Talk:American Civil Liberties Union/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] New Link

There was a new link added: The ACLU: Malignant – And Growing, by Pat Boone. There are very few links in the External Links section, and most are to organizations, not news articles. Should anything important be summarized in the criticism section, and the link turned into a cite and deleted from here? It's incorrect in saying that "We don't make up 1 percent of the American public, but we demand you do as we say!" as non-Judeo-Christians make up 20% of America's population (see Demographics_of_United_States#Religious_affiliation.)--Prosfilaes 05:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is just User:SafeLibraries.org grinding his continual and self-promoting anti-ACLU agenda. I think that link should be tossed.
Atlant 13:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable cases: NSA-related cases

I modified the section on the NSA cases. The way it was previously written was confusing -- ACLU v. NSA is only one case (the Michigan case which was decided on 8/17), while there are several other, separate cases against the telecommunications companies. I tried to clarify it and expand upon it a bit. --Sjrnyc 19:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The notable cases could do with some structuring at some point, I think; either ordering historically, or thematically, in sections... Sdedeo (tips) 20:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeb Bush/CAIR

Removed the following: "On the other hand, a number of conservative figures, included Republican Governor Jeb Bush in 2005, have praised CAIR's work for "protection of civil rights and freedom of religion" [1]."

The quote is a general defense of CAIR. It isn't a claim that the ACLU was right to hire someone from CAIR, and as such, is not really a response to the criticism of the ACLU. Putting the quote in is like saying "The ACLU has been criticized by conservatives for favoring the Soviet Union. However, some conservatives have praised the Soviet Union for..."

Even if this gets replaced by a quote that defends the ACLU specifically, just about every criticism will be disputed by one or two people on the same side. So the fact that one conservative disagrees is uninteresting unless it's used as an example of disagreement shared by a significant number of them. Is there some reason to believe that the disagreement is shared by a significant number of conservatives? Ken Arromdee 00:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I felt that the Jeb Bush remark was important because it showed that important conservatives do not consider association with CAIR to be a bad thing.
It shows that *an* important conservative doesn't consider association with CAIR to be a bad thing. Do you have some reason to believe that there is a significant number? Ken Arromdee 15:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Further, there's a POV issue -- in this brief paragraph we only discuss how evil CAIR is -- and I felt that adding that single sentence showed that the issue was more complex than believed. What do you think? Sdedeo (tips) 00:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The same could be said about criticism of the ACLU's support of evolution. Do we need to include quotes by some prominent conservatives who favor evolution? (but don't even mention the ACLU in the quote)
"The ACLU has been criticized for X" is not a POV issue, even if we fail to accompany it by opposing viewpoints stating that X is not worthy of criticism. Ken Arromdee 15:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The basic story of CAIR is that it is a mainstream organization that most national politicans treat with respect, but that a few conservatives, mostly associated with Daniel Pipes, have a longstanding feud with. I think putting a single sentence in to address that (e.g., to show that claims of ACLU hanging out with people who have "terrorist ties" should be taken with a large grain of salt) is important. Sdedeo (tips) 17:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three minor edits

I added:

  • Religious Liberty: Fights for the right of Americans of all religions to practice and/or display affirmations of their faith in public, school, and workplace. [2]

and made a minor change of the wording in the gun laws section to:

"Regarding gun control laws, the official policy of the national ACLU mirrors that of the 1939 Supreme Court decision U.S. vs. Miller which agrees that the Second Amendment is "intended mainly...."

NBGPWS 22:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the hotlink to a commerical site selling the book "ACLU vs America" under WP "Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services" the link to the article on the Alliance Defense Fund is still there. If somone can find a link to an article that summarizes the book's arguments, but does not offer the book for sale, that could probably be substituted. NBGPWS 23:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong on all three accounts.--Scribner 02:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The ACLU fights for separation of church and state, (per policy), in public and schools in particular. The statement by the ACLU is a lie.--Scribner 03:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding the Second Amendment, let's go with the current Chief Justice Robert's statement:
"I know the Miller case side-stepped that issue. An argument was made back in 1939 that this provides only a collective right. And the court didn't address that. They said, instead, that the firearm at issue there -- I think it was a sawed-off shotgun -- is not the type of weapon protected under the militia aspect of the Second Amendment.
So people try to read the tea leaves about Miller and what would come out on this issue. But that's still very much an open issue."
  • The "ACLU vs America" has been in the article for quite a while--it does provide valid information and is worthy of a cite.--Scribner 16:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
The ACLU's page documenting court cases where they fought for religious liberties is a lie??? LOL! The ACLU has a long history of fighting for relgious liberties. The page I linked to documents them - it's going back in.
Here are three links proving you wrong One Two Three
ACLU vs America link is coming OUT - It's a site selling a book. See the WP I quoted. If you find a synopsis, feel free to link to it. NBGPWS 04:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The ACLU does not, "defend the rights of Americans of all religions to practice and/or display affirmations of their faith in public, school, and workplace." That would in fact be a violation of church and state. This is a lie. Don't waste our time.
Concerning the "ACLU vs America", most of wiki's cites ask for contributions or subscriptions, this is no different. The link provides good information.
The link's been up a while--I looked at as suspect as you are now. The cite provides information pertinent to this article. The link is valid.--Scribner 05:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll be adding the Religious Liberties section back in with even more documentation, as soon as 24 hours pass, and we will also address the other inaccuracies and POV pushing in this article.
1) Please document the ACLU's participation in Polovchak v. Meese from a VERIFIABLE RELIABLE NPOV source. What is written here is urban legend plus disinfo and half truths perpetuated by the far right.
It's coming out next.NBGPWS 05:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Add or change any section as you see fit whenever you like. I'm not familiar with the Polovchak v. Meese case. I guess I will be. The Religious Liberties section will be pulled as presented. More cites would help you're statement.--Scribner 06:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The ACLU has been awarded $9,500,000.00 fighting to uphold church and state issues. The Time link specifies, "after school". You do not. Your edit is POV and dishonest as it's currently written.--Scribner 01:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I added Religious Liberty back in without school or campus. You should have NO problem with the info now.I dispute your claim of 9.5 Million Dollars award for settlements in 'church and state' lawsuits. Prove it. NBGPWS 05:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
You need to read the article. Here's the Court awarded attorney's fees you dispute.
Read this section: "Separation of church and state; under this mandate, the ACLU:
"Opposes the government-sponsored display of religious symbols on public property;"
On the ACLU's position of religious freedoms, why not quote the ACLU verbatim and link to that quote? (If it's not covered in the article.)--Scribner 15:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Critics of the ACLU section

This whole 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.

Stoptheaclu.org contains:

"Here is how you can pray for the Stop the ACLU Coalition. Consider praying for 15 minutes a day to pray for any or all of the following requests. The battle begins and ends with prayer."

"Pray for confusion and division in the ranks of the ACLU. Pray that they will be unable to make reasoned cases in their litigation and that their legal arguments will fall flat in court".

This is not a site that confirms to WP to use as a valid source for any scholarly criticism. It's coming out, except as an external link.

The whole gun rights section needs to be pared down to a couple sentences. The ACLU believes that the "Second Amendment applies to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, and that "except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected." That's what they believe - so it's specious to argue that they are inconsistent in their defense of civil rights - they don't BELIEVE unlimited personal ownership of guns is a civil right.

More to come. NBGPWS 10:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see you're embroiled in controversy on the Protest Warrior article. I also see that you removed information hidden in another edit on this article. Don't pull that stunt again. Extensive discussion regarding those facts is located on page 2 of the ACLU talk archives. Edit at will but do so in good faith.--Scribner 18:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

'Hidden'??? LOL! I talked about my justification in the paragraph above. Nothing 'hidden' about it. AGF and don't be so accusatory or you will have trouble. NBGPWS 19:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

All three (four?) of your "minor edits" have been discussed on the archived talk pages. If you require assistance finding the pages, then I will help you.--Scribner 19:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the ACLU's stance on abortion? I am horrified that this organization claims that tried, convicted and guilty inmates have more 'civil rights' than those of the unborn that are mercilessly slaughtered at the hands of thousands of murderer 'doctors'. Is that not a controversial stance? I can tell you, half, if not more, of the U.S. population disagrees that it is a woman's right to murder her unborn child. Don't give me that abort garbage. You abort a command, you abort an action, you murder a human. I think that this issue needs to be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.52.142.3 (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There are other places where you can take up that issue. Wikipedia isn't one of them. RJaguar3 | u | t 06:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is full of unsubstantiated material....

It needs a peer review...I am going to start going through and taking out unsourced, nnpov and other materials of that type. Cheers. Jasper23 20:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I submitted it for peer review, but not sure if I did it right. Please check. I asked Scribner to document the following. He refused:
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. [3]. 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.
The article does not say 9.5 Million - that's OR. Plus, it's factually incorrect. No documentation to support this claim of $6 Million - and we have no idea if the ACLU received 1% of this 'alleged' 6 Million Dollars, or 99%. This info does not belong in the article.
NBGPWS 20:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you and Sribner's edit war caught my eye. I am going to work through the article from bottom to top and pull out unsourced or irrelevant material. I will check on what you posted. I did, you are absolutely correct. This wont be going back in the article unless it is sourced. Jasper23 20:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jasper. Can you check to see if I did everything correctly in submitting the article for Peer Review? It would be good to get numerous editors of all political persuasions who KNOW WP to edit this article. NBGPWS 20:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you have properly submitted the request but I wish you would have made the request in a less combatitive manner. I understand that edit wars can be frustrating but from now on lets try to not let things get us angry. It makes it alot easier to change an article for the better when everyone is calm. But asking for peer review was the right thing to do. Cheers. Jasper23 21:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I smell a sock.--Scribner 20:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Do some research before accusing people of silly things. Fist time I have been called a sock though. Jasper23 21:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
You and your sock need to start using spellcheck. Reckless editing on your part. Total disregard for other editor's work.--Scribner 21:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Notice to Scribner - Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. NBGPWS 23:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop insulting me. If you think I am a sockpuppet please report me to the administrators. I have no regard for pov, original research and uncited material. I could also use help with my spelling. Thanks Jasper23 21:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You've provided evidence against yourself with your inability to spell and ignorance of talk page formatting. Concerning the edits, you removed cited materials, disregarded the history of the talk page and the work of other editors. You included lies, cited with irrelevant articles and a personal website. Your checkuser's coming, for what it's worth. I'll revert your edits in 24 hours. If facts feel like insults to you maybe it's time for you grow some thick skin or leave, best wishes.--Scribner 22:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Notice to Scribner - Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. NBGPWS 23:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Note on content; slapping a standard template on the page like this is hostile, and dropping it twice in close proximety in time and space merely bloats the page is not productive at all.--Prosfilaes 23:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong. It is the correct way to deal with personal attacks, and is actually required before someone's actions can be reported on the NPA notice board. NBGPWS 00:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
An uncited and dubious statement. I've never before seen those templates used an article talk page; I've only seen them go on a user page. I can't imagine why anyone would think adding redundant didactic text to a talk page is the right way to go about things.--Prosfilaes 06:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Scribner - Who are you accusing of being a sock puppet? Are you alleging that jasper23 and I are the same person? Have you filed a check user? I don't see one. I suggest you stop insulting other editors, Scribner NBGPWS 23:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I've been working. The checkuser is coming tonight.--Scribner 00:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
If you are wrong, will you apologize? Also, why would you ask other editors to leave the project? That is not a very nice way to treat other people. Hope you cheer up soon. Jasper23 01:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess we will never be on good terms. Please try to be civil in all future correspondence. I will try to avoid contact to make that easier. Thanks, and no hard feelings. Jasper23 04:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Jasper23, --removed personal attack--. Your arrogance with other editors here and ignorance toward the article are overwhelming. Take care.--Scribner 05:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Please no more personal attacks. I would ask you in the name of civility to delete your personal attacks toward me. Thank you.

[edit] quick note

Hi all -- I'm leaving wikipedia; since I've been involved with editing and expanding the ACLU article for more than a year, I wanted to wish everyone luck. Sorry to see that this section:

The ACLU receives funding from a large number of sources. The distribution and amount of funding for each chapter varies from state to state. To take one particular example, the ACLU of New Jersey reported $1.2 million in income to both the ACLU-NJ and its affiliated tax-exempt foundation in the 2005 fiscal year. Of that income, 46% came from contributions, 19% came from membership dues, 18% came from court awarded attorney fees, 12% came from grants, 4% came from investment income and the remainder from other sources. Its expenses in the same period were $800,000, of which 12% went to administration and management. Smaller chapters with fewer resources, such as that in Nebraska, receive subsidies from the national ACLU [27].

has been deleted. It's taken from the annual reports that every ACLU member gets mailed (I was in NJ at the time, so that's the report I got) and that are available in public libraries. This kind of behavior -- the arrogant and casual disregard for other editors' work, and the refusal to WP:AGF, as well as FUTON bias, are some of the reasons I decided to leave the project. Sdedeo (tips) 21:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a national organization and the cited materials are from New Jersey and Nebraska. Your first reponse to my deletion of the material is that you are leaving wikipedia? If you are leaving over that....you need to grow some thicker skin. But I do wish you the best of luck in whatever you decide to do. Jasper23 21:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I must correct Jasper's misunderstanding here: the ACLU has a national organization, but the majority of the work is carried out by independent chapters, who each make their own financial report. The fashion in which someone with only the vaguest understanding of how the ACLU functions feels happy making massive edits to a technical subsection is an example of wikipedia's main weakness. Sdedeo (tips) 23:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I would guess that he is not leaving in response to your specific edit, but by repeated edits by the Anti ACLU zealots pushing their POV on this article. It had become a repository for every anti ACLU claim and screed, no matter how ridiculous. To include the results of an anti ACLU acronym naming contest on an obscure ACLU-hate site is just one example of edits that were beyond the pale. Imagine if somone opposed to President Bush tried to include all the derogatory nicknames he's called! In the 2 or 3 days I've been active here, I had my well sourced and documented "religious liberties" contribution deleted, using different fallacious arguments, numerous times. This prompted my less than amicable reaction, and I expect similar actions lead to Sdedeo's decision to leave as well. After we come up with a good article, with thoughtful, well documented contributions from both those who oppose and support the ACLU, I will seek to have the article protected - to prevent the sort of bad faith editing - which constitutes nothing more than vandalism - I've witnessed here in the last daysNBGPWS 22:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, good luck. "Protecting" the article in the fashion you suggest will not be approved, as it's against the "wikiphilosophy" -- articles are only protected in response to a particular edit war. I have been watching this page for over a year; on average, the page is hit perhaps three times a week with edits by people whose understanding of the organization, to put it mildly, is tenuous at best. Sdedeo (tips) 23:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop insulting me. I would have replied to you earlier but you erased your own comments saying that you didnt want to get pulled back in. The finance section needs a proper rightup, not examples. You could have put those back in and I dont think anyone would have stopped you. I know I wouldnt have. I didnt know that new jersey aclu financial statements were such a sensitive issue for you. If I had known I wouldnt have touched them. But please stop with the insults. I have not treated you in such a manner. Thanks. Jasper23 01:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revisions and gutting....

Sometimes an article is so unsourced, pov and full of original research it needs to be drastically changed. That is what I have started to do with this article. I gave forwarning and left edit statements for the majority of my edits. The vast majority of my edits were removing pov,unsourced and original research. If you wish to revert something that I have done, do it on a case by case basis. I am trying to improve this article by giving it some standards. I am acting in good faith and I hope that all other editors will do the same. Jasper23 01:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You are not acting in good faith. I've requested you and NBGPWS reference the talk pages. You both have failed to do so. You've gutted the work of previous editors with total disregard for any history on the talk pages. It's just short of vandalism. You don't WP:OWN this article and your disruption and warring isn't appreciated. You've been uncooperative and accusitory with three editors who have actually worked on this article.--Scribner 02:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I studied the archived talk pages extensively, and the conclusions there do not support your positions.NBGPWS 04:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Uncooperative and accusatory? What a strange thing to say. What do you want me to reference on the talk page? The unsourced and uncited material in the article? The large amounts of original research? The heavy pov from both sides that permeate this article? I am nowhere near vandalism. I cant believe that you can just sit there and let this article languish in its horrible current form. Why havent others been removing the unsourced and pov material. I think some people have been trying to stop them. Let me remind you that you also don't WP:OWN this article. So where would you like to go from here? Jasper23 02:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


Now I want to apologize. That last full page revert was an accident. I dont know how that happened but I am having trouble with my internet connection. I am not trying to start an edit war. Thanks. Jasper23 02:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you try {{fact}} tags? And according to the edit tags, you removed many items on the ground that they were irrelevant, not that they were unsourced or POV. Making a huge number of deletions for a wide variety of reasons makes it very hard to review each deletion seperately.--Prosfilaes 06:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for overdoing the revisions. I realize that I should have used a much slower approach. I promise to take that into account in the future. Jasper23 07:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scribner....

Why did you break the 3rr rule and revert for a fourth or possibly fifth time? I did not ask you to revert the page. This is after I apologized. Please act in a civil manner in the future. Jasper23 02:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it to one of your earlier edits, Jasper23. Scribner is now vandalizing the article. NBGPWS 03:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you NBGPWS. I suggest that we all take a step back and try again. I will say that I am sorry that I made so many edits at one time. To some, it may have looked like I was trying to destroy what they had worked so hard on. For that, I do apologize. I hope that we can all start over tomorrow and try to work together to make this a better article. Lets forget about the past and try to start over with a clean slate. Thanks. Jasper23 03:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
You may wish to step back, I don't. The only one I can see not acting honestly or in good faith is Scribner. He says to refer to archives of the talk pages, where there is NOTHING there to bolster his arguments. Polovchak v Meese was not decided there. It is urban legend. To argue that the ACLU fought to return a child to the USSR is as specious as arguing that the ACLU fought for the right of men to have sex with boys in the NAMBLA case. Their involvement was over due process and the mechanics of the case, not the eventual outcome. NBGPWS 03:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Scribner asks that we refer to the archives of the talk pages for guidance. I will present some of the conclusions from the archives here.

  • 1) "I removed the paragraph about Bill O'Reilly as it provides no concrete information whatsoever and is borderline irrelevent in that he is a just a present-day TV/talk show host."
  • 2) "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."
  • 3) "In general, you appear to not understand that Wikipedia is not a collection of essays, and editorial opinions are not appropriate for inclusion. Overall, it is very obvious that you are PoV-pushing and more interested in writing editorial essays than encyclopedia entries."
  • 4)"I think I'd make reference to the fact that the ACLU defends all religions, with the inclusion of a couple of Christian cases, instead of moving the references you mention.--Scribner 22:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)" Scribner actually argued FOR inclusion of the info he repeatedly deleted in my subsection 'religious liberty'!!!

NBGPWS 03:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Prosfilaes last revert is another attempt by POV pushers to undue the careful NPOV editing and documented research by Jasper and others. For Prosfilaes to add back in bogus material like the disproved 9.5 Million dollar claim is absolutely unacceptable. NBGPWS 09:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling me a POV pusher is a personal attack, NBGPWS. "AGF and don't be so accusatory or you will have trouble" is about as hypocritical and hostile a statement I can imagine. I didn't add in any claims; I reverted to an older version of the page that didn't have a vast field of deletions. It's very hard to judge a set of changes this large at once, which is why the {{fact}} template is used on uncited items, so people can cite them or disagree with the need for citation there, and why POV issues are discussed on the webpage. Glancing at the differences, I see many changes that I would dispute one at a time. For example, the ACLU is not a libertarian organization...--Prosfilaes 09:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
You added back in lots of POV material and a bogus claim that had been dispproved. 'The Center for Reclaiming America for Christ' / 'Coral Ridge Ministries' Coral Ridge / Center for Reclaiming.. is not an WP:RS acceptable source for ANY claims about the ACLU, and will not be accepted as such. see for acceptable sources NBGPWS 10:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
"However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it,..." "neither political affiliation nor religious belief are in themselves reasons not to use a source." That page is well-sourced and seems accurate, and I see no reason why WP:RS would ban it. I see no evidence that it has been disproved, as opposed to merely disliked and questioned by you. If it were disproved, then we might have a better source stating how much the ACLU was being awarded in court cases.
Your edit removes several pieces of text that help make the text flow and be readable; it removes the whole concept of feminist critics (which strikes me as a bit POV) and describes the ACLU as a libertarian organization, which is at best a highly controversial statement.--Prosfilaes 10:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I already disproved the 9.5 Million. That page is from an 'extemist' org. No info from that source will be permitted NBGPWS 14:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
It might help if you provided a link to your disproof. You do not have the right to state unilaterally that that source is to be banned.--Prosfilaes 14:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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. [4]. 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.

The article does not say 9.5 Million - that's OR. Plus, it's factually incorrect. No documentation to support this claim of $6 Million - and we have no idea if the ACLU received 1% of this 'alleged' 6 Million Dollars, or 99%. Extremist org. Not WP:RS. This info does not staying in the article.NBGPWS 14:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not a link. It still provides well-cited sources to back up millions; to remove that fact is simply WP:POV (see the link!).--Prosfilaes 14:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong. The article (Not WPRS anyway) does not add the awards together. Individual chapters won monetary awards. 'ACLU National' did not win the awards. To add chapter awards together is WP:OR. NBGPWS 21:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Court awarded attorney's fees

Discussion of this section can be found on page 2 of the talk archives. There isn't just one cite, there are 22 cites, listed on the "Reclaiming Christ..." cite. Sdedeo and I went over all of this months ago. The 22 cites are valid and verifiable.--Scribner 12:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see a few with link rot. Each of these cites can be listed separately if the issue if pressed. Several of the cites are to ACLU pages, news sources such as NPR and local newspapers so they're verifiable sources. I don't see a problem with the $9.5 million figure, (that's a modest estimate).--Scribner 13:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS continues to revert these 22 links without dissusion. So, I'll add them individually.--Scribner 14:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Not a valid source. Not documented. Extremist organization.
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. [5]. 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.
The article does not say 9.5 Million - that's OR. Plus, it's factually incorrect. No documentation to support this claim of $6 Million - and we have no idea if the ACLU received 1% of this 'alleged' 6 Million Dollars, or 99%. This info is not staying in the article. Nothing from this extremist org is.
NBGPWS 14:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The links are to the ACLU, the NPR and various local newspapers, so the 22 cites will be added separately. The $6 million I'll leave out for now because it is, "reportedly 6 million."--Scribner 14:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure, document each and every one. Using WP;RS. Nebraska was overturned. Other were appealed. Using phrase 'total collection' is fallacious. Adding all the Kentucky 'awards' together is OR, even if you could use the article. You can't. It's from an extremist org. NBGPWS 14:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
um guys. NBGPWS is totally right. I dont even know what you guys are trying to argue. You two are doing original research and skewing the facts. I want you to cite the totals and not just provide a link to an article that says nothing of the matter. Since this is what started the revert war, lets move it to the talk page and discuss. Would mediation be agreeable to you two? Please just think about it. Jasper23 16:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
As I proved above - The article (Not WP:RS anyway) does not add the awards together. Individual chapters won monetary awards. 'ACLU National' did not win the awards. To add chapter awards together is WP:OR. NBGPWS 21:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarian organization

I believe that the ACLU can be classified as a libertarian organization. One that has a focus on civil liberties. Here is one of the places where I got the idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_libertarian But really, this is a very trivial edit compared to alot of the unsourced and really pov stuff I took out. Lets talk about this more tomorrow. Jasper23 11:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see anything that was really POV that was taken out. They were facts and properly sourced opinions. How much criticism is in the article is certainly debatable, but it's not really POV.--Prosfilaes 11:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, half of the article is unsourced. Seriously, look at the actual sources. Some of them arent even news sources. Others have no connection with the material they are supposed to cite. Maybe a good half of the things I took out have no source at all. On top of that alot of the actual writing doesnt make any sense at all. We will go through it edit by edit in the near future. I have tons of patience. Cheers. Jasper23 12:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
"Civil libertarian" is not the same thing as "libertarian". Ken Arromdee 14:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Your point is? Are you saying civil libertarians arent libertarians? Jasper23 15:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Not in the same sense that the members of the Libertarian party is. Using libertarian in the sense of "lovers of liberty" is perhaps legit, it's an unusual usage, and using it without defining it is confusing. Using it in the form of "While the ACLU is a libertarian organization and has defended the US Libertarian Party in some past cases", at first glance, makes me feel like the author is being deliberately disingenuous; it's a lot like saying "while the Republican Party claims to support democracy, it opposes the Democratic Party."--Prosfilaes 15:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


I actually do feel more or less the same way you do about that sentence. I wonder what the authors original intent was. Anyway, I dont think your analogy quite holds up because libertarianism is the philosophy before it is the party, if you get my drift. The libertarian party of the united states is not the standard bearer of libertarian though throughout the world. So, lets leave the sentence, as is, for now and eventually work out a compromise. I want the weasel words removed, but I think you are right that we shouldnt classify the aclu as a libertarian organization. How do you feel about that? Jasper23 16:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Compromise to what? Our task is not to "classify the ACLU."--Scribner 17:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Thats what I just said. I want the weasel words removed and nothing more. I have already stated that this bit of disagreement (libertarian or not) means very little to me. Thanks for understanding. Jasper23 18:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
It meant enough for you to start this section. I'm of the opinion this article needs to be reverted and locked. As a good faith suggestion to you, create a sandbox and do your work there, then move the completed sections, or article over when the work is done.--Scribner 19:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I dont understand. I havent changed anything in regard to this section. After my first round of edits, I have decided to bring a few things to the talk page for discussion. This is not one of those things. I have left this section at the edit of Prosfilaes and have no real urge to change it at the present time. I agree with prosfilaes. This is a non-issue for me. I dont know what your problem is. Why would you want to revert the article. You can see below what I have taken out. You havent commented on those because you know that they are the correct edits. Please, lets bury the past and work together in the future. Best regards. Jasper23 22:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ok...here is the first bit of the article up for discussion

Okay, read this paragraph and realize it is a harsh criticism aligning the KKK and American Nazi Party with the ACLU. Okay, true or not? I dont know? Look at the cite. What the hell is that cite? Socialist action.org leads to a page about pepperspray at a rally in santa cruz (great town btw). None of the groups in the section are mentioned anywhere in the article (including the ACLU). This is one of the things I took out earlier and that was readded. What do you guys think?

In addition many leftists, including the Spartacist League (modern) and Liberation News (Internationalist), criticize what they see as a stronger willingness on the part of the ACLU to defend the civil liberties of groups such as the KKK and the American Nazi Party. [6]

It was another unsourced claim. Good catch. Would it be appropriate to list the article on the RFC page along with Peer Review? NBGPWS 21:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here is part two

This was in the religous critics section of the article. This is well sourced and well written. It definetly involves religion and the ACLU. However, where is the critic part of this. Or criticism in general. The only way this could be construed as criticism, is if you have something against the church itself. What do you guys think?

Jehovah's Witnesses were involved in twenty-three Supreme Court rulings between 1938 and 1946 over religious objections to serving in the armed forces and over saluting the flag and reciting the pledge of allegiance [7], over local and state ordinances prohibiting the Witnesses from publishing criticisms of the Roman Catholic church [8], as well as over government reluctance to prosecute anti-Witness vigilantes. The ACLU was directly involved in these cases [9]. The ACLU's involvement with Jehovah's Witnesses continues, and they joined the Witnesses in a 2002 case over doorbell-ringing [10].

End text. Jasper23 06:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a sentence that runs along the same line. This was thrown in at the beginning of a sentence about mormons and the aclu. Really, how is this criticism, unless.....

Many religious groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims have at times been defended by the ACLU.

end text. Jasper23 15:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Part three of material to be discussed

Text in italics is from the article.

Some critics argue that this position is inconsistent with their stated philosophy, and have suggested that the ACLU may only adopt this stance to appease liberal-leaning supporters of the group who also support gun control. Okay, this first part is unsourced original research commentary on the ACLU. Which critics? Who has suggested? Pure speculation. This should be sourced before going back in to the article.

Critics also point out that the ACLU does not take up cases that involve possible abuses by the ATF that go beyond the debate over the private ownership of firearms. [11] This link is dead. Once again, which critics?

The ACLU has been involved in a few gun rights cases; most recently the ACLU of Texas joined with the NRA in favor of a proposed Texas law, HB 823, in 2006, and claiming that current legislation allowed for the harassment of gun owners[12]. The link here goes to a personal blog. It would be nice to find an actual source.

What do people think? Jasper23 01:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the ATF/ACLU, while I found some comments during a Google search, I couldn't find anything that I would consider proof. It appears the ACLU is against gun ownership, but it also appears they won't take individual cases on the matter. I say until proof is found, it needs to be removed.
The issue of the ACLU being involved in a few gun rights cases can be found at several places while doing a google search for ACLU ATF, in fact letters to President Clinton from the mid-1990's are out there, but once again, I'm not sure this is proof. Sorry for not copying them here. --Lorraine LeBeau 18:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I found a few things, but could not find anything that shows the outcome of these letters. Also, I'm not sure these sites are NPOV, especially the first one here:

http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/firearms/enforce/aclu.html

http://winn.com/abcdefg/ag-g-003.html

On January 10, 1994, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the NRA and other organizations appealed to President Clinton for the appointment of a national commission to "... investigate serious allegations of abuse by federal law enforcement agencies and to recommend steps that must be taken to reduce constitutional and human rights violations by federal law enforcement personnel." Citing "... serious allegations of abuse, including the improper use of deadly force...", our letter offered specific examples of black suited, masked, massively armed mobs of screaming, swearing agents invading the homes of innocents: It goes on to list names of specific people and specific incidences.

[edit] civil libertarian

Part 4-not removed from article

So what do you guys think? I found this critic in the libertarian section but in the source and on his wiki page he is listed as a civil libertarian. I just want to know if we are in agreement that a civil libertarian is a libertarian. There seems to be alot of doubt. What does everyone think? Please examine the following section. Thanks.

Former ACLU member Nat Hentoff has criticized the organization in a libertarian vein[citation needed] for promoting affirmative action and for supporting what he sees as government protected speech codes enacted on college campuses and the workplace [13].

Jasper23 03:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that I believe a civil libertarian is automatically a Libertarian. Some if not many Democrats believe themselves to be civil libertarians, but are definitely not Libertarians. I also found this which may help: http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=205791

--Lorraine LeBeau 19:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You may be right, but I dont quite get your argument. Could you explain it a bit more. Thanks Jasper23 07:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's something that can explain it better than I can: http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-15-97.html
"Advocates of affirmative action have muddied the waters by arguing that racial preferences are an aspect of the civil rights crusade. Today's corrupted vision of civil rights goes against the American civil libertarian tradition of private property, the rule of law and limited government. Modern civil rights activists have lost sight of what it means to be committed to freedom of association and equality of opportunity."
Meaning that while many or some Democrats believe themselves to be civil libertarians, issues such as AA is one form of proof that they are not. Libertarians are against AA because Libertarians are against discrimination in all its forms. Also, limited government is not something that many Reps or Dems stand currently stand up for. did that help? --Lorraine LeBeau 12:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here is another section

In 2004, for example, the ACLU of Southern California (ACLU/SC) threatened to sue the city of Redlands, California if it did not remove a picture of a cross from the city's seal. The ACLU/SC argued that having a cross on the seal amounted to a government-sponsored endorsement of Christianity and violated separation of church and state. The city complied with the ACLU/SC and removed the cross from all city vehicles, business cards, and police badges. However, the issue was put on the November 2005 ballot [14]. The ACLU/SC also threatened Los Angeles County, California if it did not remove an image of a cross from its seal, yet the centerpiece of the Pagan goddess Pomona was not mentioned. As in the Redlands case, the county board complied with the demands and voted to remove the cross and Pomona from its seal as well. There was a petition against the changing of the seal, which ended on August 15, 2005 [15].

Here is another example of unsourced criticism in the article. I believe that this could be a very valid controversial case but it is completely unsourced. The one link in the body of the article would be insufficient (if it worked, which it does not). The bolded section is sourced but makes no sense on its own so I pulled that out to. This needs to be sourced before going back in and I think this might be better placed in the cases section. Do people agree? Disagree? Thanks.

Jasper23 21:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This section is POV and inaccurate as written. Please see my discussions below - with sources. I'll rewrite it ASAP. NBGPWS 22:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Please, I dont want to be involved in any warring. For now, all I care about is verifiability and citations. When you do rewrite it make it as npov as possible. Thanks. Jasper23 22:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Part Five

Here is a section from the conservative critics section. Neither source is well known, especially the second one (a typepad blog). I would like to see legitamate sources when claims of terrorist ties are being made. Does anyone disagree? Please take a close look at the sources. Thanks.

The ACLU has recently come under fire when the Florida chapter appointed Parvez Ahmed, the National Board Chairman of CAIR to the Florida chapter's board; CAIR has been accused of terrorist ties [16]. Ahmed has spoken in favor of blasphemy laws to prevent publication of the controversial Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed. [17]

Jasper23 09:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Part Six

This has not been removed from the article. This is from the beginning of the general criticism section. Does anyone feel this is necessary? Here is the text.

The ACLU's involvement in hundreds of legal cases over the years has led to a great deal of criticism from numerous points of view. In many situations, the criticism may be focused on the ACLU's stance in a particular case or group of cases; in others, the criticism focuses on the general principles that guide the ACLU's choices of what cases to take a position on.

A wide variety of groups oppose some or all of the ACLU's positions listed above; several general themes of criticism are discussed here.

If nobody comments or suggests changes then I will soon pull it off the page. Thanks. Let me know what you think. Jasper23 09:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is necessary. It's good to make the article flow, instead of making it a collection of random facts.--Prosfilaes 12:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Good to know. It seems a little filler-ish to me but we all have different styles. Thanks for your comment. Anyone else? Jasper23 16:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, since it may be that a wide variety of groups support some or all of the ACLU's positions.... If it read that a wide variety of groups opposed...and then listed at least a few groups that oppose some or all of the ACLU's positions, it would be better. But then to balance it out, we'd have to list the wide variety of groups that support the same positions. In other words, take it out. --Lorraine LeBeau 19:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. Lets here some more thoughts on the matter. Anyone else? Jasper23 20:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Part 7 of discussion text

Here is another part of the religous criticism section. Half of this is about a positive case. The second half is very weasel wordy. However, both halves are personal blog cited. These need proper sourcing and writing before they go back in. Feel free.

Begin text:

In the Mormon community, the ACLU is viewed positively by some, who cite Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, a case litigated by the ACLU on behalf of a Mormon student concerning school prayer [18]. However, a good number of Mormons, including some local leaders, are strongly against the activities of the ACLU [19].

Anyone disagree? Jasper23 02:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Part 8

Here is some more unsourced information from the article. Feel free to source it and put it back in if you like. Too many weasel words.

As a result of these policies many leftist attorneys saw the National Lawyers Guild as a superior alternative to the ACLU.[citation needed] The ACLU has been criticized by some of its later members for this policy, and in the 1960s there was an internal push to remove this prohibition. [citation needed]

Thanks Jasper23 07:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This needs to be wikified

This is in the last section of the article (libertarian critics)

Law professor David Bernstein's book "You Can't Say That! The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Laws" takes the ACLU to task for frequently seeking to undermine expressive rights when they conflict with antidiscrimination laws, as in the 2000 Supreme Court case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale.

I may change it to this:

George Mason University law professor David Bernstein, in his book "You Can't Say That! The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Laws" expressly criticizes the ACLU. David Bernstein argues that the ACLU would choose to undermine expressive rights when they are found to be in conflict with antidiscrimination laws, as in the 2000 Supreme Court case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale.

How is that? Jasper23 01:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC) I put in the change. It may no be perfect but I think it is slightly better. If anyone can improve, feel free. Thanks.

Jasper23 21:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Part 9

Here is the newest section. Non-notable groups (who are these people)-pov writeup and poor writeup in general -poor sourcing (these arent news agencies but extremist newsletters)..take a look:

In October 1999 the Spartacist League organized a demonstration against a KKK rally in New York and listed amongst the obstacles placed in their way "the American Civil Liberties Union, which continued its revolting decades-long defense of 'constitutional rights' for the fascist terrorists." This was in reference to the lawyer for the KKK, Norman Siegel of the New York ACLU, that brokered a deal allowing the KKK to march with police protection and a sound permit, but denied even a sound permit for the labor/black mobilization against the Klan.[20] Under political pressure that deal was later struck down and the sound permit was allowed.[21]

Please take a look at the sources. Does anyone disagree? Jasper23 03:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Part 10

After creating new gun section I removed unsourced criticism, pov writing and weasel words. Here it is.

Critics also argue that the ACLU has not been consistent in defending all civil liberties, pointing out that it is not active in protecting gun rights.[citation needed] Critics claim gun rights enjoy similar constitutional protection to other civil rights and should be treated equally by the ACLU if it is not motivated by a partisan agenda. Some contend that, unlike the First Amendment, the Second Amendment does not provide individual rights. The courts have made conflicting rulings on the topic. Jasper23 04:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Part 11

This is the introduction to the criticism section. This is an original research section and while not pov it is an original reasearch narrative and unencyclopedic. What do people think? Weasel word city.

The ACLU's involvement in hundreds of legal cases over the years has led to a great deal of criticism from numerous points of view. In many situations, the criticism may be focused on the ACLU's stance in a particular case or group of cases; in others, the criticism focuses on the general principles that guide the ACLU's choices of what cases to take a position on.

This will eventually be replaced with something much better.Jasper23 16:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Part 12

I dont see how these are encyclopedic criticisms...What do other people think? Does snarky criticism count as encyclopedic criticism? This can be better addressed when we flesh out a contreversial stances section or something of the sort. This seems more like trivia.

One non-profit legal center, the Thomas More Law Center, describes itself as "Christianity's answer to the ACLU." [22]

The libertarian public interest law firm the Institute for Justice, describes itself as "a libertarian answer to the ACLU" [23]

In 1990, Pat Robertson founded the American Center for Law and Justice, as a counterweight to the ACLU,[citation needed] which Robertson characterizes as "liberal" and "hostile to traditional American values."[citation needed]

What do people think? Jasper23 21:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative and religious critics

Many critics of the ACLU consider themselves, or are commonly regarded as, conservatives.

In addition, the ACLU has defended the right of a Christian church to run anti-Santa ads on Boston subways, the right to religious expression by jurors, and the right of Christian students to distribute religious literature in school. [24]

Here are the remnants of the c and r critic sections. Thanks. Jasper23 17:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarian critics

While some (such as former Republican Congressman Bob Barr)[25] refer to the ACLU as a libertarian organization and while the ACLU has defended the US Libertarian Party in some cases [26], a number of libertarians and Objectivists oppose the ACLU for its support of laws that they view as distinctly anti-liberty, such as affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws that apply to private property. One objection held by some libertarians is the belief that private business owners, rather than the government, should have the authority to decide which customers they serve and which employees to hire, even if these private business owners choose to base criteria on such things as race or gender.[citation needed]

Remnants of the libertarian critics part. Do people think that there should be a section of the article focusing on civil libertarian critics? Jasper23 17:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leftist and liberal critics

Here is what is left from the article. The corporate personhood part is already in the controversial stances part. Thanks.

In contrast to the ACLU's position, the National Lawyers Guild passed a resolution in October 1996 which opposed corporate personhood. [27] Jasper23 16:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religous Critic Section

This section is probably the most unsourced and weasel like of the article. It will all soon be covered in the cases and stances sections. Anyone disagree please discuss on talk page. Thanks.

Such critics often allege that the ACLU does not truly dedicate itself to the defense of constitutional rights, but that it seeks to advance a Leftist or liberal agenda [citation needed] (see, e.g., [28], [29]). Some point to its opposition to capital punishment, which has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States since 1976, although it had been declared unconstitutional in practice from 1972 to 1976. The ACLU continues to argue that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment restriction against "cruel and unusual punishment," the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection, and that it is contrary to international human rights norms.[citation needed] The ACLU also has religious critics. At the grassroots level, the ACLU often involves itself in cases involving the separation of church and state. Religious critics contend that the ACLU is part of an effort to remove all references to religion from American government.[citation needed]

After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Rev. Jerry Falwell remarked that the ACLU, by trying to "secularize America," had provoked the wrath of God, and therefore caused those terrorist attacks. [citation needed] Falwell later apologized for the remark. Other critics of the ACLU do not make such strong accusations, but claim that the organization pushes the concept of separation of church and state beyond its original meaning. [citation needed]

On the other hand, the ACLU and Jerry Falwell sometimes find themselves on the same side. Notably, the ACLU filed an amicus brief supporting a suit by Falwell against the state of Virginia. [citation needed] The suit, which was successful, overturned the Virginia constitution's ban on the incorporation of churches.[citation needed]

Disagreement with the removal. Please let me know. Thanks. Jasper23 06:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pornography

Some anti-pornography activists, including Nikki Craft and Catharine MacKinnon, who oppose pornography on feminist grounds, have critized the ACLU;[citation needed] in her lifetime, Andrea Dworkin's positions on pornography also led her to similar stances.[citation needed] Craft started a group in the early 1990s called "Always Causing Legal Unrest (ACLU)"; the resultant acronym confusion led the then-director of the ACLU of Northern California Dorothy M. Ehrlich to send a letter of protest [30], but the Union did not pursue legal action against Craft's group.

Anyone want to help on the rewrite? Jasper23 22:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A 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 too)

The section of criticism of the NRA from the 'Gun Prohibition camp' (a VERY inaccurate POV term as many are for sensible regulation and registration, not prohibition-now changed) 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 22:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced statements - bad links, etc

The following statements need to be sourced.

In 'Conservative Critics':

Many critics of the ACLU consider themselves, or are commonly regarded as, conservatives. Such critics often allege that the ACLU does not truly dedicate itself to the defense of constitutional rights, but that it seeks to advance a Leftist or liberal agenda [citation needed] (see, e.g., [31], [32]).

First link points to a blog, not acceptable under WP, - you might be able to find the info in the proper section of the parent org. The second link points to 'how stuff works' which doesn't support the claim.


Some point to its opposition to capital punishment, which has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States since 1976, although it had been declared unconstitutional in practice from 1972 to 1976. The ACLU continues to argue that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment restriction against "cruel and unusual punishment," the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection, and that it is contrary to international human rights norms.[citation needed]

No source at all. Find one.

NBGPWS 19:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What point are you disputing?
That the Supreme Court decision in Furman v. Georgia effectively nullified the application of the death penalty in the United States, or that the ACLU opposes capital punishment? Ruthfulbarbarity 20:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry you're having a hard time following along - 'Some point to' [citation needed]

Added new link:

Maybe the opinions in the article could be referred to in the entry as well. NBGPWS 21:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I came here in response to the RfC but I'm not willing to slog through the whole talk page to see which points are disputed and what the alternative approaches are. Would someone please try to boil it down? One helpful method is if the editors working on the article can formulate two or more ways of wording a given passage, each of which has some support, then present all these alternatives, with brief commentary on the pros and cons. As a model for doing so, I commend to your attention Talk:Tucson, Arizona#December 16-23, 2004 vote. Yes, it entails a certain amount of work, but if you go through that effort you may find a consensus forming without the need for comments from other Wikipedians. JamesMLane t c 23:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous points of contention. Many are discussed on this talk page, and there's not much to 'boil down'. Here's a new example of what I consider POV in this article.

The article states:

Religious critics

"The ACLU also has religious critics. At the grassroots level, the ACLU often involves itself in cases involving the separation of church and state. Some Christians, including many who may be considered conservative Christian, take issue with its positions. Many in this community contend that the ACLU is part of an effort to remove all references to religion from American government."

"In 2004, for example, the ACLU of Southern California (ACLU/SC) threatened to sue the city of Redlands, California if it did not remove a picture of a cross from the city's seal. The ACLU/SC argued that having a cross on the seal amounted to a government-sponsored endorsement of Christianity and violated separation of church and state. The city complied with the ACLU/SC and removed the cross from all city vehicles, business cards, and police badges. However, the issue was put on the November 2005 ballot."

Critical facts omitted that proves POV:

  • 1) Two residents of the City of Redlands were the original complainants - who, as far back as 1986, objected to the cross on their city's logo. They sought out the ACLU.
  • 2) Religious /conservative groups supported removing the cross.
    • According to the minutes of a City Council meeting for 2005-MAY-04:"...the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian organization that finances litigation to defend issues of 'religious liberty rights' and the protection of family values, did its own legal research and decided the City does not have a defensible case with the regard to the City logo with the cross."
    • At the 2005-JUN-01, City Council meeting, Reverend John Walsh, represented the People for Inclusivity, spoke. The group opposes a Christian symbol on the logo. He also presented a supporting letter with 65 signatures.
  • 3) In Nov 2005, the residents of Redlands voted 60% to 40% not to reinstate the cross on their city logo.

source 1 source 2 source 3

Knowing all this, does the current edit accurately reflect what really occurred? The whole article is like this. POV to the max. NBGPWS 00:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons why I don't like dealing with you. POV to the max is either hyperbole or a completely skewed perspective. This article, like many others could be improved, but doesn't look anything like the seriously one-sided viewpoints of a POV to the max article.
Yes, there's usually at least one or two people in every community to disagree with a religious display, and under the law, the ACLU needs people actually affected by the display to push a complaint, that is, those people. "Religious /conservative groups" is a lumping together of disparite things. According to your own quote, the Alliance Defense Fund didn't say they supported the removal of the cross, but merely that "the City does not have a defensible case". I would bet that the "People for Inclusivity", while a religious group, would generally be considered a liberal group, and 65 signatures represents a tenth of a percent of Redlands' population. Then, when offered the option to spend millions of tax dollars fighting a pointless court battle, the people of Redlands wisely declined. I don't know how many of those 60% really agreed with the removal of the cross, and how many just didn't want to fight a losing battle, but I'd say there's enough of the latter to worry about using that statistic carelessly.
So, yes, knowing all that, the current edit does substationally reflect what really occurred. --Prosfilaes 10:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
One of the reasons I find it challenging to deal with you Prosfilaes, is that you evidently have no grasp of what constitutes WP:OR. Only an editor without an understanding of OR would argue "I don't know how many of those 60% really agreed with the removal of the cross, and how many just didn't want to fight a losing battle, but I'd say there's enough of the latter to worry about using that statistic carelessly." or would repeatedly add in the claim that CRAC estimated the awards to be in 'the millions', when POV editors are adding individual claims toether to arrive at that OR conjecture. I respectfully suggest that you study up on WP:OR. Cheers. NBGPWS 16:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you read WP:OR; it only applies to articles. In any case, it is far more OR to imply that the results of that vote mean something, than to state that we don't know for sure what the results of that vote meant.--Prosfilaes 17:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
What the results of the vote 'meant'? LOL! The results 'meant' that 60% of the voters voted against the city using the logo featuring a Christian Cross. Any interpetation of the results is OR. I'll rewrite the offending section soon. NBGPWS 22:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Reread WP:OR. It explicitly prohibits using facts out of context to imply something that's not generally accepted; that's OR.--Prosfilaes 02:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing will be out of context, the new edit will say that by a 60% to 40% margin the residents of Redlands voted not to reinstate the cross. NBGPWS 04:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that WP:OR prohibits, as NBGPWS has said, drawing inferences that may or may not be true to advance any certain POV. Citing facts which are backed by a reliable source is acceptable, while drawing inferences from those facts is not. In this specific case, stating in the article narrative any specific percentages provided by a source is okay; saying that those figures are representative of anything the source does not assert they are is original research and thus prohibited by the guideline. I'm going to have a look at the article and see specifically what the debate is about. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC response

The article as a whole has a rather anti-ACLU tone: extensive space devoted to critics and controversial positions, yet little to the organization's supporters and to bread-and-butter rights protection. Durova 04:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Durova. This doesn't fix the problem, but I suggest the phrase "A wide variety of groups oppose some or all of the ACLU's positions listed above; several general themes of criticism are discussed here." be removed. I think it is almost a weasel word, but the main reason is it has no use. If it must be included, I'd rather it state "Several cases are discussed here" at the end of the paragraph above it. I am editing it.--Connor K. 22:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought I'd chime in to express that my general impression of the page is that it is a little too focused on the controversial aspects and the criticism of the ACLU. I realize that the ACLU is probably one of the most controversial American organizations, so certainly, a large amount of this is appropriate. But I think there should be an effort to keep the focus on the ACLU and the direct criticism of the ACLU itself-- rather than expanding the focus to include a number of the wider issues that the ACLU is involved in.
So, perfect example: we have a whole section on the controversy about the ACLU being awarded attorneys fees. This really isn't an ACLU issue. This is true of any non-profit, and true of the court system in general. If you lose a case, in some instances you have to pay the other side's attorneys fees. Because the ACLU is one such non-profit, we've having a whold debate about this issue on the ACLU page, but we really shouldn't, because it's really not an ACLU-criticism per se, even if the critics of the ACLU are also criticizing the practice.
Simlarly, the critics section seems to be more focused on the CRITICS than on the ACLU. Obviously, we do need a lot of criticism, but it seems like there would be a better way to organize it. For example, maybe integrating the "Positions", "Notable Cases" section and the "Criticism" section in such a way that you show their position on an issue, the notable cases on that issue, and then talk about the criticism of the ACLU's stance on that issue. So, the Seperation of Church and State would fit into that mold very easily. I don't know for a fact that way would be better, but it's something to consider.
In general though, I'd say that there needs to be a better focus on the the ACLU itself, rather than as a large discussion of some of the major political issues the ACLU is embedded in. The current page also sort of lacks an overaching cohesive organization-- it seems more like an assortment of specific facts, commentary, and criticisms, rather than a high-level overview.
If people specify some of the specific issues under dispute, I'll comment on them.
--Alecmconroy 08:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
"Alecmconroy. I'm not an ACLU scholar, but I think you are mistaken on the ACLU/other non-profits legal fees distinction. I think a special law was passed that said if a case is about the Establishment Clause, the ACLU gets legal fees that would otherwise not be awarded. The ACLU then uses this to go after municipality after municipality on Establishment Clause issues for the very purpose of raking in the public's money by abusing that law. Again, I'm not an ACLU expert, neither do I know what I said is exactly the issue, but your saying it's just plain old attorney fees is mistaken. Indeed a law is being sought to stop the extra legal fees in Establshment Clause cases precisely to stop the ACLU from siphoning large amounts of money from the public in abuse of the original law. And this is why, I'm assuming, people feel this is such a big controversy, such a big issue -- the ACLU will lose a lot of the public's money if this passes and will not be able to sue on a pretext just to be able to extract more of the public's money. In other words, the ACLU will be greatly discouraged from being suit after suit against little towns for displaying Christmas scenes on public property or crosses and the like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SafeLibraries.org (talk • contribs).
There are a large number of circumstances where a successful party in civil litigation can be awarded attorney's fees. (Attorney's fee discusses some of them). The debate about whether those laws are appropriate is really a whole separate issue from the ACLU itself. This is the case for any party in any lawsuit that is covered under those laws. What those laws should be is a different legal debate-- a debate that isn't really about the ACLU itself.
So, you see what I mean when I talk about distinguishing between the ACLU itself and the larger issues the ACLU is embedded in. Should the government pay attorneys fees for some parties who had to sue to stop violations of their civil rights? I don't know-- but it's a larger debate that isn't about the ACLU-- we're just discussing it on the ACLU page because they're the most famous civil rights group-- but the same debate would apply to any other lawyers involved in the same sort of civil rights cases.
I think it's fine to mention that the ACLU recoups some of their costs when they win cases, but currently, this article covers the whole debate about attorney fees in the middle of an article on the ACLU. That's a fine debate to have-- but there's no reason to have it in the middle of the ACLU article.
--Alecmconroy 14:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. But if in the future this attorneys fees matter does indeed turn out to significantly inhibit the ACLU's glee in suing, perhaps then it could be mentioned as the reason for the slowing of ACLU law suits. By then it will be fact instead of speculation. --SafeLibraries 15:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
That particular section is due a rewrite to shorten, included and clarify, injunctive relief, fees and expenses, possiblity of plaintiff damages, and a mention of risks of frivolous litigation. The case-by-case information should be replaced by links, or a few links. SafeLibraries, your mention of the Hostettler resolution (2005), deserves mention.--Scribner 15:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cites on Skokie

Digital past. Check the authors, both known in Chicago and nationally. Whoever wrote the section got it right but unfortunately omitted the cites. I left out some facts such as one in six of the Jewish population there was a holocaust survivor.--Scribner 03:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Good job

Jasper23 04:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned that material is being removed faster than it can be cited. It's a lot easier to tag and remove than to double check and cite.--Scribner 06:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Dont be concerned. Most of it ends up on the talk page. Most of it is crap too. This article in now in the best shape it has ever been and is getting better day by day. Jasper23 21:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section Titles

I changed the title of the section previously named 'recent controversial stances' to 'notable stances'. 'Controversial' is POV, and not all were 'recent'. Been busy. Hope to find more time to edit soon. NBGPWS 03:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How is 'controversial' a POV? Are you claiming that there are people who seriously dispute whether or not the stances are controversial? Ken Arromdee 15:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I dont think that controversial is pov. However, I am going to eventually try to merge this category into a larger case history section. Just throwing that out there. Jasper23 16:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I feel 'controversial' is a 'loaded' word with negative connotations. NBGPWS 09:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Contraversy is what the ACLU deals in, and has for a long time. It is not a loaded word, there stances are contraversial, if they weren't, the ACLU would probably have no reason to get involved in the first place. Piuro 07:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"Controversial" feels like an acurate word to me, and I'm on the Board of Directors of my local ACLU affiliate so I'm not one to take unfounded criticism lightly ;-). Many, many of our stances are controversial because lots of folks don't seem to understand their rights under the Constitution, or don't understand that these rights apply to everyone, not just themselves.

Atlant 13:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critics and Controversial Stances

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 16:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am still waiting for feedback before completely retooling these sections. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Jasper23 06:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Anyone? Jasper23 16:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I started. I am going to take apart the criticism section and move those parts either to controversial stances or the talk page. If you think something should be included which hasnt been included, please let me know. Remember that this is a work in progress. Thanks Jasper23 16:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
So, in the next couple of days I plan on taking sections from the controversial stances section and moving them into either the case history section or the position section but probably leaving some for a general overview of a position or case history theme. Does anyone have any suggestions? Jasper23 17:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no critism section of this article? The ACLU has major detractors and yet it is ignored in this fluff peice. The ACLU is a liberal organization and this article tries to make it appear unbiased.

Please read through this page. The article is being reorganized. There will be plenty of room for criticism but it will be under the headings of controversial stances, positions and case history. Could you tell me what in particular you would like to add? Jasper23 03:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism / Need for Restrictions

I started trying to clean up some vandalism, such as claims that the ACLU gets something like 18% of it's funding from Al Qaeda and other such gems, but there seem to be several more. This topic is perhaps too much of a hot button issue for unrestricted access. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.70.165.165 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for your help! I ended up just rolling the entire page back to the last October 30th version (which looks relatively vandalism-free, but you never can tell without a very close reading). This page, like so many political pages, is, unfortunately, a magnet for vandalism, and needs close watching. But Wiki policy is pretty restrictive regarding actually protecting a page against editing.
Atlant 16:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
My input is that most vandalism is done by IP addresses. You all probably have this experience where changes to pages made by IP addresses are more likely vandalism than by named users. This ACLU page is no different. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 16:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That wasn't true for this last batch, though. A user apparently created an account and made just the three massively-vandalistic edits; I've now warned them.
Atlant 17:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
One has to wonder why people do that. It's such a waste of time. For everyone. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 17:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] citation for funds

The info on the NJ branch funding as an example comes from the 2005 annual report. Not sure how to properly cite that; it's not a web resource. Sdedeo (tips) 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Use {{cite}} rather than {{cite web}}. Twinxor t 02:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The ACLU is independent and hard to classify on the left/right political spectrum.

Are you kidding? They are as extreme left as you can possibly get! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KMoody (talk • contribs) .

Defense of your rights under the Constitution is "left"? Are you sure?
Atlant 20:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that the ACLU is just one of many examples which demonstrate the inadequacy of current usages in the US of the "left/right" continuum. There are a couple of points which do indicate that it is "hard to classify":
  • For instance, the ACLU was a pioneer of First Amendment advocacy, which has been since adopted by groups with a wide variety of ideological perspectives, ranging from "conservative"' to "libertarian" to "liberal" to "radical". The ACLU today continues its 1A work, which indeed is therefore hard to classify.
  • Moreover, the ACLU takes clients and positions on clients from a wide variety of ideological perspectives--from the KKK, to Rush Limbaugh, to Nike, to Karen Finley, to the American Library Assocation. This also would render it "hard to classify".
However, the ACLU does work on behalf of other issues, such as anti-discrimination work, which in the US today is frequently described by self-identified conservatives as "liberal" or "left". This mix of left and non-left missions could itself make it difficult to classify, but it's not crazy for conservatives to look at the ACLU and say "left" or "liberal" or whatever. What is crazy is to use these very POV terms ("left" and "right") in an article. It would be far better to state something like I did above, that the ACLU takes clients from a range of ideological perspectives; works on issues that range from adopted across a range of ideological perspectives (like First Amendment) to issues adopted by the contemporary US left (anti-discrimination, GLBT rights); but within any such issue may take positions that would not be easily categorized as "left" or "right" (such as the ACLU's position on commercial speech as in the Nike case). It would also be helpful to note that the ACLU is comprised of a national board and multiple state and regional chapters which, on occasion, go their own way on issues. --LQ 20:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The ACLU is more libertarian than it is liberal (left) or conservative (right). The existence of the ACLU, the Libertarian Party, the Cato Institute, and other such organizations only serves to illustrate the shortcomings of the traditional left/right spectrum. RobertAustin 16:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I think, probably, a mix of libertarian & liberal ... but agree that the spectrum is inadequate, albeit widely-used; and it carries its own POV (which excludes a wide range of political thought). My main problem is that the sentence is a mealy-mouthed way to make that point about the ACLU, but it's almost content-less: "it's hard to classify the ACLU on an inadequate scale that is mostly driven by rhetorical & POV uses" -- well, obviously! it's hard to classify anyone on that scale, pretty much. --LQ 17:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on the list of stances ACLU takes on given issues (as listed in the wikipedia entry), it seems silly to try to purport that that the ACLU is "hard to classify" on the conservative/liberal spectrum. It seems reasonble to remove this statement altogether. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.18.201.102 (talk • contribs).

Why? Jasper23 05:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
All this confusion has to do with the way we misuse left or right today. Left Right regards the economic policies of liberals or conservatives. The ACLU does not take stances on the Minimum Wage. They take stances on the other axis, the libertarian authoritarian axis, which includes issues like gay marriage, abortion, freedom of speech, et cetera. So they do no fall on the left right continuum.

Liberal and Leftist are not synonymous. In fact, many socialist theorists criticise ACLU's complicity and apathy in regard to gender/class/race injustice. The organisation has little, or no, understanding of hegemony, a critique of which is central to leftist theory. It operates upon the fallacy that every citizen, regardless of gender/class/race is accorded the same "rights". A white, middle class man, who ACLU will happily represent for payment, doesn't exercise "rights". Our culture has accorded them privileges at the expense of people of colour, working poor citizens and women. ACLU is too busy making money by representing white supremacists and well-heeled pornographers with its constitutional fundamentalism to actually give a damn about the freedoms people of colour, working poor citizens and women struggle for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ootmotl (talk • contribs).

I have added the following to the external links:
I would like to point out that Alan Sears's allegations, true or otherwise, can only be called fundamental to the criticism the ACLU is subject to and the double standards he mentions do not seem to be addressed anywhere at all, in the criticism section or anywhere else… ("More than a quarter-century after his death, the “legacy” of American Civil Liberties Union founder Roger Baldwin – a self-professed fan of Soviet communism and of Joseph Stalin – is still going strong. With the collapse of the Soviet empire, current ACLU leaders have thrown more of their support to one of the last remaining bastions of the Soviet ideal: Cuba. … The school board’s beef isn’t with what is on the pages [of the book entitled Vamos a Cuba (Let’s Visit Cuba)], but with what isn’t. Parents filed complaints after finding the book to be devoid of any mention of the oppressive regime instituted by Fidel Castro nearly 50 years ago. Instead, its pages are filled with breezy commentaries on how Cubans enjoy chicken with rice … and boating as a leisure activity … The book’s cover, available in both English and Spanish versions, is adorned with beaming children dressed in the uniform of the Pioneers, the Communist youth organization that Cuban children are required to join. … Absent from the pages of Vamos a Cuba is any mention of the ruthless 20-year prison sentences levied on Cuban poets and journalists and priests who failed to fawn over their fearless leader. Instead, the book depicts Cubans as living as freely as they please. … Of course, this same “right to access” doesn’t apply to information that the ACLU’s intolerant agenda deems misleading. They’re not nearly as interested in allowing both evolution and intelligent design to be discussed in science classes, or in letting a student who disagrees with homosexual behavior present his views openly and peacefully to a fellow student.")
Regarding Alan Sears and Craig Osten's book The ACLU vs America; Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values, I have also included a sample chapter that is available in PDF form… Asteriks 15:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Sears' criticism is notable and valid, and should be included in the article. I am reverting the removal if it, as it is relevant. I also do not see any proper justification for removing criticism by Bill O'Reilly, other than the fact that it is Bill O'Reilly. He's criticized the ACLU in several books, as well as on TV and radio. Neither of these removals by TurttleScrubber qualifies as "linkspam" or "irrelevant". - Crockspot 18:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV addition on gun control

just removed a POV sentence from the gun control section--"However there is no amendment guaranteeing the right to own cars." This is a POV statement about the substance of the disagreement on the 2d Amendment. There's no room in this short blurb to rehash the arguments about the 2d Amendment, and it's not central to the ACLU's advocacy. Better to leave it on the 2d Amendment page (which I am linking to directly instead of to the disambiguation page). --LQ 13:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Being pro-gun-rights, I agree that the sentence doesn't belong there. Critic-at-Arms 3 January 2007

Looks like there are agenda drivers in here. Your edit appears to have been reverted. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I 'fixed' the maverick revert and balanced the section. The ACLU categorically embraces a States' Right (national guard) interpretation of the 2A even though it claims it's neutral on the issue. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect from Civil Liberties Bureau

Why does Civil Liberties Bureau (a previous incarnation of the organization) redirect here rather than to National Civil Liberties Bureau? Idiotkid 16:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] random links with criticisms or praise or whatever

I just deleted a link to a random blog posting criticizing a piece of text on the ACLU website that describes the first amendment & doesn't mention the establishment/freedom of religion clauses. No offense, but if Wikipedia included every single little blog posting valorizing or critiquing some statement of the ACLU, it would be, umm, Google. To the editor: If you think you need to beef up the section talking about the ACLU and religion, then go ahead, and cite to the original published articles, please. But I would suggest that the article you mention and the kind of stuff it's talking about -- in other words, taking pokes at this or that single incident, which might imply that the ACLU prioritizes the free expression clause over the religion clauses -- is just not that notable. --LQ 18:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance of Bush/Dukakis parable

Does the reference to Bush (41)'s "allegation"---if you can call it that---that Dukakis is a "card-carrying member of the ACLU" belong under "Organizational History" ? Seems to me it would fit better under something along the lines of a new category "Trivia" or the like. Does anyone object Cedlaod 01:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to a move but I do object to the creation of a trivia section. Trivia sections are last resorts and just POV magnets. Jasper23 02:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Any suggestions where it should go? Come to think of it, I think it would be better off placed in the '88 election, George H. W. Bush, and/or Michael Dukakis articles, because it is pretty irrelevant in this one. Cedlaod 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I checked, and it is already in the '88 election article. I see no reason why it should be in this one as well. Cedlaod 23:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's still quite relevant. I've worked for the ACLU for two straight summers (I'm a law student), and I can tell you that the incident is viewed with an amused sense of pride. It's still a major slogan for the ACLU, on mugs, shirts, etc. The fact that the two candidates used the ACLU to represent themselves to the public speaks volumes about the importance of the ACLU to the political debate and I think that's certainly relevant to the article. bbilford 03:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose trivia section, but don't oppose the quote. Instead, I wonder if it could be contextualized with another sentence that better explains the way the ACLU has been perceived by the Christian right in the US in the last 35 years, help resolve some of the POV/vandalism edits attacking the ACLU, and fill in the organizational history gap between 1940 and 1988/2001. Bush's statement was very much an attempt to tap into the rightwing political attacks on the ACLU, and we currently only address the anti-ACLU attacks by saying "Its views are often controversial and criticized by both parties." This isn't inaccurate, but it doesn't do justice to the way that the ACLU has been used by conservative US politicians as a symbol of liberalism and/or anti-religious bias. So I suggest trying to highlight this amusing anecdote in a way that properly contextualizes it as part of this political targeting of the ACLU. Something like, "With the rise of the US Christian right in the 1970s, the ACLU became a particular target for criticism by conservative politicians, who have often accused the organization of being un-patriotic or anti-religious. ACLU supporters, while not agreeing with those criticisms, have taken a certain amused pride in the attacks. The ACLU has tapped into this sentiment by adopting the slogan "Become a card-carrying member of the ACLU," a phrase memorably used by George H.W. Bush in an election debate attack on Michael Dukakis.'" The proposed language could use a lot of wordsmithing, but, ideally it would address the political attacks on the ACLU without the POV-magnet problems caused by a "Criticisms" section. --LQ 14:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You've introduced another POV problem. Your perception that the "Christian right" rose in the 1970s. In fact, what you call the "Christian right" has always been a primary component of the American political community. What you saw in the 1970s was a schism taking place in that community, in which differences between components became more pronounced. If you don't believe that what you call the "Christian right" was a major power, consider the number of non-Protestant US presidents over history. The phrase "Bible Belt" goes back to Lincoln. Critic-at-Arms 3 January 2007

[edit] Vandalism

I'm very new here, but I removed:

"whose stated mission is "to attempt to wipe Christianity from the face of the Earth.". It works through abortion, religious hatred, and picking on every thing and every body."

from the opening paragraph. I'm not sure how to tell what should have been there, but I figured it was better to remove the bad now, and worry about fixing completely later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shultze (talk • contribs) 15:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

I found the correct text in a previous version. Shultze 15:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am somehow amazed that this article, for the most part, does seem to be equally balanced (at the moment anyway). Criticisms against the ACLU are presented, as well as balance and fair statements for their positions. It seems that, ironically, wikipedia is one of the best places to research controversial topics without having constant "propoganda" (heh, or at least "equal" propoganda) as long as the rampant vandalism is quickley reversed when it happens. Bourgeoisdude 20:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not really balanced at all. For instance, the association of the ACLU with CAIR and the reference to Polovchak v. Meese were removed; User:NBGPWS claimed the latter was "urban legend" and got away with deleting it because it happened long enough ago that all the available sources are offline. Ken Arromdee 03:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese American Internment

Jasper, you seem to have a POV problem. You removed the entire reference to ACLU support of the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII, as being "unsourced". Since one of the co-founders of ACLU took loud exception to this support, and it's referenced repeatedly in ACLU records, newspaper and magazine accounts of the time, it's hardly "unsourced," and in fact is common knowledge. If you like, I will "source" a couple of thousand words on the issue, directly from ACLU talking papers and the cold letters sent back to Nikkei who asked for help and to the one attorney who did take up the cause.

Also, you selectively removed words which clarified ACLU positions in relation to Supreme Court decisions, and leave a false impression regarding the gun control issue. This is contrary to Wikipedia rules. Critic-at-Arms 3 January 2007

Check your tone. It's funny that you just admitted it was unsourced and then you come at me with attitude. If it is unsourced and potentially derogatory then I remove it from the article. Period. Jasper23 02:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's unsourced and contentious, then it does not belong. No exceptions. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This is SO slanted towards the S-Ps —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.177.111.50 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Here's your source: Years of Infamy Michi Nishiura Weglyn, University of Washington Press. http://www.amazon.com/Years-Infamy-Untold-Americas-Concentration/dp/0295974842
She clearly explains the ACLU national position and directly quotes Norman Thomas' condemnation of the national organization for supporting the FDR Administration on this. There are several pages of details on the ACLU and leftists' support for the internment, and numerous references to a single attorney in San Francisco being the one actually doing any work on this (Wayne Collins), largely abandoned even by those in the local chapter. The article as I found it here this morning implies the exact opposite, that this was an ACLU position. So now we find out if you are truly committed to accuracy, or simply trying to promote the ACLU. 64.122.31.130 21:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, that isn't a source. That is a link to buy a book. You might as well have given me the address of a local library. Why don't you just source the section and put it back in instead of making silly accusatory comments. Jiffypopmetaltop 18:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Jiffy, if you look, you see the title, author's name and publisher, PLUS a link to buy the book. But it is not enough to be presented truth, one must also be willing to learn and accept it. What proof do you need, before you will accept the truth?

[edit] Recent edit

Although I am an unregistred user, I felt it necessary to balance the article's POV and bring up the controversy that surrounds the alleged bias of the ACLU. I think a section should be added that describes some of the allegations of bias and rebuttals to said allegations. Thanks.71.161.243.48 01:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Mike

[edit] Corporate Personhood

I removed this from the article:

Some critics object to the organization's advocacy for corporations' protection by the Bill of Rights known as corporate personhood.[1][2]

Because of the some critics reference and how this is written up. I agree that this should be in the article but should be written as a specific policy or "controversial stance" that the organization has taken. When I find the time i will try to improve this and put it back in. Thanks Jiffypopmetaltop 18:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable

An anon improperly inserted two quotations into the article. Nevertheless, they are notable.

"I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." --Roger Baldwin, co-founder

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." -- Norman Thomas, co-founder.

Ignoring these from this point on is POV. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sir. Anyway, we need date and context for these quote. As they stand we don't know if they have anything to do with the ACLU as an organization. Jiffypopmetaltop 04:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Being an apologist is like being POV without the edits. Wikipedia has no problem quoting Cheney on waterboarding even though he doesn't set the policy. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
You sir, make little sense in your response. These quotes would be more useful with context. Without context they would be hard to write into a narrative. Why with all the Cheney and the pov? Jiffypopmetaltop 04:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Notable? sure. Related to the article, questionable. The relationship between the removed statement is not at all aparent. They say nothing about the ACLU, only something about it's members. It'd be great if some secondary source related these quotes to criticism of the ACLU, but on their own they're tangential nonsense and original research(with respect to this article). i kan reed 04:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia do self-evident statements require additional "context." We've got the founders of the ACLU making comments that reveal socialist leanings and intentions, and we've got a current ACLU which is accused of such, yet no one here has managed to connect the dots. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Hold: Fixes needed

I have reviewed the article and am placing it on a one week hold pending fixes to the following problems.

  • The article is very well written and well referenced, but the references themselves need a bit of a clean-up.
    • First of all, the Controversial Stances section contains some references that are simply external links and not encased in ref tags. This needs fixing for uniformity
    • Secondly, while the number of references is certainly impressive and wonderful, the references should contain some minimum bibliographic information (that is, more than simply a link to a website). At minimum, this information should be:
      • the author of the reference (if availible)
      • the title of the reference
      • the name of the larger work the reference is a part of (if so)
      • the publication date of the reference
      • the date of access of the reference when it contained the information being referenced (if availible online).
    • You can either enter the information above by hand for each reference, or if you prefer, use a citation template found at WP:CITET which can help organize the information.
  • One additional statement looks like it needs a reference, but is not referenced, the current membership quote of 500,000 members is not referenced anywhere. This should be a simple fix.
  • As a flow issue, the "positions" section and the "controversial stances" section could either be merged or simply brought next to each other. These two closely related sections should not be separated as they are.
  • Likewise, the "Organization History" and "Notable Historical Cases" should be near each other, since they essentially deal with the similar topics.

If these problems are not fixed in a week, the article will unfortunately fail GA for now. That does not prevent you from performing the fixes and renominating it. Please let me know at my talk page when these fixes are made (see my sig). --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Failed: On hold more than 1 week

Since the hold has been on for more than 1 week, I am failing the article. The article does seem to be improving, and I recommend that once all of the above fixes have been made, the article can be renominated for GA. Good luck, and if you have any questions, see me at my talk page. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protecting Consitutional Rights or Leftist Agenda?

This was mentioned earlier. Some conservatives say the ACLU is more interested in a liberal agenda then protecting the Bill of Rights. I know this is extremely POV, but most liberals, such as myself, consider ourselves working in the inteerest of the constitution and the Bill of Rights. Also, the ACLU is not leftist, although you could make a case for liberal. They dont get involved on the left right economic axis of politics, but on the libertarian authoritarian axis. As such, the ACLU can be considered both liberal or libertarian. The best word is Civil Libertarian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikifan999 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC). Well you have to think about who would want constitutional rights protected. The constitution was written by religious, slave owning, racist, rich, white men. So, what you will find in practice is that a lot of the people who speak frequently about defending the constitution are members of the estabilishment. Meanwhile, you have progressive types who may want to steer away from the "good old says", and do what is more practical in this day and age. Setting guidelines according to the constitution makes about as much sense as setting guidelines according to a bible.

[edit] Civil Libertarian

Sorry, I didn't see this before. Civil libertarians are not always what we refer to as libertarians. Most people consider libertarians those who agree with liberals on issues of personal freedom but with conservatives on issues of economic freedom. Liberals believe in personal freedom but government control when it comes to economic matters. It has to do with the 2 axis. Both liberals and libertarians are civil libertarians, because civil libertarians are those who believe in civil liberties. There is no implication about economic freedom in the word civil libertarian. So the ACLU is neither liberal nor libertarian, but is what the two agree on. They are civil libertarians, some of them have leftist beliefs, other members consider themselves libertarians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikifan999 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

I think you will find that the word 'libertarian' has had a fairly wide-ranging history, especially if you consider the false-cognates in most European languages, where it means something more like what we would mean in English by left-wing anarchist. But, beyond that...'civil libertarian' is a widely known and used phrased, and is not a simple construction on top of upper-case-L Libertarianism. Ethan Mitchell 19:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought a libertarian was a super-conservative, like me. --HPJoker 01:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I can find little on the origins of the A.C.L.U. in the article (perhaps I have not looked carefully enough). If readers were informed that it was founded by socialists who were, as such, ideologically opposed to the basic principles of the Constitution of United States and only decided to wrap themselves in the flag as a tactic (as is well documented by letters from the founder of the organization) - then the political agenda of the A.C.L.U. (which remains much the same organization to this day) would become clear.

For example, the hostility of A.C.L.U. towards the right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms (a basic civil liberty, without which the others can not stand, pointed out not only in the American Bill of Rights, but in the British Bill of Rights of century before)can not be really be explained as a legal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment - it is part of a basic hositilty to traditional liberty.

I am well aware that the A.C.L.U. speaks out in favour of the freedom of speech of the K.K.K. and other disgusting racialist groups - this is a matter of publicity stunts designed to show how unbiased the organization is.

The A.C.L.U. is a lot less active in defending the freedom of conservative and libertarian students and academics who are discriminated against in academia on the grounds of their spoken and written words.

All the above could be dismissed as "an attack and therefore not fit for a reference work like wikipedia". However, long attacks are included in wikipedia on such people as Bill O'Reilly and such organizations as Fox News.

You have a choice to make.

Either you include attacks on "liberal" (I do not like the take over of the word "liberal" by the left, but such is life) organizations, or you also do not allow attacks on nonliberal people and organizations.

Paul Marks.

The above comments were moved from the top.

I disagree with you, Paul Marks. ACLU protect everyone's rights, constitutional or not. It helps people a lot, especially us high school students. I strongly dislike their hostility toward religion, but that's only a small part of what they are doing. WooyiTalk to me? 15:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ranking

is there a ranking list of which american cities rank higher than others in terms of civil liberties?

I'm not aware of any ACLU ranking, can anyone provide links if it exists? WooyiTalk to me? 21:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PA's two affiliates

The article claims that PA has two affiliates. I can't find any mention of it here (where many other split states have chapters listed); there's only a link to http://www.aclupa.org, which doesn't mention having two parts, or sharing the territory with another affiliate. So, is it actually true that PA has two affiliates? Marnanel 21:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyediting needed

Why is Oliver North's fifth amendment issue mentioned under first amendment issues? The statement regarding Megan's law is also confusing unless the intent is not to coerce speech. ALso, I would think the section on capital punishment should be larger. I'll come back and do some of the work but since I'm new to this page I thought I'd ask first. JodyB talk 03:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Rewrite of Controversial stances

I have done a pretty extensive rewrite here. I don't think I have affected the NPOV of the section.

  • I tried to better organize the various cases and positions. Previously the section was kind of a hodepodge of material which made it difficult to read coherently.
  • I removed some of the extensive explanation of why people opposed this and that and why the ACLU thought this or that. Readers can go to the linked articles and sites. This helps unclutter the article.

I hope this is satisfactory to those who participate here. I think it improves the article. JodyB talk 13:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have an issue with the changing of controversial stances into a controversy and criticism section. While I agree that you have done a lot of good work on the page and have considerably increased it's readability and flow, I am against the change of the sections name and intent. As you have changed it, it would now become a pov magnet. Check the talk page and article history at to why it was changed to what it is now. Turtlescrubber 18:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not wed to the name of the section and it can stay if you like. Is that your only issue? I really did not change it into a criticisms section however I did change the name. I added nothing new, the criticisms were already there. I did delete in a couple of places which I explained above. I am happy to discuss your concerns JodyB talk 18:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the name is my main issue. If you want, feel free to put it back in (but keep the old name, if you would). I will probably make some small edits and that will be that. Thanks for being very reasonable and putting in work on this article. I hope I didn't come off as to brusque. Turtlescrubber 13:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem. I appreciate you working with me. I'll add it back and keep the section name. Thanks again. JodyB talk 14:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it's back. You may want to look at the very end of the section which lists three (I think) criticisms. These were in my original edit but you might be concerned about it being a magnet. Anyway, take a look and tweak it if you need to. JodyB talk 14:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I made two edits and I think it looks pretty good now. Hope my changes are okay with you. Your copyedit looks good. Turtlescrubber 20:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, no problems. Let's see what else we can do to get this article to GA status. JodyB talk 23:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes to the discussion of NAMBLA, to clarify the nature of the case. I didn't want to get into too much detail, but I thought it needed enough to prevent it from being read to imply that the ACLU defended NAMBLA's point of view. I also deleted the sentence about what Bill O'Reilly thinks the ACLU believes, to preserve objectivity.Eggmanesquire 21:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] State affiliate example

I removed the line about the example for state unit autonomy. It didn't read well and seemed better phrased differently. Also, it cited an entire website. If you feel an example is needed, please state it and then cite it specifically. Otherwise it should probably be added under external links. JodyB talk 04:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My first big contribution

I added about the new case against Slidell, Louisiana. I hate these people so much, it was hard to make it a balanced article, so if there are any problems with it, either tell me on my talk page, or reply to this comment. =)

By the way, I did type it, just not logged on, so I put exactly what I typed, on what I originally typed, except signed on. --HPJoker 01:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attorney's fees

The section header speaks of attorney's fees but the section talks about legal fees. I changed it to reflect attorney's fees in some places. I know that's a fine line but it seems more precise since that is what's in view. I did not change the last part of the which spoke of legal awards from the government. Of course, if someone thinks otherwise, let's talk.

Also, there is a broken link to thomas.gov which attempting to see the bill referenced in the article. Someone may wish to change it or fix it if you can figure out how. There appears to be no permalink at Thomas for the bill. JodyB talk 12:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Consider it done! I linked to the .pdf version of the bill at the GPO's website. I also moved the sentences referring to the bill to the portion of the section discussing church-state cases, since that is the subject to which the bill relates.Eggmanesquire 21:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation in beginning paragraph

Hey, I removed a citation about what the ACLU works through in the opening paragraph. I removed it because it led to the same page as the reference in the previous sentence. So, why not remove the citation? Sean90 00:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it breaks later uses... --OuroborosCobra 01:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

Hey, I believe criticism of the ACLU is big enough to have it's own article. Do you think so? Sean90 02:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that's a very good idea at all. It would undoubtedly turn into a very contentious and pov driven article. I think it's better to talk about specific controversial cases and/or views and to try to work the negatives into the article itself.Turtlescrubber 03:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critics

Come on this is an organisation that a decent portion of the country has some horrible thing to say about (im not one of them just enjoy reading about controversy) not just Bill Oreilly dont you think the criticism section should reflect that? --76.105.61.81 20:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that's a very good idea at all. It would undoubtedly turn into a very contentious and pov driven article. I think it's better to talk about specific controversial cases and/or views and to try to work the negatives into the article itself.Turtlescrubber 21:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gun politics?

Anyone know how they stand on firearms? I didn't see any mention in the article. Faustus Tacitus 02:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is in there:
In 2006, the ACLU of Washington State and the Second Amendment Foundation jointly filed a lawsuit[53] against the North Central Regional Library District (NCRL) in Washington State for its policy of refusing to disable restrictions upon an adult patron's request. Library patrons attempting to access pro-gun web sites were blocked, and the library refused to remove the blocks. Officially, the ACLU declares itself "neutral" on the subject of gun control legislation although it holds that the second amendment applies only to state militias and not individuals.[54]

But I agree the article would benefit with a better description in the position section. I'll take care of that soon if nobody else does. Turtlescrubber 02:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A few months ago, their position was noted very clearly without any debate over POV. It has since been 1984'd out of the article because quite honestly, the facts challenged their assertion they are "neutral." They plainly aren't, and we are not obligated to make sure the facts of the article support their claim -- this is what POV editors do. Dig into the article history and see if you can find the lost section if you don't believe me. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 05:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
This is how it originally looked:
Although the ACLU categorically embraces a States' Right Model interpretation of the Second Amendment, which only recognizes a state's right to possess firearms, the organization officially declares itself "neutral" on the issue of gun control, pointing to previous Supreme Court decisions such as United States v. Miller to argue that the Second Amendment applies to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, and that "except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of firearms by individuals is not constitutionally protected."[3]
Note that United States v. Miller doesn't cogently support the ACLU's position; and also note, more importantly, that the Bill of Rights is a set of restrictions on the government for the purpose of individual (not state) rights, except where stated otherwise. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 05:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
A1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A2: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
A5: No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
The Second Amendment doesn't protect an individual's right about as much as the First doesn't protect and individual's right. The meaning of "right of the people" does not change amendment to amendment. I don't know who the ACLU is trying to convince. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 05:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Why dig? If I understand what you are trying to say (and I haven't had my coffee yet) why don't we just throw the section back in? I am going to go ahead and do that and if you have any disagreement go ahead and change it or just let me know. Thanks. Turtlescrubber 13:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I put it in under the positions section. I don't have the time right now but very soon I will better integrate it into the section and make it easier to find. Hope that is what you were looking for. Turtlescrubber 13:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Looking good. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speech codes

The comment about Nat Hentoff suggests that the ACLU favors speech codes. That doesn't seem to be the case from the ACLU web site. Is there a basis for Hentoff's allegation? 38.115.7.2 19:12, 28 August 2007 (ALB)

Not that I know of. That section has been on this article for a very long time. It might need to be checked for accuracy. Turtlescrubber 19:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1984 Again

Fixes were made with regard to gun politics some weeks ago, but they have once again been 1984'd out of the article in an attempt to obfuscate the fact that the ACLU is categorically against the 2nd Amendment; they do not believe the individual's right to possess firearms is Constitutionally protected (as documented by the main article). See the previous "gun politics" talk section. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your issue is here. You claim that it's POV to claim the ACLU is "neutral" on gun control. Can you point to a case the ACLU has taken either pro or con re: gun control? Ideally, a reliable source claiming the ACLU has taken a position on gun control legislation. Sdedeo (tips) 09:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
My issue is, significant amounts of contextual information has been taken out of the article. Simply because the ACLU claims to be "neutral" does not make it so. Now, it would be POV for me to make that argument in the article; ideally people will make up their own minds, but the pertinent information has been removed, so what's left is an article that wholly accepts their assertion of neutrality. They categorically aren't. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Haizum. Can you please provide a reliable source that claims that the ACLU is not neutral in this matter? Such a source would claim that the ACLU for example has gotten involved in gun control legislation. Sdedeo (tips) 13:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Red herring. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by that. reliable sources and verifiable facts are required of everything on Wikipedia, including your statement. I didn't know that the ACLU was opposed to gun control, so I'd really like to see the source of your information. Since you didn't make it up out of your head, you must have read it somewhere... where was it? -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Am I speaking Latin? Look at the previous "gun politics" talk section. All the information we need is already referenced, but some of it has simply been taken out of the article. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. OK, reading the previous section, it seems that you think "that United States v. Miller doesn't cogently support the ACLU's position" and that "the Bill of Rights is a set of restrictions on the government for the purpose of individual (not state) rights, except where stated otherwise." The second point is best left to the article on gun control here. The first point would need to be referenced to a reliable source to be included. Sdedeo (tips) 18:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You're obfuscating to the fullest. I'm not trying to have my opinions inserted into the article. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 18:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
If you do not give us a reliable source, we can't do anything. Sdedeo (tips) 19:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The sources were already provided. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I am unable to find any new sources in the "gun politics" section above. Please (re)provide a link to a reliable source so FisherQueen and I can see it. You need to work with us, not against us, so that we can fix whatever issue is bothering you. Sdedeo (tips) 21:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
PS: it would also be helpful if you could copy out your preferred version of the paragraph on the talk page; it's entirely possible that neither of us will think it's a problem. Do believe that neither I nor FisherQueen are interested in censorship or "1984'ing" anything. Sdedeo (tips) 21:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The original passage, as pasted in the "gun politics" talk section. They categorically support a States Rights interpretation and do not believe an individual's rights are protected when it comes to firearms, yet they claim neutrality. It's like saying, "I'm neutral on the subject of abortion rights, I just think the medical practice should be outlawed." The writing is on the wall. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, is this the version you favor?

Although the ACLU categorically embraces a States' Right Model interpretation of the Second Amendment, which only recognizes a state's right to possess firearms, the organization officially declares itself "neutral" on the issue of gun control, pointing to previous Supreme Court decisions such as United States v. Miller to argue that the Second Amendment applies to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, and that "except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of firearms by individuals is not constitutionally protected."[3]

Sdedeo (tips) 22:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. That version stood for quite a while and there was no POV debate. I believe that said version gives a clear indication of how their stance may not (if you are so inclined) be congruent with a neutral stance on gun control, but it makes no declaration either way. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. Presumably it was changed because someone objected to the characterization that the ACLU was not "neutral." The easiest solution is, I think, this, is a new version that removes the word.

The ACLU embraces a States' Right Model interpretation of the Second Amendment, which only recognizes a state's right to possess firearms. The organization does not get involved in gun control cases on either side, pointing to previous Supreme Court decisions such as United States v. Miller to argue that the Second Amendment applies to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, and that "except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of firearms by individuals is not constitutionally protected."[3]

Is this good? Sdedeo (tips) 22:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly. If their official position is neutrality, we are in no way obligated to make the article support that position. If they say they are "neutral," and the facts say otherwise, then let the chips fall. That isn't POV, that's letting people make up their own minds. Anything less than that is, well...1984. It is also relevant to point out that the ACLU publicly states that it concerns itself with the Bill of Rights, which challenges their own record of not handling 2nd Amendment cases. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I missed this bit: The easiest solution is, I think, this, is a new version that removes the word. That's the opposite of everything we've been discussing. If their official position is "neutral," there's no reason to omit that unless you are concerned that the facts say otherwise, which is POV. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Given my limited patience, I think the best solution at this point is for you to rewrite the passage (or simply cut and paste from above) in the article itself. Don't be surprised, however, if another editor changes it because it contains unreferenced statements. If you want to make it stick, I suggest finding a reliable source that explicitly disputes the ACLU's assertion of neutrality; if you include one I doubt anyone will revert.
For future reference, your paranoia, rudeness and unhelpfulness towards me have made what should have been a simple human interaction rather more tiresome. Sdedeo (tips) 23:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
That passage was already written, referenced, and made no explicit conclusions on the ACLU's actual neutrality. It's clear what is going on here. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Funny how this reference was deleted from the article: [33] The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. Then the rest of the policy article quite literally echoes Brady Campaign talking points. Opinion: The ACLU isn't neutral. Fact: The ACLU claims neutrality and echoes the Brady Campaign's logic. The writing is on the wall. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
You'd think the words of a senior editor at Reason magazine would mean something: [34] ...especially considering the number of times Kieth Olberman is used as a reference here on Wikipedia. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the fact that it isn't the magazine, but the blog of one of the contributors. --OuroborosCobra 02:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Jacob Sullum is the author of that blog post and he a senior editor. So I guess that means Keith Olberman's shows are just video blogs? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
No, his show is not a video blog, but your post even calls itself a blog. --OuroborosCobra 04:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Right, and when the president says something controversial, it can't be quoted because it's part of his verbal blog. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
You want to argue about Keith Olberman, do it on your own time and on a page where a source by him is involved, not wasting time here. The fact is waht you presented IS a blog, it calls it self a blog, it does not try to disguise itself as anything but a blog, and standard Wikipedia practice is to not accept blogs as reliable sources. --OuroborosCobra 14:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
What a mistake. One of my sources is unacceptable and the rest, regardless of how usable, are dismissed. Such is Wikipedia. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Bigger mistake, accusing me of dismissing your other sources when I have done nothing of the sort. --OuroborosCobra 04:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Former ACLU head of Virginia chapter, Charles Rust-Tierney pleads guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography on June 1, 2007

Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, is a former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU from 2002 to 2005. On February 23, 2007, Rust-Tierney was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography. He pleaded guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography on June 1, 2007. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/01/AR2007060101882.html

64.18.139.132 02:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

He was no longer head of the ACLU Virginia, and his actions aren't related to the ACLU. It isn't relevant to this article. --OuroborosCobra 05:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. To put this in perspective, he was a former state director, only on the job for 3 years and was arrested 2 years after he stopped working for the organization. Turtlescrubber 18:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
There is some edit warring without discussion happening on the page. Shame on you. Turtlescrubber 06:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree it all has to be removed, although a lot was duplicative of itself and could have been written better. Like a few sentences. Anyway, I added Charles Rust-Tierney to the See Also list; that should not be controversial. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 07:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Not relevant. I note that you have reached your third revert on this subject today. FCYTravis 07:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
To add to this statement, unless there is clear and compelling evidence which links this person's conduct to the operation of the organization, a link to it has absolutely no place on the ACLU page. Convicted felon Scooter Libby is not linked as a see also from the Republican Party (United States), and neither should Mr. Rust-Tierney. FCYTravis 07:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)