Talk:American Civil Liberties Union/Archive 5

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'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. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'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

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

The LEAD clock in at 1850 for one of the largest GAC candidates conceivable. I have not read the subsequent text, but every section should be summarized in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I would expect this lead to be in the 3000-3200 character range for any article exceeding the normal 50-60KB upper bound. Thus, more content should be included here while keeping the organization to 4 paragraphs or less.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

~~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)

~~The fourth paragraph should be merged or expanded.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:47, 30 January 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

~~In each case, the sentence-opening phrase "In YYYY" should be followed by a comma.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Done --Noleander (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Funding

~~Please link important foundations.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Done --Noleander (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

~~We need to think about WP:SPLIT for an article of this length and specific cases toward the end of this section are examples of detail that might be moved to a less general article.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
~~It seems to me that in this section, you should discuss the member ship dues of the 500,000 members.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:47, 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

~~Can you make this section chronological so that 1918 precedes 1919.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Done --Noleander (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Free speech era

~~would continue s/b continued, I believe.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Done --Noleander (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Free speech

~~Reorganize this section without subsections. Each subsection is really stubby and it is bloating the TOC.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

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

~~Merge or expand paragraphs.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Done --Noleander (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

~~Please explain "reform police departments". I don't understand what was reformed.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:02, 4 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

~~is there a case associated with The Fight for Life.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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

~~link flag day.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)