Skokie Controversy cat because relates to the organization overall.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I've got to disagree. The ACLU is not defined by single cases. Putting it in a category for a single case is asking for it to be put in the categories for all of its individual cases. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'm putting the cart before the horse. My contention is that, in popular perception, the ACLU is only associated with this case. (So, I would not suggest adding an overall Cat for any other examples of litigation from the article.) A section discussing the impact of the case on the organization could flush out how important the case is and bring us to a concensus.RevelationDirect (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
You're making your contention perfectly clear, I just disagree with you. The case is not important enough to have a whole section in this article. It does not define the ACLU. It is not the only thing shaping public perception of the ACLU, and it needs no more prominent mention than it already has; hell, it's already the largest single entry in the notable cases section! It is completely untrue that "in popular perception, the ACLU is only associated with this case." If you think Wikipedia needs more information on the case, then add more detail to that article. This article does not need a whole section on it, though (especially since, despite the fact that I have asked you twice, you still haven't said what you would put in this proposed section, if you were able to achieve consensus for creating it, that isn't already in the article).Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Clarification - Sorry, that part about "asking twice" was directed at User:AnonMoos, not you, User:RevelationDirect. I didn't realize I was talking to two different people. My apologies. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems Biased To The Extreme

This article does seem biased toward the extreme. Especially the defense of their legal fees, since they are paid by all taxpayers, many of whom do not agree with their positions. I don't know where you got the percentages for what the ACLU receives and Thomas Moore, but would question them without references. Also, the information is incorrect about money damages for civil rights matters not being provided for other than by an ACLU suit, since the Federal Tort Claim Act would also apply to civil rights matters, so many times the ACLU brings suit merely in order to gain that taxpayer welfare, rather than first filing the forms with the appropriate agency for relief.

I don't have the citing but there is also a federal statute that provides jail time and fines for any public official who is involved in abriding any citizen's Constitutional rights, but instead the ACLU brings suit against the deeper pockets, the agency or state or local government rather than using the federal statute and filing criminal complaints against the individual party involved. That would demonstrate that their agenda is more directed toward their profit and notoriety, rather than going through the other procedures that are already statutorily provided for such matters - looking for higher fees and fee awards.

Also, what has been left out is that the ACLU also receives much in donations from various corporate interests for their action with respect to religion, and are heavily funded by the Rockefellar Foundation. And also have been know to fight for the "civil rights" of non-U.S. citizens on the taxpayer's dime also, and quite recently now the terrorists in Guantanamo.

And as far as their "forming" Constitutional law, the Constitution is already written, it doesn't need forming and the ACLU actually has been fundamental also with an agenda to "redefine," it, and that is substantiated. Their fights for "freedom from" religion has no basis in the actual language of the Constitution in any manner whatsoever. It clearly states "freedom of." And also is documented by several reputable sources, including Ben Franklin in his speech at the Constitutional Convention, that the separation of church and state was inserted in order to prevent a "national" religion, and avoiding the historic fights between the Protestants and Catholics with the Church of England as a "state" church. This has been consistently misstated by this organization repeatedly when Ben Franklin's speech is there for all to view. And the no "religious test" meant to also avoid what happened in England where swearing fealty and loyalty to the sovereign compromised many of the English people's religious beliefs as their true allegiance being to God. Thus, the "religious test" provision was inserted in order to avoid what had occurred. This is common knowledge to those that have read the writings of the founding fathers in this respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgg530 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. Yet another rant by a crank who provides no sources for his claims. Do you have specific changes you think need to be made to the article? The talk page exists to encourage discussion involving article improvement, not a sounding board for your opinions. Kindly make suggestions for improvement or go away. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitic attacks

While monitoring contemporary trends in antisemitism, I noticed that one consistent target of American antisemites is the ACLU, which has been repeatedly portrayed as a cryptic Jewish organization trying to suppress public expressions of Christianity. [1] ADM (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Second Amendment position

Last year, the ACLU of Nevada broke off from the national organization's position on the second amendment:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jul/11/only-nevada-aclu-opposes-gun-control/

Should some text should be added to the second amendment position section saying as much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.101.33 (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added some text to that effect to the relevant paragraph. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Liberal? sources provided

I think these three sources are enough to justify the inclusion of liberal in the lead.

[2] [3] [4] -Zeus-u|c 15:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

And this: [5] -Zeus-u|c 15:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
No, while it is true that many people of a particular political slant currently hold the opinion that the ACLU is liberal, that fact has nothing to do with the primary focus of this article and certainly doesn't belong in the lead description. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thise sources that I provided are not known to be biased. It definitely belongs in the lead. -Zeus-u|c 20:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
What do you think about Thomas_More_Law_Center? Does that certainly not belong in the lead also? -Zeus-u|c 20:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
As Loonymonkey said, yes, certain groups and people hold that the ACLU is liberal, that does not mean that their opinions belong in the lead. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Monkey and Jacobite. This doesn't belong in the lead. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Would it be fair to state the fact that they tend to lobby bills sponsored by members of the Democratic Party? This can be demonstrated through inspection of the list of bills lobbied available at opensecrets.org[6]. If this is agreed upon as a valid course, then precise statistics and language for commentary can be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickleddickens (talk • contribs) 19:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying that I only propose this for the 2008 year as defined by opensecrets.org. Expanding the scope beyond that would be labor intensive. Pickleddickens (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The sort of labor you're describing is what is known as original research and not allowed for the purposes of Wikipedia articles. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Then a section detailing their lobbying efforts. This section would list titles of the bill/resolution, opensecrets.org would be a major source, and wikilinks to pages describing the purpose of the bills where additional facts pertaining to the bill could be stated. Currently lobbying is described in the lede as being a part of the organization but has no section dedicated who receives their lobbying dollars. These are facts that would help an uninformed reader determine where they stand.Pickleddickens (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Also one could argue that determining the proportion of bills sponsored by Democrats and Republicans would fall under the routine calculations category. Also distilling bulk statistical data into digestible numbers could be considered summarization. This is splitting linguistic hairs as far as the policy is concerned and I do not expect this position to be adopted, just wanted to know why I believe it should be acceptable. Pickleddickens (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, that sort of research and reporting is not the purpose of wikipedia. See WP:OR for further details. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Clarify: Do you mean the synthesis of statistics or the above proposal of merely citing particular bills that the ACLU has sponsored? Pickleddickens (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Stating that the ACLU is "leftist" or even "liberal" would take away from the glossiness and overall ideological quality of the article, as it is. I mean, if we just stated in clear terms our overall agenda, what progress would be made with the masses? We need to follow the socialist experience of activists here: the masses can handle socialist progress only in spoonfuls... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.165.66 (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

William Gayley Simpson

According to the William Gayley Simpson article Simpson was a co-founder of the ACLU. The paragraph isn't referenced and I can't find any real information on this. Does anyone here know of the connection between Simpson and the ACLU? I haven't looked at any books yet, but I think this is an interesting connecting given Simpson's later ideological stance and the ACLU's differed so greatly. Please respond if you have any leads that could be added to this or his article, or otherwise. Thank you. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 02:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be true. And seeing as how that page does not cite a single reliable source (and no way to even establish notability outside a few racist crank websites), I tagged it for speedy deletion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think speedy deletion is advisable for that biography. I have a few sources that are not 'racist crank websites' that I'll try to add. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversial Stances

The group's "stance" on spam email needs to be updated or moved to some sort of "historical stances" section, as all the citations are from 2000 or earlier. The nature of spam's burden has changed significantly since that time. The quotation regarding ease of deletion no longer applies, as spam is typically pre-filtered by service providers. - Gwopy 09:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

Source Needed

"In an amicus brief, the ACLU argued that the law in question "has criminalized the dissemination, sale or display of constitutionally protected non-obscene materials which portray juveniles in sexually related roles,"" There's no link to the amicus brief in question and I used control f on the exact wording of the quote (for the record I tried 'related roles') in the source that's given and got nothing so that exact quote isn't in there. The source linked to was on a different case anyhow.Father Time89 (talk) 06:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Phanjuy, 11 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add this line before the Chinese entry. vi:Liên đoàn bảo vệ tự do dân sự Mĩ Phanjuy (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done:: that wikilink points to a non-existing page. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 13:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Immigration

How can the ACLU, American Civil Liberty Union, oppose the 1070 law in Arizona. Do they not realize that "Americans" are in harms way due to the illegal aliens? The ACLU has become so divided by their own agenda from actual Americans. This organization shouldn't be allowed to keep it's name. They only represent their own interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.241.186 (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The article seems written by the ACLU president himself. No criticism whatsoever to the widely impopular positions & agenda of the ACLU. The section about "funding" says nothing. Reading it is a waste of time b/c it doesn't mention important entities (read "left wing zealots") who consistently donate to the organization. 63.240.106.12 (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the hallmark of all truly valued commentary on a Wikipedia article. Use words that don't exist ("impopular?"), no attempt at citation for your own claims while the article itself is well cited, call the other side names like "left wing zealots" when you don't even know who any of them are, and most of all, not a SINGLE actually suggestion of a change or edit you'd like made to the article, sourced or otherwise. Your contribution is truly valued here! --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I hate it how everyone either supports everything ACLU does or oppose everything ACLU does. It gives them the unrestricted power to control what the left and right support and oppose. It they wanted the left to hate the color yellow and the right to love it, they can just claim to oppose yellow and it would happen. 173.183.69.134 (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi march and the Skokie Holocaust Museum

The NY Times reference in the Wikipedia article states,

The threatened march put Skokie at the bull’s-eye of a national debate about free speech and democratic ideals. And although the march never materialized here, it prompted a movement among the death camp survivors that manifested itself in an urge to speak up and teach the lessons of their lives.
And so they organized a group and got to work.

The ACLU believes that the antidote to bad speech is good speech. In this case, the threat of a march galvanized the community and created this response. That is why it belongs in the article. The response began at the time of the threat and the Museum was finally built. The "good free speech" did not just occur 34 years after the fact.

I would like to give a chance for RaptorHunter and any others to respond with reasons why this is or is not related.Javaweb (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Javaweb RaptorHunter has editing on Wikipedia and had a chance to offer input. I'm mentioning the museum for the reasons above. Javaweb (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

I believe user Javaweb is attempting to make a WP:POINT about the people's emotional reaction to the ACLU, when they defend causes the majority does not agree with. Mentioning the holocaust museum is pointless moralizing and is irrelavant to this debate. The ACLU is first and foremost and legal organization, this article is about the cases they have won and lost. The outraged reaction of a third party, years after the dispute is irrelevant to the legal issues at hand. I'm sure this could be included in an the Skokie, IL or the some other about Jewish Americans. However, it is not relevant to the ACLU and does not belong in this article aside from a weak attempt at WP:POV pushing. I have reverted your edit until, you can provide a reference that actually shows relevance. --RaptorHunter (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Gun Control

This is not a WP:Forum for discussing how you feel about the ACLU. This is a talk page for the article.

Extended content

The ACLU is not about protecting people's rights because if they were they would ban gun control. Rather this orginization is about enforcing their extreme left wing ideas and critizing all those who disagree with them as "bigoted, ignorant racists." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.83.252.233 (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't really understand your first sentence. Are you saying they support it or oppose it? The article says they are neither. 173.183.69.134 (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Prior to Heller the ALCU took the position that the 2nd Amendment was a “Collective” or “States Rights” issue and therefore not a individual right that they could defend. Since Heller they state that they disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision. They never mention McDonald v. Chicago.Grahamboat (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Loonymonkey rev “Please don't change quotes to something that was never said”. The change was made to quote the official ACLU position rather than from a blog that I mistakenly inserted NOV 15. Here is a link to ref. Grahamboat (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is the quote for :"bigoted , ignorant racists"? I We need a reference or it's just something picked off cyberspace--anyone could have said it.

The ACLU is for All civil rights--they are not terribly Pro-2nd amendment, however. They will, grudgingly, defend denials of the 2nd amendment, though. The NRA is a far better source for such action.

Don't Ever let Anyone tell you the ACLU is:"Anti-American". Because of them, many we now take for granted, like Mauritania, are actively defended and upheld. Don't let a minority judge against All the good they have done on their reflectance to defend just one right.70.176.118.196 (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

File:ACLU Anthony D Romero.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ACLU Anthony D Romero.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Will the ACLU article always be locked from editing?

I realize that the ACLU has supporters within the management and operations of Wikipedia who have locked it from further edits and I understand why. But, I think more facts need added concerning the founder, Roger Baldwin and his quotes about the ACLU as he reflected, "I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It all sums up into one single purpose -- the abolition of dog-eat-dog under which we live. I don't regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United Front road to get it." Roger Baldwin's book, "Liberty Under the Soviets" (published in 1928) is certainly noteworthy and helps establish some of his views after forming NCLB (later renamed to ACLU). Although, he was against totalitarianism which was found to be in most communist states, his supportive views on communism itself remained, as his publications clearly established. I realize there are some supporters of the ACLU that seem to be embarrassed by the very history of the ACLU and it's communist founders, but just because a group has things in it's past that some find questionable does not mean it should be erased from history. I'm glad, at least some of this history is included in this article, but I find some of it tries to make the reader believe he became a "former communist" when in fact, he was against the totalitarian behavior of some communists states, but was not against many of the communist ideals.TruthTeddy (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the history section includes the facts concerning the 1940 resolution of formally barring communists from leadership or staff positions due to wanting some disconnection with what became of Soviet style communism, it should also include that the 1940 resolution was officially rescinded in 1967 after the ACLU no longer felt the need to separate itself in the public eye from communism. They also rescinded the purging of Elizabeth Gurly Flynn, who was a member of the Communist Party at the time of the 1940 Resolution. TruthTeddy (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Any organization that defends the rights of the KKK, Nazis, unpopular religious groups, and Communists as part of protecting the Bill of Rights is not particularly concerned with the public eye. By 1967, the ACLU had a long history of fighting Loyalty Oaths and saw their 1940 position asking their members their political positions as inconsistent with their mission.

--Javaweb (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Javaweb You have probably seen this but click on the lock icon for the article or directly goto WP:PP#semi to find out more about this type of lock. --Javaweb (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

I don't get it. He opposes the state and supports communism? Guess that gives ACLU an excuse sue both sides' supporters.173.180.214.13 (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The ACLU takes cases to court when they see an opportunity to support the Bill of Rights. Litigation is a means, not an end in itself. Their main strategies are education and lobbying Congress to prevent impingements on civil liberties. If they wanted to make money from suing, they would be taking other types of cases. As to why they take cases of unpopular groups, see First_they_came…

to understand ACLU's justification. --Javaweb (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

No mention is made of the Felix Franfurter as a cofounder of the ACLU, nor of Hugo Black, a lifelong member of the Ku Klux Klan as a former attorney for the ACLU.

Likewise, no mention is made of the ACLU's finacial support from the KKK, the NEA, Freemasons, and Evangelical Protestants in the the ACLU's war against Catholic education in the United States.

In fact, the article is so ridiculus it is best regarded as a white-wash of the ACLU.

In a recent 2011 case in Florida, the ACLU has joined forces with the anti-Catholic bigots once again. The ACLU ignores the fact that while 28 percent of the Tampa Bay area is Catholic, many departments at the Univeristy of South Florida have 0 percent Catholics teaching in them. The ACLU does not regard this as religious discrimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanVeteran (talk • contribs) 15:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The article has been un-protected. --Noleander (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistent dates for NCLB formation

First paragraph under History says 1917. First paragraph under Notable Cases/CLB Era says 1920. I think the first is right and the latter incorrect. Please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.203.18 (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that mistake. I fixed it. --Noleander (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

GA status

I'm willing to work on this article to bring it up to good article status. I'm busy in real life, so my progress may be slow. Other editors are welcome to help out, of course. --Noleander (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to research this now. Regarding the article layout, one thing that jumps out at me is that the "History" and "Notable historical cases" should be merged into a single section, which contains chronological subsections. And sections "Controversial stances" and "Positions" should be merged. If individual stances/positions are controversial, that can be mentioned (if sourced) in the paragraph/subsection on the individual stance ... but there is no need to segregate the stances/positions into two groups: controversial and non-controversial. --Noleander (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with combining "History" and "Notable historical cases"; the former should focus on the origination and expansion of the organization, and possibly the development of its reputation. I would favor a "Positions" section modeled on the "Political positions of ..." articles and sections for (U.S.) politicians, with subsections for specific areas such as "Free speech", "Voting rights", "LBGT rights", etc., each of which would lead off with an overall statement of position on the subject (if available) followed by discussion of important related cases and activities. Generally, most of their positions arouse controversy; if the position was not controversial, there would be no need for the ACLU to get involved. Some of their cases (e.g., Skokie) draw a lot more controversy than others, and that should be mentioned. But I don't think we really need "pickets protested outside the courthouse where the legality of a Manger scene in Foo City Park was being debated." Fat&Happy (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll leave "History" and "Notable historical cases" separate. As for merging positions & stances, it sounds like we are in agreement on that. I also concur that we'll need to be judicious about which efforts are included. As you say, not every effort of theirs that got a headline in a regional newspaper needs to be mentioned. The threshold should be based on the quantity and prominence of the sources that comment on the position/effort. --Noleander (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've gotten some source material and I'm going through it now. I should be able to start editing soon. Regarding the outline: The section "Notable historical cases" has a large overlap with "Controversial stances": it both sections, there is a chronological list of events/cases/positions. I'm thinking of combining them, resulting in an outline like this:

  • History
  • Organization
  • Structure
  • Leadership
  • Funding
  • Positions [current positions only; policy statements, etc]
  • Important cases [controversial or not, up to the present time]

Nearly identical to the current outline. --Noleander (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to work on the article now. Feel free to jump in and help out, if you have time. My goal is to get it to GA status. I'm pretty busy in Real Life, so it might take a couple of months. --Noleander (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I've got most significant material into the article, so the next step is to check for spelling/grammar/flow, and maybe try to find some more pics. Then I'll submit it for GA status. --Noleander (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've submitted the article for GA review. If anyone wants to be the reviewer, go ahead. Otherwise, it takes 1 to 4 weeks for a reviewer to come along. I checked for external links (okay now); spelling (okay now); and ambiguous links (all fixed). But there are still a couple of things to do to be GA quality: add a few pictures; and tighten up the paragraphs in the 1990-2010 sections. I'll take care of those in the next few days. Other than that, I think it is ready to go. --Noleander (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thin out 2000->2010 material?

The section on 2000 -> 2010 seems a bit too detailed. This may be due to WP:RECENTISM syndrome. I was thinking of removing some of the more minor events, such as "In 2011, the ACLU defended Christian athletes posting the ten commandments on their lockers, over the objections of their Virginia high school.". Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

We might need to do a little discussion point by point on that, sadly. That one may be considered notable to include as it demonstrates ACLU defense or religious expression, for example. The ACLU is often attacked as an anti-religion organization, making such defenses somewhat notable/useful to include. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I have no strong objection to leaving it in ... but there is certainly a balance issue, no? Why should that decade have 2x or 3x more detail than other decades? It's only because we WP editors are alive and editing during that decade, which is not a good reason. --Noleander (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
@Cobra: I like your idea of a paragraph on ACLU's defense of religious expression. But for this particular item (the school lockers) can you find a RS that discusses that locker-case situation within the context of the ACLU defending religious expression, broadly. I don't want to engage in OR by making that association myself. --Noleander (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
A key statistic to bear in mind when discussing whether to remove minor cases/incidents from this article is: This article does not mention about 60 Supreme Court cases that the ACLU played a major role in (amicus, etc). So when it comes to non-Supreme Court cases (or incidents that did not even result in a court case at all, such as the lockers) including them in this article is rather low priority. Unless, as you point out, there is some bigger issue (e.g. "ACLU defends Christians ...") that a RS makes by assembling several of those smaller issues into a package. --Noleander (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I've been googling newspaper articles that mention ACLU, and there are literally thousands. Stretching back to 1920, there must be, I'm guessing, 5,000 cases where they made some local headline for a local stand they took. So, that leads to the question of which to include in this article. It seems to me that good criteria for inclusion would be either (a) the ACLU's action led to a Supreme court case; or (b) the ACLU's action made national headlines, in several media; or (c) a significant book on politics/history mentions the ACLU's stance. For example, if the ACLU affiliate in Wyoming sends a cease-and-desist order to a local school board, and that is reported in the Wyoming paper (but not the NY Times), then that is not really sufficient for this article. On the other hand, if a major commentator source assembles a handful of similar ACLU actions and writes an essay on a pattern of ACLU action, that might be sufficient for inclusion. Thoughts? --Noleander (talk)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:American Civil Liberties Union/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 08:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC) This article is a monster 79.5kb of readable prose. It would be one of the longest WP:GAs on wikipedia if passed in its current format. I would like to learn about this organization, so I will dig through this article and review it. It may take me a few weeks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review it. I'm pretty busy in Real Life, but I'm committed to doing what it takes to get it to GA status. I know the article is big, but it is within the WP acceptable size limits, and it would probably suffer if it were broken up. My model is the Manhattan Project article which is 15,800 words of prose, and achieved FA status. This article is only 12,500 words :-) That said, I'm open to splitting suggestions: but I have not been able to see a good approach to splitting yet. It sounds like you're going to go thru the article section by section, so I'll probably wait until you are finished before I begin implementing your suggestions (to avoid re-work, etc). Thanks again. --Noleander (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure where your "WP acceptable size limits" policy comes from. I have not read WP:SIZE in quite a while, but 60KB is a number in the back of my head. I will work through this slowly. Thanks for your patience.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I have reviewed some long articles, including Chevy Volt, Clint Eastwood (which had several WP:SPLITs), and Missouri River as well as Bill Clinton which would be quite long if several articles were not WP:SPLIT from it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
No worries. I have no objection to splitting, as long as it is a sensible split, and not just for the sake of getting the article under an arbitrary size limit. The key test is what is best for readers. I respect your judgement, and I'll wait patiently. --Noleander (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:LEAD
Nearly Done - Expanded lead to be more comprehensive. I think it is a decent lead now, with the exception of the "contains a mention of every section in the article" goal. --Noleander (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
It now clocks in at 3700 characters, which is a bit longer than what I would like, but I'll reevaluate later.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Done --Noleander (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I find the table of contents a bit overbearing. The article will likely need to be reorganized. I guess I would think about whether each section is important enough that it should be summarized in the LEAD. If not, I would merge it with another section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
See progress report below under Reorganized. --Noleander (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Leadership
Done --Noleander (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Funding
Done --Noleander (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Done --Noleander (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The fact that dues are voluntary is very encyclopedic and should not be buried in a footnote.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Done "Membership dues account for $25M per year and are treated as donations; members choose the amount they pay annually, averaging $50 per member per year." --Noleander (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
CLB era
Done --Noleander (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Free speech era
Done --Noleander (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Free speech
Done --Noleander (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Starting with the Expansion section through the Success section, I think many paragraphs should be merged to make sections less choppy. I have not read these sections, yet, Based on casual inspection, I would say merged or expanded, but I don't want the article to get any longer. Consider whether all fo the detail is truly encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Reorganized - I merged some of the smaller sections, and grouped the sections into larger sections. See the new table of contents. I think it looks more inviting now, less scary. A few of the remaining sections (e.g. Privacy) are still a bit small, but they are 3-levels down, and merging them would require the section titles to become meaningless. Let me know what you think. --Noleander (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
New TOC looks grand.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Expansion
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Done - Changed to " The ACLU also played a key role in initiating a nationwide effort to reduce misconduct (such as extracting false confessions) within police departments,....". --Noleander (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Depression era and the New Deal
Done - No, there is no case ... it was just a local effort. In any case, I rewrote entire sentence to be: "Even public health films portraying pregnancy and birth were banned; as was Life magazine's April 11, 1938 issue which included photos of the birth process. The ACLU fought these bans, but did not prevail." --Noleander (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Communism and totalitarianism
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
World War II
Done --Noleander (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Cold war era
Done --Noleander (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Done - Yes, the wording was a bit confusing. I improved the wording to clarify the distinction between the 1940 internal purge within the ACLU (which indeed was described in a prior section) vs the ACLUs ambivalence re defending Cold War defendants. --Noleander (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
McCarthyism era
Done - I added the case information into the footnote of that sentence (namely: "The case was Slochower v. Board of Higher Education of New York City, 350 U.S. 551 (1956).") but it was a minor Supreme Court case, so I did not put that red link into the body of the article. Let me know if it should be in the body. --Noleander (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Separation of church and state
Done --Noleander (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Done - it was School Prayer Amendment. --Noleander (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Freedom of expression
Done --Noleander (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Done - The source discusses free speech censorship in two eras: 1925-1935 (which is discussed above in the article) and 1945 to 1960 (which is discussed in this section). To clarify that for the reader, I changed the opening sentence of this (1945-1960) section to read: "During the 1940s and 1950s, the ACLU continued its battle against censorship of art and literature.". Let me know if I should do more. --Noleander (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Racial discrimination
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
No, the ACLU was not directly involved in that case. The source, Walker, the primary historian of the ACLU devotes nearly two pages to that case (and related issues) because it was a major event in the history of civil liberties in the US ... even though the ACLU was not directly involved. Not sure if it should stay in this article. Since the ACLU was not involved in the case, perhaps it should be removed. On the other hand, this article is (for now) serving as the "history of civil liberties in the United States, after 1920", so one could argue that it should stay. Let me know which way to go. --Noleander (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Make it clear that the ACLU was not involved or remove it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Police misconduct
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Civil liberties revolution of the 1960s
Done - Although one is a red link. --Noleander (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Done - No, there is no case ... but there is a great article covering the topic Disfranchisement after Reconstruction era, so I linked to that. --Noleander (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Done - Yes, both a case and two links. --Noleander (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Done - Yes, there is a case. --Noleander (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Vietnam war
Done --Noleander (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Done - Added 367 F.2d 72: United States of America, Appellee, v. David J. Miller, Defendant-appellant. --Noleander (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you add a case for David O’Brian.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Done --Noleander (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Done - added Cohen v. California. --Noleander (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Enclaves and new civil liberties
Okay - Yes, that was the correct thing to do. --Noleander (talk)
Done --Noleander (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Done --Noleander (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I have not seen Eve mentioned in any of the sources I read. The primary ACLU historian, Walker, does not have Eve in his index. I Googled ACLU & "arthur eve" and only got some rather tenuous results. So I think the answer is "no". --Noleander (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Victim groups
Done --Noleander (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Done - I added links to homosexuals and gay rights. Improved wording to make usage more uniform: "homosexual" as noun when discussing a class of persons; "gay" as adjective e.g. "gay rights". --Noleander (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Privacy
Done --Noleander (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Done - Added link to Privacy laws of the United States. --Noleander (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Done --Noleander (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Done - Added links to Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to the legalization of abortion, which are the closest articles that WP has. --Noleander (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Allegations of liberal bias
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The Skokie case
Done - added Smith v. Collin 447 F.Supp. 676. --Noleander (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Where?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there a standard WP tool to do this? I'm not sure what multiplier to use for adjusting for inflation. The source just says $500,000. --Noleander (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
See Bobby Orr, e.g.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Reagan era
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Done - added link; and also case ID North v. United States 910 F.2d 843. --Noleander (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
1990 to 2000
Done --Noleander (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Done --Noleander (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Done --Noleander (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Twenty first century
Done --Noleander (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Done --Noleander (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Done --Noleander (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there a case worth mentioning?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Done - That sentence was actually a hold-over from some prior editor (I wrote the entire article except the last 3 sections). The case here is about a Missouri state law, not the federal Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act. I clarified the text; and I put a mention of the AFHA into a footnote. --Noleander (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
No. The ACLU won at the lowest-level Fed District court. The press release does not identify the case cite. As far as I can tell, it did not go to appeals court. --Noleander (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Anti-terrorism issues
Done - Removed that sentence and replaced it with a more precise and authoritative policy statement (quoted) from ACLU itself. --Noleander (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Done --Noleander (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Done --Noleander (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Done - Why, yes it was. Thanks for pointing that out. I've added "In 2008, the ACLU was part of a consortium of legal advocates, including Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, that challenged California's Proposition 8, which declared same-sex marriages illegal.[291] The ACLU and its allies prevailed.[292]". The appeals ruling was just a few days ago, and I cannot find an official cite for that ... maybe it is not published yet? --Noleander (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Done --Noleander (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
What is your interpretation of this tag as it pertains to File:CrystalEastman.jpeg, File:H l mencken.jpg, File:Elizabeth Gurley Flynn point.jpg, File:Japanese American Internment - Members of the Mochida Family Awaiting Evacuation 1942.gif, and File:DennisEugene.jpg?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Done - Sorry about that. I am not familiar with {{personality rights}} ... I thought it was only for living persons. Looking closer, I see it is also for deceased. I've added it to the above images. Thanks for letting me know about that tag. --Noleander (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Why was the File:Scopes trial.jpg that was in this article when I started the review removed?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Done - That image is not free. I'm not sure a fair use justification can be made for this article, since it is a bit remote from the photo. If you think a fair use rationale is justified, let me know, and I'll craft one. --Noleander (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

2nd pass

WP
LEAD
Done --Noleander (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Depression era and the New Deal
Done --Noleander (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Done --Noleander (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
World War II
Done --Noleander (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Racial discrimination
Done - removed. --Noleander (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Civil liberties revolution of the 1960s
Done --Noleander (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Vietnam war
Done --Noleander (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The Skokie case
Done - The case ID was in the footnote; I moved it up into the text. --Noleander (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Done - The sources do not give current year dollars, and I'm not aware of a tool to covert to current year dollars ... is there such a tool available? Used the inflation template. The text now reads: "... and raised over $500,000 ($1,812,121 in 2012 dollars)". --Noleander (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Twenty first century
The footnote contains the federal case name, but it is was a lower court (district court) decision, not appeals or supreme, so it probably doesn't belong in the article body; but I can move it there if you think that would be best. --Noleander (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The article is greatly improved through diligent and patient response by the able nominator. I continue to think that there should be some splitting of this article, but its current form meets the standards of WP:WIAGA. Therefore, I PASS the article. Proper splitting is hard to suggest because there is no one large section that could easily be split off into a sub article. It may be some time before this article is split for that reason.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Col North

In this edit, an editor asked for source for "illegal" weapons and "outlawed" contra funding. The court case itself is the source. He was convicted in court on the basis of the evidence. The appeals court threw out his own testimony before Congress because he was told his Congressional testimony would not be used to convict him, but it was. The ACLU defended him on 5th Amend. grounds. --Javaweb (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Sorry, I shoud have been more clear. I'm not asking you to say what court case I should read for further information. I was thinking more in terms of:
  1. Who declared the weapons illegal? When did they do it? On what basis (if any) did they make this declaration?
  2. Who outlawed contra funding? (Was it the Boland Amendment?)
I was hoping for a few short sentences added to the article that would answer these questions, for readers who aren't as familiar with the court case as you are. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't seem particularly relevant here as none of things have anything to do with the ACLU. The section you're referring to already links to the Iran–Contra affair article so any reader that needs more info can get a wealth of it there. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, if there's no source for "illegal" weapons or "outlawed" funding, those POV-laden adjectives should be removed. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
My understanding of the Iran–Contra affair is that those characterizations are well-established facts. The sources that explain that should be in the Iran–Contra affair article, but I have not looked. Do you have some reason to think that the Iran-Contra activities were legal? --Noleander (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I just added this cite to the North paragraph:
  • "The Iran-Contra Affair – 1986-1987". Washington Post. March 27, 1998. Retrieved March 7, 2012.

--Javaweb (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Uncle Ed, extreme detail on sub-subjects doesn't go in this article, it goes in the article on the subject itself. That's basic wiki-structure. Build the web. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
There are plenty of references for it. See the cited articles (or those at the parent article). I thought the issue was whether we should explain this in the article, not whether you even thought it was true or not? (it is, btw) --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

"Beahharnais"

The name is much more likely to be "Beauharnais" (a google search on Joseph Beahharnais -wikipedia turns up absolutely nothing useful)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

religious symbolism ... etc.

Considering the amount of controversy which is stirred up and the amount of news coverage which is generated by such cases, it seems unfortunate that the article skims over (with almost no mention at all) what some people consider to be the ACLU's inflexible and rigid approach to religious symbolism in memorials located on government property, nativity scenes located on government property, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, the cases of creches, crosses, menorahs, etc should be mentioned if not mentioned already.

Also the ACLU supports individuals choosing religious symbols to mark their graves at Veterans cemeteries. The ACLU has said it would fight atheists or others that would ever disallow this. Also, the ACLU of Massachusetts (2002) filed a brief supporting the right of the Church of the Good News to run ads criticizing the secularization of Christmas and promoting Christianity as the “one true religion.” The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority had refused to allow the paid advertisements to be posted and refused to sell additional advertising space to the church.

The coverage of Religion needs work. Here is a list of cases the ACLU supported that protected believers. There is a section called "Separation of Church and State" but the ACLU supports all the religious rights, not just that one. It also defends the rights of believers like Mormons and Catholics not to have their children coerced into religious observances such as in the case Santa_Fe_Independent_School_Dist._v._Doe.
--Javaweb (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

I think the point being raised is similar to one I made the other day. The ACLU is perceived as not protecting "", even though that is one of the policies listed in the intro. It's seen as a contradiction by some.
Without our taking sides on the question of whether they are true to their own principles, we can report on the dispute over whether they are. Something like, ACLU's stated polity is to support ... yet critics say they have worked against ...
  • the American Civil Liberties Union prowls the land to muzzle public prayers, rip out Ten Commandments monuments and terrify small towns over Nativity scenes - (commentary by Robert Knight-The Washington Times)
If there's no objection, I'd like to work this criticism into the article somehow. Any pointers? --Uncle Ed

(talk) 23:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

An opinion piece, by someone I've never heard of, by a second-string newspaper, founded by Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon, would not be my choice. There is NPOV coverage in the Mount_Soledad_cross_controversy article. We could mention the 2011 Jewish Veterans victory in the Fed Appeals court and wikilink to that. It is one of a score of ACLU religious cases that possibly could be covered. --Javaweb (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
Poor EdEd Poor: There are literally thousands of articles and opinion pieces about the ACLU. They have participated in thousands of legal cases, many of which have made local (or national) headlines. This article cannot hold them all. Therefore, the best policy is to limit the article to (1) topics/themes that neutral, secondary sources have documented; and (2) cases/issues that are covered by multiple major news sources. Events covered by just one or two sources are too numerous, and editors would have to engage in Cherry picking to select them. Turning to the specific issue of allegations that the ACLU is anti-organized religion; the best approach is to gather multiple sources that present both sides of the allegation (i.e. include sources that say ACLU is not anti-religion), consolidate them into a terse, neutral summary, and then add it into the correct chronological section in the article (or into "support and opposition", if that is more appropriate). --Noleander (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I applaud your idea of hunting for neutral sources. There seems to be evidence or claims on both sides of the question, some arguing that ACLU is a protector of religious freedom while others argue that it suppresses that freedom. This could be related to its quest to enforce "separation of church and state". --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about the name mix up: I was just typing to fast. I fixed it. --Noleander (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

So little talk about campaign funding

There is a small sentence dedicated to campaign funding and it is exceptionally brief and not entirely representative of the ACLU's stance on the issue. The ACLU strongly supports corporate personhood, unlimited campaign funding and backed the Citizens United case. They will adamantly oppose any amendment to revoke corporate personhood as well. Also, while there's evidence for great bipartisan public opposition of this ruling, I would also put this in liberal criticism toward the organization. Many liberal Americans, congressmen and the president see the whole court case as a republican/corporate power grab instead of standing up for individual liberty. I think it's particularly pertinent because, as an organization that supports American civil liberties, they also explicitly consider corporations deserving of civil liberties. It caused such a rift within the group they even considered changing their position. However, as you can see the date of the first link, they decided to to stay with their original position. They also seem to hide the position on their website despite it being a relatively current/hot issue. I'd love helping out with this.

I'm new to this, but willing to try so bear with me if this is in a wrong spot or something... JimMinnow (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The sentence in the article is directly taken from the ACLU's official website: their official position on the topic. If it is wrong, or can be improved, go ahead, but be sure to include a footnote naming your source. If there is a huge dispute within the ACLU on the topic, and if you can find source on it that are good (like Wash Post) go ahead and add a sentence or two summarizing the dispute at the bottom of the article in the latest chronological place. Again, footnotes are required. Feel free to ask questions if you need help formatting the information. --Noleander (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

They challenged the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act". Although the article mentions this, I feel that there should be a controversy section with informations on this. Alternatively, its current location is maintained but more information is added. I'm going in for the controversy section however, as people looking for information regarding this will more easily find it in the controversy section. It'll also allow a more expanded argument. Crzyclarks (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, if you have more material on the RAFHA, by all means include it ...but make sure you supply footnotes that identify reliable sources. As for putting it in an (existing) chronological section vs a new "Controversies" section, the latter is generally avoided (see WP:CRITICISM) unless there is a compelling reason, which there is not. --Noleander (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Readability?

I find this article to be very well written and organized. A minor point - as of today, "ACLU" is used 540 times in this article. Would it improve readability to use synonyms in the majority of references? James Cage (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it will have any effect but have at it if you wish.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hellen Keller was not a key founder

I've removed Keller & Kessler from the intro - for the second time. Helen Keller played a very, very minor role in a committee during the founding; but certainly doesnt warrant any mention in this article. Kessler had even less to do with founding the ACLU. Furthermore: Facts should not be in the lead if they are also not in the body. --Noleander (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on American Civil Liberties Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Non-partisan

ACLU is a Democrat and Liberal org. That's hardly "non-partisan". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.199.194 (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That is your opinion. They have supported the rights of Rush Limbaugh, Col. Oliver North, and others far-right of liberal in the defense of the rights of all. --Javaweb (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Since it seems to a matter of opinion, let's leave it out. Or if there is controversy about whether ACLU is more liberal than conservative, let's describe that controversy. Neither of you has offered any sources for your positions. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
All my examples are in the article, with sources. The KKK and Nazis are also in the article, none of whom are Democratic or liberal darlings. --Javaweb (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

There is already a section for Allegations of liberal bias and a section for Positions. If you have specific and documented examples those sections could be expanded. Tomsv 98 (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ed Poor, non-partisan is definitely a matter opinion, esepcially considering the fact it was founded by 3 socialists. As a general rule on Wikipedia, if a small adjective or phrase is a subject of debate, it's best left out. Terrance the James (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"Nonpartisan" means not affiliated with a party. The ACLU takes many positions that are conservative, e.g. on campaign funding & freedom of speech. If you want the article to contain more detail about whether ACLU is liberal or conservative, first get sources & beef up the "Position" or "Support & Opposition" sections; then go from there. --Noleander (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed they are nonpartisan because they say they are, unless someone can document they give money or otherwise support one party over another or one party's candidates over another’s. Whether they have many conservative positions or a very few is by nature POV. You are spot on with documented positions. It is much better to say as the article states “The ACLU supports affirmative action.” or “The ACLU is opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances.” without commentary; than the ALCU is a liberal organization. Tomsv 98 (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

In the case of stated positions not being supported by their actions where in the article would that be included? Tomsv 98 (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This article clearly shows partisan action even though they still claim to be non-partisan. By opposing one candidate on his or her rhetoric is against free speech (something they claim to stand up for) and clearly shows partisan bias. What a candidate says is not against the constitution and is in fact protected by the constitution. THe ACLU is clearly partisan since it violates its own mission statement to spread political influence.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.172.219.43 (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This is purely your analysis. Your task is to find reliable sources that label the ACLU as partisan if you want to make that claim in the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Any ACLU members who are also Wikipedians?

Just wondering?--Paint Roller (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Merge Dont filter me with the aclu

i believe we should merge don’t filter me with this article --Jonnymoon96 (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't Filter Me

That article and topic looks substantial and notable enough for its own article. This article is pretty long already. Felsic2 (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Temporal lock

Someone seems to be trying to vandalize the article. Can you lock it for a while? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.193.24.49 (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Nasser al-Awlaki

In addition, the ACLU has sued on behalf of Anwar-Al-Awlaki's son who was killed in a drone strike. [Article] Families of US citizens killed in drone strike file wrongful death lawsuit and AL-AULAQI V. PANETTA - CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO KILLING OF THREE U.S. CITIZENS There are plenty of other reputable sources documenting as much if anyone else is interested.

There was no evidence the son had any connections to terrorism. And, recently, the daughter of Anwar-Al-Awlaki was killed in a bombing under the Trump administration; another non-combatant.

The issue

This line: "The ACLU has also criticized targeted killings of American citizens who fight against the United States " has a significant PoV problem. The ACLU has criticized extra-judicial murders of US citizens, regardless of their role in any perceived role of a fight. The above-referenced article proves as much. This ignores the extra-judicial killings the US has been involved in with non-combatants for what appears to be a political motive. Please edit, or at least include relevant information of extra-judicial killings of non-combatants. 76.16.105.187 (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Civil Liberties Union. 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) 19:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Civil Liberties Union. 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) 16:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on American Civil Liberties Union. 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) 05:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Time for a Reorg

The article is now 170,000 characters, about twice as long as a reasonable article. The lede is long, too.

I suggest a fork:

Non-partisan? - first line requires updating

I have just read this compelling article by Joe Lieberman in which he argues that "The ACLU has chosen to become a direct actor in partisan elections", in an article titled "The ACLU's Regrettable Turn to Partisan Politics" [7]

Seems to me that the opening sentence describing the ACLU as 'non partisan' should be updated. I think it would be too strong to state that the ACLU was partisan, but I think the claim about it being 'non partisan' should be removed. Lin4671again (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Look first at WP's own definition of Nonpartisanism. It implies a double-barreled question, an informal fallacy. Whenever an advocacy group claims to be non-partisan, it fails the second condition. While it may be true that the organization has no formal ties to a party, it likely sides with one more often than another. Of course the ACLU sides more often with Democratic Party causes. In my opinion, non-partisan is a meaningless term, given its common usage, just like claims from Congress that a bill is bi-partisan. Even Joe Lieberman is making a twisty. If her were being forthright, he would have said, "The ACLU has chosen to become a direct actor in the conduct of partisan elections." What I recommend in this case is a reword to "The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a non-profit legal advocacy organization formally affiliated with no political party..." Rhadow (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I have re-written the lede, here, in response to watch list notifications. I was not aware of this discussion here, but I believe my revision is sufficiently neutral. Lin4671again reverted my changes multiple times, replacing it with a version that reads "The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a nominally nonpartisan nonprofit organization but tends to lean toward the left..." I believe Lin4671again's version places WP:UNDUE weight on one minority perspective of the ACLU. My version adequately balances these views and should be reinstated. Tony Tan · talk 22:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • First off, the way it is proposed "The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a nominally nonpartisan nonprofit organization but tends to lean toward the left..." is poorly written and reeks of an attempt to point out a perceived bias in the first sentence, violating WP:UNDUE. Additionally, it only appears they "lean left" because of the nature of what they do. I'm not going into more detail here, but I do not support its inclusion at all. Nihlus 22:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Firstly an apology - I should not have reverted the last time I did as I now realise I didn't read Tony Tan's edit properly (I thought I had but I hadn't...sorry!) Secondly, I thought it bias for the article to describe the ACLU as 'non partisan', but the recent revision doesn't so I'm fine with it. Finally, I disagree that the ACLU appears to 'lean left; because of the nature of what they do - it is the positions they choose to take on the issues that is the cause of them leaning left. In many cases that end up in the courts, it is because the rights of the opposing parties clash - yet the ACLU makes a choice as to whose rights it believes are more important. No problem with that but organisations which support the other side are invariable called right-wing, so to call the ACLU non-partisan was disingenuous. But leaving out the 'non-partisan' claim is a step in the right direction. Lin4671again (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Split

A split template has been added yet no section has started. I have no opinion at this stage whether a split needs to occur, I am just starting the section so others can opine. AIRcorn (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Free Speech Controversy

This new section is written entirely in the critical voice of Kaminer's Wall Street Journal article. It presents her ideas about the future of the ACLU based on a leaked memo that the article writer interpreted to mean the ACLU would not defend white nationalist's free speech... this is not what the memo says, nor is it specific to white nationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.64.115.161 (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@108.27.72.62: join the conversation here EvergreenFir (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I've trimmed back the section, put in the Axios ref for use in finding a more neutral treatment, and suggested in my edit summary that it may be best to wait for an official statement from the ACLU. The WSJ piece seems rather poor and sensational. --Ronz (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

unclear wording

I'm not sure what "the more putative Wayne Collins" is supposed to mean... AnonMoos (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Skokie march

This was one of the more important events in the history of the organization, and so needs to be mentioned in either the lead section at the top of the article, or the overview section immediately below... AnonMoos (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

ACLU = Liberal/Left Leaning

In the introduction, it is stated that ACLU is "non-partisan" organization. I mean, this is totally factually not true. ACLU is left-leaning organization that supports abortion, gay rights, and other liberal ideologies. This article is biased for hiding this fact and is totally left leaning. Please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.72.199 (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a longstanding consensus to retain this language. It is a fact that the ACLU has represented far right extremists such as the KKK and Nazis. Check out the talk page archives for detailed discussions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the latest attempt to label the ACLU as liberal: The sources offered so far are:
  1. Demick, Barbara. "Once Again, the ACLU Takes its Place on the Front Lines of a Liberal Resistance". latimes.com.
    The context in this LATimes article is the same as the body of this article, that the ACLU is criticized as being liberal. --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Donohue, William A. "The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union".
    I'm not sure how reliable this is for a general label. The author is Bill Donohue of Catholic League (U.S.). It supports the context that it is criticized as being liberal. Can someone find the book's reference #32 to apparently a New York Times article? --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Ignoring the past discussions and context of the sources provided is not the way to overturn long-standing consensus. --Ronz (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed.In light of the section of the article at American Civil Liberties Union#Support and opposition (and the documentation that supports it), it seems clear that it is inappropriate to label the organization as liberal in the article lead. The second sentence of the lead ("Officially nonpartisan, the organization has been supported and criticized by liberal and conservative organizations alike") adequately addresses this issue. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I stumbled onto this. I rarely work in this particular area but I have done a lot of editing of articles for other nominally non-partisan advocacy groups such as Judicial Watch. I haven't reviewed prior consensus. My 2 cents are as follows. First, a group can be both non-partisan and ideologically liberal, conservative, or whatever. Non-partisan does not mean centrist, and it seems wholly appropriate to call the ACLU non-partisan assuming the sources back that up. Second, regarding liberal, I don't know what other sources say but the LA Times source recently added and then removed doesn't quite say the ACLU is liberal. Being "on the front lines of a liberal resistance" doesn't necessarily make you liberal; heck, by that standard, Jennifer Rubin is actually a closeted liberal and the ACLU is neo-Nazi. Third and finally, the LA Times source does appear to support saying that the ACLU is left-leaning. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the ACLU has recently become a partisan organisation. I only really found out about this in 2019. This isn't mentioned anywhere. It's well-documented that they are actively opposing the trump administration but in doing so are also picking up myriad other issues that often are not relevant to civil liberties and taking a stance on them. Given this recent development, the header is wholly inadequate and should probably be changed to reflect this. People should know that this historically nonpartisan organization is now partisan. Rather than link to a bunch of sources I would rather people just google it and look it up. The current header must be changed.CaribbeanBlue (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@CaribbeanBlue: The wording of the information you added was a little misleading (my edit summary: "ACLU did not "announce" that it is now partisan. The source added does discuss a change in the organization's tactics, but the wording should be different (if included at all)"). I removed the information from the lead and placed it in the History section in the part about the Trump administration. That is definitely the context in which the organizations heightened profile is appearing. Romero, the current director, refers to it constantly in your cited source. Putting it here also is more appropriate because in the lead, it would be giving these critiques undue weight. I welcome input from other editors of the page as well. Accusations of partisanship have been very frequent during the history of the organization, so let me know if this should be de-emphasized or removed as a result. I thought it was appropriate to add because the source is reliable and because the critique is coming from a former director, not a source that is partisan, arguing in bad faith, or even politically opposed, for that matter.--MattMauler (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@CaribbeanBlue, I would also add that opposing the Trump administration does not in any way attest to the organization's supposed partisanship. If an administration threatens civil rights or Constitutional guidelines more than former administrations, it will get more push-back from the ACLU.--MattMauler (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Looks good! I wasn't referring to candidates but rather ballot initiatives, which I believe can be partisan too. But as long as there is something in this page that references the change in 2019, that's fine.CaribbeanBlue (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

State Affiliates table

There is a state affiliates table in the section of the same name, but few affiliates have separate articles. Instead of an entire mostly blank table, it could be limited to either (1) a sentence in the section; or (2) a simple list. If there are no notable citations those affiliates shouldn't be listed. Ihaveadreamagain 20:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

ACLU rejects basic biological science, claims men can menstruate.

There is now sufficient evidence to add to the lead that the ACLU is a far-left extremist anti-science partisan organization. [www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/20/aclu-tries-to-erase-men-on-international-mens-day] They also think that the death penalty is "racist." [8]

Breitbart is not considered a reliable source (see WP:RSP), nor is Instagram.--MattMauler (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
There are legitimate questions on how punishments are determined in the US judicial system and whether they have racial bias, i.e. for same offenses, black offenders having stricter punishments than white offenders, which is what is meant by "the death penalty is racist." As for Breitbart, they are being intentionally misleading by not saying that the post was about transgender rights. ACLU is hardly alone in having standard that "transgender men are still men," and the science of gender is not the same as the science of sexuality. ACLU is not being anti-science just because they embrace the growing scientific acceptance of transgenderism, and because they reject the woefully inaccurate description of sex and gender given in high school. It's not anti-science or extreme left to realize that what is taught in high school is a broad oversimplification. The model of the atom is also incorrectly taught in high school in simplistic terms that anyone with a background in quantum mechanics would poke holes in, but we don't expect 11th graders to understand advanced quantum mechanics at a PhD level. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Gender is an ideological construct. In no sense is it a science like, say, biology. One might just as well argue that female genital mutation is a science. Nicmart (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

What a splendid tribute this entry is to the ACLU. Nicmart (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Way too much reliance on Samuel Walker's history of the organization. Walker is a long-time prominent figure in (and fan of) the ACLU. Goodtablemanners (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Transgendered student

An editor changed text:

Original: "In 2021, the ACLU filed a brief in opposition to a teacher who refused to use a transgender student's preferred pronouns, and who attempted to use the student's name in all cases instead."

Changed to: "In 2021, the ACLU filed a brief, siding against a group of teachers who refused, in defiance of school district policy, to use the preferred pronouns of transgender students. The teachers had attempted to use the student's names in all cases instead, citing both their religious views and interpretations of biology as their reasons for doing so."

It is biased to explain the defense of the teacher(s) unless we explain the ACLU's position as well.

TFD (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

It's also oddly worded. Sciences such as biology are not subject to personal opinion or personal interpretation. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Transgendered students

An editor changed the following text, which I reverted, saying "Remove text as violation of neutral point of view. Please discuss on talk page before reverting."[9]:

Original: "In 2021, the ACLU filed a brief in opposition to a teacher who refused to use a transgender student's preferred pronouns, and who attempted to use the student's name in all cases instead."

Change: "In 2021, the ACLU filed a brief, siding against a group of teachers who refused, in defiance of school district policy, to use the preferred pronouns of transgender students. The teachers had attempted to use the student's names in all cases instead, citing both their religious views and interpretations of biology as their reasons for doing so."

It is tendentious to explain why someone has complained about a brief by the ACLU without also explaining why they filed it.

The source, Spiked, is questionable and the article used is written by a columnist[10] and therefore fails reliable sources per News organizations: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

TFD (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: please going forward at least try and stick to one section here ok. Tbh, I prefer it how it is more than either of the previous alternatives all things considered. While I have attempted to assume good faith in the course of this dispute-it seems something has gotten into TFD who has been acting with increasing irrationality. For starters-yes thank you I am well aware that "Spiked" is questionable-I am also aware of re the author. So my question is, why is it that YOU insist on repeatedly deleting my "better source needed tag"-which I put there only for you to delete it altogether no less than 3X. As I have repeatedly noted, even using the Spiked source, the content you insist on restoring conflicts with the facts contained in the article. In making this edit I wasn't trying to present or not present both sides I was attempting to better convey what actually was being described-but if you think the position of the ACLU needs to also be represented in better detail have it but please stop removing the BSN tag and restoring content that factually misrepresents the situation.
@OuroborosCobra: I agree! Imho the argument by the teachers is quite flawed as biology is not subject to personal interpretation-not to mention to an extent as to exempt a public educator from policies on how to talk to their students. However, I wasn't trying to defend or attack either side here but simply clean up that section of the article. Between TFD's unhinged approach to this topic and their absolute joke of a post on my talk page its pretty clear they weren't really paying any meaningful attention but just being aimlessly reactionary. OgamD218 (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Policy position clarification request

From the section on the ACLU's policy positions, the quote below does not make sense. The lead links to the article on education about sex, while the descriptive text instead discusses their position on single-gender schools - a completely different topic. Could it be that the points for sex education and single-sex education were mistakenly combined due to their similar names?

"Sex education – The ACLU opposes single-sex education options. It believes that single-sex education contributes to gender stereotyping and compares single-sex education to racial segregation." User:KiraLiz1 | she/her 15:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I made an edit to the article to include their position on sex education while moving the existing information on single-sex education to a new bullet. --User:KiraLiz1 | she/her 13:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Stop emphasizing Helen Keller in this article

Would editors please stop worshiping Helen Keller in this article? She had virtually NO ROLE at all, except that she sat on some committee when the ACLU was founded. Sure, there are a couple of sources that include her in a list of "Founders" But there is NO SOURCE that says she played any significant role at all in the founding process.

I used to remove references to her as a "founder". But I've given up on that, since it is a lost cause.

Today, I see she is listed FIRST among the founders. People: this is an encyclopedia ... if you want to promote her role in the ACLU, please find a source that said she played a significant role in the founding.

The book by Walker is the definitive history of the ACLU, and it only mentions Keller in passing ... I think in a single sentence, such as "she was on such and such a committee". Her contributions were nothing compared to Baldwin, Flynn, Eastman, etc who are mentioned scores or hundreds of times in Walkers book.

Noleander (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Colorado web site brief - Wikipedia:Recentism

Re recent edit to LGBTQ section adding Colorado web site case. This appears to be Wikipedia:Recentism. The case is not decided yet; and the single 2ndary source is not too significant. This ACLU article is a very top-level history of ACLU. If we want to add info about minor briefs as they are filed, perhaps a dedicated section on ACLU/LGBTQ should be created? Noleander (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I removed this fairly unimportant sentence from the article based on several factors: Source was not great; Wikipedia:Recentism; the brief was filed by a state affiliate, not the US HQ; no court decision reached; etc. Noleander (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The ACLU and the NSA may soon square off in the Supreme Court — over Wikipedia

Include in article?

National Security Agency and American Civil Liberties Union

The ACLU and the NSA may soon square off in the Supreme Court — over Wikipedia - The NSA and the scope of state secrets privilege may be in front of the Supreme Court next term. Source: https://www.grid.news/story/technology/2022/09/27/the-aclu-and-the-nsa-may-soon-square-off-in-the-supreme-court-over-wikipedia/ September 27, 2022

"The Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that runs Wikipedia, last month asked the (Supreme Court) to hear arguments on its lawsuit over the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international phone and email communications. The organization, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, has been fighting the NSA in court over such “upstream surveillance” for the past seven years." ... "Wikimedia contends that given this surveillance, it cannot ensure the confidentiality of the tens of millions of people who read, edit and communicate about Wikipedia, one of the largest repositories of human information to ever exist."

Aeryn Palmer, legal director of compliance at the Wikimedia Foundation, said...“When we think about what we might be collecting from anyone who visits the site, when we think about how we do research with our readers or with our contributors to better understand what sorts of features they might like to see and how they want the projects to evolve, we’re continually thinking about how we can best protect their privacy,”

May1787 (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://medium.com/acluelection2016
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Civil_Liberties_Union/Archive_5&oldid=1248598740"