Wikipedia:Peer review/American Civil Liberties Union/archive1
American Civil Liberties Union[edit]
First Section[edit]
The second 'sourced' claim on the page deals with a local state chapter. There could be more clarification on the relationship between state and national ACLU, and I think the term 'political activism' is somewhat loaded without clarification. Also, on an unrelated note, which I put on A. Romero's talk page, there doesn't seem to be any mention of the conflict over Romero's memo suggesting less dissention from within the organization.
Yes, I agree about the sourced claim and the political activism suggestions you have left. I am just startingt to get around to things like that. As for the Romero note, this page isnt half enough organized to have a place to put that yet. Once the organization part of the article gets fleshed out it certainly deserves a spot. Feel free to put it in at your discretion. Thanks. Jasper23 17:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Criticism and Controversial Stances Sections[edit]
This is also posted at the bottom of the talk page...please respond there. Thanks
Hey everyone, I would like to makes some structural changes to the page and want some feedback from the community. I would like to pretty much merge most of the critic section into the newly expanded section on controversial stances. I think this would make the page much more encyclopedic and a much more informative read. This would also tie the whole article together (history, position sections) and give the article more of a narrative feel. How do people feel about this? Jasper23 17:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
End Section[edit]
The whole 'critics of the ACLU' section needs attention. The article is on the ACLU, not every half baked and farfetched objection to the ACLU. These can be condensed into summaries, and some will need to be deleted.
Many of the criticisms are factually incorrect and not supported by documentation, and anti ACLU editors keep adding them back in.
Examples:
One estimate of the ACLU's total collection of court awarded damages, made by the Center for Reclaiming America for Christ, is approximately $9.5 million. [1]. The article makes no claim of 9.5 Million dollars, and 6 Million of it is not documented but is the hazy claim $6,000,000 = American taxpayers.The ACLU, along with other pro-abortion organizations, have shared in court awards estimated to be worth roughly six million dollars following the Supreme Court’s decision in which they declared the Nebraska partial birth abortion ban unconstitutional. Reportedly, these lawsuits affected thirty states.
No documentation to support this claim.
The 1980 Polovchak v. Meese case is also sometimes considered evidence of liberal sympathies on the part of the ACLU. Walter Polovchak was a 12-year-old from Ukraine (at that time part of the Soviet Union) visiting the United States with his parents. When his parents were returning to Ukraine, he tried to stay in the U.S. and claim political asylum against the wishes of his parents. The ACLU attempted to block him from doing so. In 1999 the Florida chapter of the ACLU referred to the ACLU's role in the Polovchak case in their brief for the Elián González case.
The is urban legend. I asked for documentation, and none was provided. What some anti ACLU zealots consider to be 'evidence of liberal sympathies' deserves no place in the article if it can't be documented and sourced. NBGPWS 20:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I added into the body of the article (after 'separation of church and state'):
- Religious Liberty: Defends the individual right of Americans of all religions to practice and/or display affirmations of their faith in public and in the workplace. [2][3] [4] [5]
with 4 sources documenting it. Anti ACLU editors - specifically Scribner - keep deleting it.
NBGPWS 20:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- All changes with the exception of the Polovchak v. Meese have been discussed at length and will be reverted, as always see the talk page(s).--Scribner 20:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Document the bogus 9.5 Million dollar claim - HERE. NBGPWS 20:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
MODEL FOR THE CRITICISM SECTION
As another editor on an archived talk page concluded:
"I'm concerned that an article that is supposed to be about the aclu it is more or less dominated by what its criticis think. this in itself does not seem fair to me. I want there to be a solid criticism section, but i don't understand why over half of the article is about things people how disagree with the aclu say."
The NRA and ACLU are both polarizing NGO's with almost the exact same approval / disapproval ratings:
"The main findings of (this) survey include:
The National Rifle Association (NRA) - 48% trust the NRA while 52 percent do not trust them.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) - 49 percent trust the ACLU compared to 51 percent who do not trust them.
The Harris Poll #91, December 16, 2005'"'
The following is the extent of criticism from 'the Left' in the Wiki NRA article:
-Criticism-
From the Gun-prohibition Camp.
The NRA is criticized by gun control groups such as the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Brady Campaign, Million Mom March, and Americans for Gun Safety. A variety of newspaper editorial boards, including the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today, frequently disagree with the NRA's policies, such as in September of 2004, when they called for the extension of the assault weapons ban; in general, criticism of the NRA is higher in urban areas than rural areas. These groups tend to point to instances of gun violence, claiming that they could have been prevented through legislation.
One could find dozens of anti-NRA quotes and claims from prominent Liberals, politicians, and groups opposed to the NRA. Michael Moore's quotes, claims and opinions could form an entire section of several paragraphs - but the article is about the NRA, not those opposed to the NRA. The next section on criticism from the Right should be pared down.
The section of criticism of the NRA from 'the Left' should be the model for the ACLU article. What Michael Medved, Bill O'Reilly or any other windbag thinks about the NRA is not germaine to the article. What Samuel Alito thinks might be. NBGPWS 22:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)