Talk:American Legion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Cart before the Horse

Gays can't join even if honorably discharged? What? I have been a member for 15 years and never saw such a rule in the national rules nor the rules of the three posts I have belonged to.

Gays have no morals!

Read the Talk below, it's been a heated discussion. Surpised the American Legion themselves haven't updated this page properly. Comparing it to other pages it appears that this is a history of the organization than information about it. If this was a defunct organization this would be appropriate. I would dare say the history should be moved to it's own page. Then the page itself should resemble perhaps the Free Masons page, National Rifle Association page, Sons of the American Revolution page, etc. Regardless, a move is agreeable or not, this page does need work and I'll start collecting. I'll try to make a change before the month is out. If I have said something that upsets you, don't freak out, as it's been stated it's a collective effort and we definitely have some growing pains to attend to. AroostookGeorge 13:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Added the Organizational Structure which includes the Posts, Departments, and National Headquarters. I've got more to add pertaining things such as membership (eligibility), political campaigns/lobbying, various programs (Legion Baseball, Boys State/Nation, Junior Shooting Sports), the "Support the Troops" programs, and so on that I am still trying to hash out. It looks like the majority of criticism directed at the AL relates to it's aggressive political campaigns/lobbying, thus that section will have to contain a criticism subparagraph. I've been trying to widen the research base but it's been difficult via web since the legion has so many freaking Posts. AroostookGeorge 03:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to assist any way possible in the collective effort to update this page. I am a member/officer of the Sons of The American Legion ( program under the AL), and I may be of help. The AL has a lot of lingo and terms that are hard to decipher. I will look for a complete list of all AL programs. Although it does not say it directly in The AL Constitution, the organization exists to help veterans, veterans' causes, and the community. Campaigning and lobbying a part of what they do every day. I am not the biggest fan of The AL; it has pros and cons just like any other group. Let me know how I can be of help. Shooter of EGR 11:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boy Scouts of America

I am not too sure but I know that our local American Legion Post 127 Glendale, with the Boy Scouts of America, funds the Military Explorers Post 2127. Are there any other such posts? Hovru 03:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] american legion

The American Legion may indeed be a fine organization now (unless it truly does stand behind squelching U.S. citizens' right to protest the war in Iraq),

[Attacking protestors as wrong is not taking anybody's rights away. The Klan has a right to protest, but people have a right to condemn them too.]

but in the early 20th century, it was controlled by Big Business (members of which had started and financed it - these members, of course, were veterans themselves, but rich veterans) and its politically unsophisticated rank-and-file members were used as strikebreakers. The American Legion, like many organizations or companies, isn't black or white - it's a matter of gray; some good, some bad, depending on the time in question and the leadership. I'm sure that it is completely free of its fascistic outlook now that it had in, say, the 1930s. But, as alluded to above, it doesn't have a squeaky-clean history, and no serious-minded historian can dispute that.

[The "bad" about the organization simply isn't sourced decently. See:

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2005/12/wikipedia-american-legion.html

If the organization did want the Japanese interned, it was on the same side of the issue as Earl Warren and FDR. A key fact.]

To whoever disputes the Business Plot, it is very well supported by historical documentation. The McCormack-Dickstein Committee left behind 21 feet of documents that you can access in the National Archives pertaining to subversive activity in the U.S. in the 1930s; in there, you can find exhibits (bank books, letters, hotel register copies, etc.) and sworn, corroborated testimony that point to an intended fascist takeover of the U.S. Government. You can also read "A Man in His Time" by John L. Spivak, a reporter who was lucky enough to get a copy of the unabridged testimony about the Business Plot and printed it in the aforementioned book.

[I'm afraid that this "plot" were simply a hoax directed at Gen. Butler, a retired general who was a bit of a crackpot, but also quite honest. He was led to *believe* there was such a plot, but there is no independent evidence that it existed.]

Also, I believe from what I've read that Grayson Mallet-Prevost Murphy, not Irenee du Pont, was the original bankroller of the American Legion. Murphy himself was an Army colonel in World War I; I don't think Irenee du Pont was ever in the military, but on that last point, I'm not sure, but I do believe, as said above, that he wasn't the original Uncle Moneybags of the organization.

Forgive me I am very new at all of this Wikipedia stuff. In reference to The American Legion squelching individual rights to come out against war, it seems their Resolution 169 adopted Aug. 2005 would make interesting reading for all. Please see: http://www.legion.org/pdf/res169booklet.pdf I am a member and office holder in the Sons of The American Legion (a program under the guidance of the AL) and I cannot support this document. Shooter of EGR 11:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] this page needs

This page needs to be worked on in order to bring it up to wikipedia standards. More history of the organization is needed along with perhaps notable members, a list of it's leaders and it's current status.--Fluxaviator 00:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The Business Coup isn't well supported by historical documentation. There needs to be a qualifier indicating they may or may not have participated in a plot.

Added "According to congressional testomony" before the business plot line.--Fluxaviator 14:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

This page is deeply flawed and obviously the work of someone with an axe to grind. The references to the dubious Butler coup have nothing to do with the topic and should be deleted. I'd like to see a more balanced history of the organization.

[edit] Early support for fascism

Here are my sources for the quotes and info in the support for fascism section in this article.

1) Bingham, Alfred M. Insurgent America: Revolt of the Middle-Classes. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1935. 2) Holhut, Randolph T. The George Seldes Reader. Barricade Books, 1994. 3) Seldes, George. Facts and Fascism. New York: In Fact, 1943. --Fluxaviator 22:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[Seldes, unfortunately, was an extreme left-winger, and if these claims can't be supported from more mainstream work, or from primary sources, they should be dropped.]


This whole page is closer to being a diatribe against a very good organization which exists to protect its members, veterans of the US Military who served during wartime.

It is extremely slanted toward the political without a single mention of the good the organization does for its members.Jeff4 16:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome to add info about the good the organization does for its members, I would but am unfamiliar with the modern organization, as I am a history researcher. --Fluxaviator 19:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


That's BS and you know it. What you have put up here is the work of a political hack, and a legitiamte historical researcher would have had the COMPLETE story, not just the hatchet job you've posted here.

This page is so far off base it does not warrant being the main American Legion page.

I have complained to Wikipedia, and to the American Legion about this page.

I will vote and urge that it be taken down unless it remains here as the Anti-American Legion Page.

I do not contest what you've written, I contest what you have NOT written. What you have written does nothing toward describing the American Legion, but gives a Liberal-biased history of some evolutions in the history of the organization, none of which are relevant to the organization. In short, this page is nothing more than a liberal attempt to embarrass a fine organization, about which you have above stated, you know nothing.

What you've done is unsupportable.

I only added the sections about the 1930s and one statement from 2005. This is a collective work and yes it needs work. It would be helpful if you would add the info you say is mission rather then moving the page twice a day.--Fluxaviator 02:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

03/15/06---

As someone who's studied the AL from a labor perspective, the information here about their support for fascism is correct. Current supporters of the AL may not like this, but that hardly calls the history into dispute. There are authoritative works on 1920's and 30's US history, and this article, if short, conforms to them.

Placing this as 'in dispute' is deeply unfair. At some point, SOMEONE needs to read this, compare it to the work of contemporary historians, and make a judgement.

This article does lack information on the current organization, and that should be corrected. But none of the information here (despite complaints about the political views of the sources) is in dispute amongst academics. It seems those who wish to place this article in dispute simply wish that no one would discuss the past mistakes of their current organization.

Thomas Miles -MA, PhD, Modern European History, 1998, Columbia University, New York.

[edit] A return to fascism

http://www.legion.org/?section=pub_relations&subsection=pr_listreleases&content=pr_press_release&id=303

Added a few lines summarizing this AL vote calling for an end to protest against the war in Iraq etc.--Fluxaviator 14:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed the sub-section called A return to fascism (replaced it with protest suppression) as it is a POV and the AL has not expressed support for fascism since the 1930's that I am aware of. --Fluxaviator 19:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[Criticizing protestors isn't "suppression." It's "free speech" and the American Legion has as much right to engage in it as the protestors.]

Actually, influencing others not to speak is a form of speech suppression, by simple definition. The facts that it is also speech and that the AL has a right to engage in it does not negate this.

Wikipedia is not a blog. SO STOP BLOGGING. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 07:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article still needs alot of work

The article is only a start and need alot of work (officle logos, notable members, list of leaders, etc).

If users do not like the way it is written I encourage them to alter it, but DO NOT simply move it over and over to Anti-American Legion, as that is very unhelpful in creating a better and balanced page. --Fluxaviator 19:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


As it stands it does nothing toward defining the American Legion.

A legitimate historical researcher would have completed the job before posting this hatchet piece.

I will continue to move this page because Anti-American Legion is what this page is. The least you can do is be honest about it.

Again I did not start this page, nor did I write the bulk of it. Look in the history before making accusations and for the last time THIS IS A COLLECTIVE PROJECT you can change and alter what you do not like. I don't understand why you won't help create a better page. --Fluxaviator 02:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution

I would like to resolve this dispute and would be perfectly willing to work with you to add more information on the positive things the AL does. Once again I am requesting that you not move the page without at least trying to change the content with me. Please see wikipedia page Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes for ideas on how we can work this out. --Fluxaviator 02:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

if you like, a wiki disputed section tag be put on the page, find out more here [1].--Fluxaviator 05:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I've looked at this article and, really, this article seems to devote too much space to political affairs or, looking at it from the other direction, too little space to the Legion's work in veteran affairs. And I speak as a non-American, an opponent of the Iraq war, a liberal, etc. It's not a balanced article. I'm putting a NPOV tag on the article for now so that readers will know that we do care that it's essentially a political diatribe. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem if they add more of their work with veterans as long as their other more nefarious practices are kept. --Rakista 02:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, more info on the Legion's work in veteran affairs is needed. --Fluxaviator 08:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I added the 40's and 50's that I could research

It seems like information on this jingoist orginization is being distorted in favor of removing links to their racist fervor during and after World War II, particularly anti-Japanese sentiment. These aren't boy scouts and these aren't monsters like the SS, but they deserve to have criticism of policies they have supported in the past that are now seen to have been hateful and ignorant. I don't care if what they do in the 21st century is spectacularly civil what they did during and after World War II should not be blanked out of this Wikipedia article. --Rakista 09:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Rakista states, in part: "... they deserve to have criticism of policies they have supported in the past ...". It is worth remembering that while Wikipedia articles can note criticisms others have made, it is not the place to make critisisms. Saying an organization "deserves" something is clearly not NPOV. I would request that we all stick to reporting fact. Don't hide history, but don't make judgements on history, either. --DragonHawk 21:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
These criticisms are linked to in the article paragraph by paragraph and they are made by other peoples. What pissed me off is that much of this information was removed in edits long ago, without comment. Any organization that supported the imprisonment of peoples based on race needs to have a hearty dose of critical counterpoint to any of their more humanitarian of works or we will be giving carte blanche for people to pervert history as the rightful conquest of prejudicial people. At the very least admonishments should be made so that deception of their practices past or present are not over written with propoganda. --Rakista 20:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
It's not the editorial policy here to "admonish" anybody. As for "imprisoning people based on their race:" it appears the Legion supported the internment of the Japanese after it happened -- or at least the national organization did. Local chapters may have done so earlier, but it simply isn't kosher to make claims like this unless they are properly sourced. It's also absurdly misleading to say the Legion supported the internments without mentioning that Earl Warren and Franklin D. Roosevelt (and all but one member of his cabinet) did too.
I do not understand why it would be necessary to point out that Earl Warren or FDR also supported Japanese internment when discussing this organization unless it had some sort of direct influence on either of the two parties; or FDR and the Warren court somehow had influence over the American Legion group. If there was some sort of direct communication to this effect one way or the other, it should be cited appropriately within the article. I have poked around and it doesn't appear that any such documents exist, therefore it would be inappropriate to add the political views of these two parties. Perhaps this could be included in a seperate political climate section by time period?
Also, a simple statement pertaining to a summary of the policies supported by time period (however unpopular or popular they are by today's social standards) is acceptable and should not be deleted. -- Drsocc

[edit] Syntax/Grammar

I personally think the syntax used throughout this article is very awkward, if not completely incorrect.

Haizum 01:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I suggest you actually visit an AL post and see what it's all about. A Google search doesn't really cut it. Haizum 09:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Lacking a Legion post that I know of in my town, I would ask that you bring the information for the change, so that we can debate the content of the NPOV sections. Ecopirate 18:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The article is satisfactorily NPOV. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 07:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Calley defense fund

I've never edited a wikipedia entry before, so I'm not entirely sure what to do, but I think it might be worth adding that after William Calley was convicted for war crimes for his role commanding troops at My Lai (and killing villagers on his own), "[t]he American Legion announced plans that it would try to raise $100,000 for his appeal." http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/lai/verdict_12.html

[edit] Legion's role in the 1936 Orange County "Citrus War"

To the list of the Legion's role in various anti-labor actions of the 1920s and 1930s should be added the 1936 "Citrus War" in Orange County, California.

Also, the Legion's official support for the Iraq War--a decidedly controversial stance--should be noted. 24.130.109.207 21:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improving this article to bring it up to Wiki standards

I have begun improving the history section of this article with additional footnoted information. Please give me a hand in this. Note the format in the very first history section on the founding where you will see a footnote that automatically inserts itself at the bottom footnote section. The example is an online footnote. ASAP, I'll add a book-style footnote that others can imitate. How to footnote is not something that's intuitive on wikipedia which is why just following the example will help future editors.SimonATL 20:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added section on the Legion's Founding

No mention in earlier articles of the circumstances surrounding the founding nor the part played by LtCol Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., in the birth of the organization. SimonATL 18:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV issues

I question how balanced it is to weigh the article so heavily towards a catalog of the Legion's position on contemporary political issues. The introductory paragraphs should summarize more of the Legion's history and the broader function it plays in society, and local communities in particular through its outposts. I'll leave this up to those more familiar with the subject—I just wanted to draw attention to these issues. BTW, I am neither a veteran nor a sympathizer with any of the views attributed to the Legion. Postdlf 20:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


Whoever edits the post. Allow me to opine. As an ex-American Legion member I hereby proclaim from personal experience that the majority of AL members I met were brainwashed sheep with minimal education with a tendency to spew knee-jerk rhetoric with little to no knowledge to back up their babbling. Hate me if you want, that was and is my opinion about many, but not all, AL members at the several Legion halls I visited. After several years I left the organization. Though not a threat to freedom, organizations such as the AL scare me. Not enough time to go into detail. I merely want this opinion here to assist whoever edits the main post. Yes, write fairly and equitably but please be aware that in my opinion there IS a dark side (Luke.....) to the organization. Obbop

The article is satisfactorily NPOV. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 07:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, It looks like many of the issues from earlier have been dealt with. What does it take to remove the POV banner? AroostookGeorge 18:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Until the organization is deemed fascist, there will be ediors that will cry POV. /polemics --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
As Obbop stated, there is a "dark side". The AL did support Fascism (The Italian Party) in its early days. The Italian Fascists were anti-Communist/Socialist and thus anti-labor union (which tended to be a Communist/Socialist base). Of course they turned out to be a horrible, if not just as bad, alternate. But since it's mentioned in the history section I don't see how it applies to the organization today? AroostookGeorge 18:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/m/e/Talk%7EAmerican_Legion_2a3b.html"