Talk:American Civil Rights Union

Removal of content without secondary sources
Much of the article was based on primary sources in violation of WP:PRIMARY; this was also pointed out at the deletion discussion. I'll remove all those self-serving citations of their own website (plus an opinion piece) and leave the website only for their staff, which seems uncontroversial enough to use a primary source for. Huon (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the concern, and I agree that more content could and should be based on independent sources, but this is actually not a violation of WP:PRIMARY. Just because a source was written or published by the subject of the article doesn't make it a primary source. The relevant standard is WP:ABOUTSELF, and most of this content isn't particularly controversial. The appropriate fix is to replace the aboutself sources with independent sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Primary sources, per WP:PRIMARY, are "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event". How much closer to the ACRU and its activities could a source possibly be than their own website? How much more involved, more of an insider could an author be than the ACRU itself?
 * Much of this article was a list of how important and significant they are, based on their own writings. It's almost all about them filing amicus briefs, which is an activity that every Joe, Dick and Harry can do without invitation or having a formal role in the case at hand. Declaring them "successful" or "unsuccessful" depending on the outcome of a case to which they were not a party gives an outsize impression of their importance. We'd need a secondary source for each of those cases to assess the impact of that specific brief on a case argued by others. We'd need a secondary source to assess the significance of all that brief-writing on various issues in general.
 * Multiple editors at the AfD agreed that the large amount of content based on non-independent self-sources is problematic. I agree that replacing the sources with independent ones would be an appropriate fix; you're welcome to apply that fix. I don't have access to ProQuest which apparently is where many of the more useful sources can be found, so I can't do it myself. Until that fix has been applied, we're better off without the self-sourced content; the burden of evidence is on the editor who wants content included. Huon (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * We can argue about WP:PRIMARY, but it's not going to get us anywhere. More importantly, you are misunderstanding the burden of evidence. There is no question that the content is verifiable. The problem is that, as you point out, it's problematic to rely too heavily on aboutself content. Why? Because it often leads to non-neutral articles that are padded out with content that isn't sufficiently noteworthy to be encyclopedic. You may notice that there's already a third-party tag at the top of the article for this very reason. In these situations it hurts the article simply slash all material sourced to the organization's website. The goal is to decide which content is noteworthy and should stay (if any) and which content is not noteworthy and should go (if any). If there is no consensus on these decisions, then we retain the version before the dispute arose--and in this case, it means the content should stay. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you, in light of the quote from the policy, still say the ACRU's website is not a primary source about the ACRU? Otherwise we don't need to argue about that. WP:ABOUTSELF says: "[...] so long as: [...] 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources." Six out of seven sections of the article's prose, with 15 out of 19 references, are entirely based on the writings of ACRU and its leadership. I would call that "based primarily on such sources", do you disagree?
 * Verifiability is also arguable; as an obvious example, you re-added dubious content tagged as citation needed. Not giving their self-representation undue weight over what independent sources say about them is my main concern, however.
 * I haven't seen a policy-based reason for the inclusion, I haven't seen anybody but you argue for inclusion, and I've seen multiple editors at the deletion discussion agree that the self-sourced content is a problem. So there's pretty much of a consensus that it should be fixed. You're welcome to fix it by adding better references; in the meantime, I'll fix it by removing the problematic content. Do we need to do a request for comment first to determine that Wikipedia content shouldn't just regurgiate what the subject says about itself? Huon (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Whoa, now you're suggesting that I don't think the self sourcing is a problem? You know this doesn't have to be a battle, don't you? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Huon, your concern about the lack of "secondary sources" is not only way over-the-top (there are countless articles with nothing but primary sources on Wikipedia, often by the only people qualified to adequately describe the subject), but it more than betrays your dislike of the ACRU, which is obviously why you are even bothering. I have never before seen so much "attention" paid to this single aspect than I have here. You don't want to become known as petty or biased, or your goose on this site could get cooked. It's happened before, even to veteran editors who just could not see past their agenda (or whatever you prefer to call it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.178.149.234 (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2017‎
 * Let's try to refrain from engaging in personal attacks please and focus on edits, not editors. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have explained above, with links to the relevant policies, why this content is inappropriate. The only responses were a question on whether I'm suggesting something about Dr. Fleischman's opinions (answer: I didn't mean to suggest that Dr.Fleischman doesn't think the self-sourced content is a problem, though to me it seemed from the revert that Dr. Fleischman sees the presence of the self-sourced content as less of a problem than its absence) and some vague threats. None of that is a policy-based reason for the inclusion of that content. Thus I'll remove it once again. Huon (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you get consensus before removing this content. I have made some reasonable arguments for why the content should stay; if you think my arguments are unreasonable then it shouldn't be difficult for you to develop a consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Dr. Fleischman, sorry, I seem to have missed those arguments. You said, first, that the sources were not primary sources; you never confirmed whether you still hold that opinion in light of the quote from WP:PRIMARY. You also said the relevant standard is WP:ABOUTSELF, which I also presented a quote from that says the article should not be based primarily on such sources. You didn't reply to my question whether you consider six out of seven sections and 15 out of 19 references "primarily based on such sources". I don't think naming a policy without explaining how it agrees with your stance is a reasonable argument, but I'll gladly accept that I likely misunderstood something here and would ask you to explain your stance, and how it's supported by policy, more clearly. I'll try WP:3O in the meantime; if that fails, a RFC would probably be the way to go. In the meantime, I've reverted myself pending further discussion - I didn't mean to edit-war. Huon (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that you don't understand my arguments isn't a basis for rejecting them or for edit warring. All you really need to understand is that I oppose you deletions and your arguments haven't swayed me. I'm not saying that to be snarky or to stonewall; but it's just basic Wikipedia ground rules that have to be followed to enable us to have a constructive conversation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Now as to the substance, in case I wasn't clear, I do think there's an aboutself problem with this article. (You might have noticed that I was the one who added the third-party tag, and I also made a corresponding comment in the AfD.) But just because content violates policy doesn't mean it should be deleted outright, at least in the non-BLP context. Much of this content might be salvageable. In my view, someone ought to make a bona fide effort to find independent sources before this content is wholesale removed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I have undertaken that bona fide effort. I've summarized what secondary sources mention about their activities, retaining gay rights and gay marriage, First and Second Amendment issues including the most prominent cases, and part of the election law issue (including another part not previously mentioned). I found the ACRU's own website's claims of "success" rather unreliable since to them "success" doesn't necessarily imply winning a lawsuit they brought. They may well say so afterwards, but saying that they "successfully sued" would usually imply that the judge ruled in their favor, which at least in some of the cases didn't happen. I failed to find any independent sources mentioning their property rights/environmental protection efforts, so I had to conclude that that's not a major aspect of their agenda, as reported by secondary sources, and no big loss to our coverage of the ACRU. I also checked the books mentioned in the deletion discussion and found them rather unhelpful; two were mere passing mentions, and the third didn't say anything that we didn't already have sources for. Huon (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And I fixed the board membership issue Mr Knight points out in the Washington Times. Huon (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Heads up: This article, and alleged editing chicanery, is featured in a piece in today's Washington Times
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/29/wikipedia-makes-new-generation-lazy-on-research/ Marteau (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Added template to header (above). —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:70D9:EEEB:8B68:4665 (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The piece was over the top and inappropriate. The author clearly does not understand how Wikipedia works and didn't even take the effort to post a single comment on this talk page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Having seen mention of this article on Reddit, I drifted in and took a look at the controversy. I am opposed to Huon's deletion of primary-sourced material of presumed accuracy. I don't see what gutting the piece accomplishes short of bringing a bunch of attention to a fairly small organization. We're here to be complete and accurate for our readers, not Vogons on a political mission. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Where on Reddit? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Truthwins09
, as a Senior Fellow at the ACRU, you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing the article directly. Please propose your changes here so they can be discussed and incorporated as appropriate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)