Talk:American Civil Liberties Union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American Civil Liberties Union article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
American Civil Liberties Union was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: March 25, 2007
Peer review American Civil Liberties Union has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.


Contents

[edit] External Links, "sites critical of ACLU" should be removed.

This is rather ridiculous (and unprecedented). It is one thing to include criticism in the article, but there is absolutely no need to list a bunch of blogs that attack the organization at the end of the article. It is simply opinion masquerading as "balance." I suggest these links be removed unless specific relevancy is demonstrated. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Both have since been removed, and I added a hidden comment requesting they not be reinserted. The ACLU is not above criticism, certainly, but websites that distort the truth, and offer opinions dressed up as facts, are not appropriate. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 05:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] non-profit and tax status

All I wanted to do was comment on an error in the ACLU entry. It now says "The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is an American organization consisting of two separate entities. The ACLU Foundation is a non-profit organization that focuses on litigation and communication efforts, whereas the American Civil Liberties Union focuses on legislative lobbying and does not have non-profit status.[2]" This is not correct. I am not a lawyer, but this would be much more correct:

"The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is an American organization consisting of two separate entities, both of which are non-profit, tax-exempt organizations. The ACLU Foundation is a 501(c)3 organization that focuses on litigation, education, and communication efforts, whereas the American Civil Liberties Union focuses on legislative lobbying and is a 501(c)4 organization.[2]"


Sorry for providing comments in this way but after an hour of looking for a simple way to comment, this was the best place I could find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wigwagwom (talk • contribs) 22:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] ACLUs Move From Communism

From what I've read, the ACLU has an early history with ties to communism. I understand that they eventually moved away from it, but it still is important to note the early development of the organization. I don't understand why the article feels it's OK to state that they moved away from communism, but not OK to state that they were close to it to begin with. What's the big deal?

From looking through the archives, I've noticed a lot of additions and deletions regarding their early communist ideology, with a lot of 'angry' words from both sides. I can't see what the problem is. It seems to me that the organization adopted ideologies that were common with early communism. Once the communist ideology was 'subverted' by totalitarian dictators, they distanced themselvs from the communist party, but keep a lot of the original, progressive ideology. Is that so hard to understand, or to accept? Angncon (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It is always a matter of finding reliable sources that indicate that these things you are saying are true. If you can provide such a source, fine. But, what we neither want nor need is propaganda from one or another of the many groups who regularly denounce the ACLU as anti-American. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Coming from a family of mixed nationalities, and noting the long line of contention in American history, I find it difficult to believe that anyone protesting the government can be considered un-American (maybe anti-government, but that's not the same). If anything, those that passively accept the will, opinion, or influence of any entity are un-American. It is in our culture and history to be contentious; at both ends of the political spectrum.
Angncon, I believe you are mistaken as to the history of the ACLU. The ACLU never practiced "communist ideology" or advocated any such thing. Perhaps you are confusing the organization itself with one of its founders, Roger Nash Baldwin, but even that is a bit of a stretch. Baldwin was an early supporter of labor and war-resistance causes that were supported by communist and labor organizations and his sympathies were tied to many of these groups, most notably the IWW. However, he was first and foremost a civil libertarian and denounced communism (even going so far as to make it known that communists were not welcome in the ACLU) when it became apparent that communism and civil liberties were mutually exclusive. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that I am mistaken. I have studied the history of communism for more than a decade now. I specifically did not state that the ACLU was a communist organization, but I most certainly believe that they have practiced, and continue to practice the basic communist ideology. That is, a true communist ideology as espoused by Engels and Marx in the late 19th century, not the totalitarian perversion of the ideology demonstrated later by the Soviet Union and China. Even marxist.org (very neutral history of communism) has a section on the ACLU. As far a Baldwin, his ideology is apparent in his writings. Here are some quotes that demonstrate basic communist ideology:

"The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental."

"When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever."

"[I]f American champions of civil liberty could all think in terms of economic freedom as the goal of their labors, they too would accept "workers' democracy" as far superior to what the capitalist world offers to any but a small minority. Yes, and they would accept — regretfully, of course — the necessity of dictatorship while the job of reorganizing society on a socialist basis is being done."

        Freedom In the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R.

"My "chief aversion" is the system of greed, private profit, privilege, and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment. I am opposed to the new deal [sic] because it strives to strengthen and prolong production for private profit. At bottom I am for conserving the full powers of every person on earth by expanding them to their individual limits. Therefore, I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It sums up into one single purpose -- the abolition of the system dog-eat-dog under which we live, and the substitution by the most effective non-violence possible of a system of cooperative ownership and use of all wealth."

         Baldwin, 'From the Harvard Classbook,' June 1935, vol. 763, ACLU Papers. Robert C. Cottrell  and
         Roger Nash Baldwin and the American Civil Liberties Union [New York: Columbia University Press, 2000], pp. 228-229.)

To continue stating that neither the ACLU or Baldwin had early communist ties does nothing but fuel the fire of those who believe that the ACLU is hiding 'nefarious communist agenda'. Without acknowledging these early ties, the ACLU is doomed to maintain the 'communist fascist' tag given to it by the right since the 1940s. Baldwin denounced communism once he saw that the ideology was co-opted by fascist dictatorships. Why is this difficult to explain? And again I say, whats the big deal?85.31.69.82 (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what it is you're suggesting be included in the article. I think you would be hard-pressed to find any reliable sources which state that the ACLU "practiced, and continue to practice the basic communist ideology." I guessed (correctly, it seems) that you were referring to Baldwin and not the organization, but you still seem to be confusing the two. Baldwin's Wikipedia article goes into some detail about the subject of his early embrace and later denunciation of Communist ideology. But contrary to your claim, the ACLU as an organization did not espouse communist ideology. As for their being labeled 'communist fascist' by the right, I've never heard that one before but anyone who would use the phrase probably has a pretty poor understanding of what either of those terms mean.--Loonymonkey (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
IMHO the problem seems to be this: Baldwin was not a prolific writer, but he did write quite a bit. In these writings, he made it known that he was politically active in early communist ideology (this is from his writings, not my opinion). He founded a political group and led it for its first 30 years. Other original founders were Elizabeth Gurley Flynn who later became the national chairman (chairperson?) of the CPUSA, Crystal Eastman (ok, just an admitted socialist), William Z. Foster (another CPUSA chairman). Communist organizations (such as the CPUSA) wrote about his organization as an ally to their cause. All this information was not pulled from propaganda sites, mostly writings and textbooks. Refusing to acknowledge that even the slightest breach of Baldwin's ideology went into his organization forces naiveté on the part of the reader, thus fueling this backlash that I've read here in the archives and elsewhere.
I don't know exactly what or how to include it in the article. I'm not that knowledgeable with the ACLU. But I do have some extensive knowledge of the history of communism. BTW, 'fascist communism' was my term; misused here. It was common description used during the late 30s to 50s with Soviet communism (Stalin's era). My point is to show that the ACLU did have early communist influence (via its founder and chairman for 30 years) but was in no way associated with the totalitarian version. You can leave the article as it is (like I said, I don't think I know enough to be qualified to change it), but apparently, silence on the subject seems to only breed contempt.Angncon (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This Article is Unfair and Biased toward its Subject

Encyclopedias are supposed to at least pretend to be superpersonal and objective. This current article on the other hand is nothing but a gigantic defense and apologetic propaganda for the ACLU and its anarcho-nihilist (Emma Goldman as the inspiration) activities. There is no section on philosophical or ethical objections to the ACLU by prominent non-radical thinkers and leaders, and the fact that the organization's leadership is bursting with hypocritical snakelike criminals dressed up as reformers. Mention is barely made of the legally convicted pedophiles and child-rapists in this organization. Who decided that Wikipedia must at all costs be dogmatic ACLU-militants? The whole article is biassed fringe-left trash and should be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we get it. You hate the ACLU. Wikipedia has very strict policies concerning neutral point of view, so I doubt you're going to get a lot of support for your demand that the article be changed to reflect your opinion that the ACLU is made up of "hypocritical snakelike criminals." Also, please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Specific suggestions for improvement: allow for academic fairness by giving textual space for critical, NON-SYCHOPHANTIC scholarship on the ACLU (such as its origins in anarcho-collectivist currents and Emma Goldman's anarchist philosophy); do not try to dishonestly whitewash and hide under the rug the fact that many ACLU leaders have been successfully prosecuted by the American government for various serious felonies; etc.

The "criticism of the ACLU" section at the bottom of the page I see is DELIBERATELY left blank. What a typically modern farce!

The POV tag remains.

For instance, Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU, published a collection of revolutionary pamphlets written by the anti-government revolutionary anarchist theorist Pyotr Alekseyevich Kropotkin, etc.; but no mention is made of these "inconvenient" facts. The ostensible goal of the organization is "defending American constitutional rights" but what does anarcho-collectivism have to do with the American Constitution?

In the criticism section, mention at least should be made of The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values (B&H Publishing Group, 2005) by Alan Sears and Craig Osten.

http://www.acluvsamerica.com/main/default.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.129 (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, remember to adhere to the rules of wikipedia when engaged in discussion. In particular, you should always remember to assume good faith. That said, you seem to be suggesting that we add a section where you can post anti-ACLU screeds from websites devoted to attacking the ACLU. This is counter to wikipedia style and policy. In general, criticism sections are avoided on wikipedia (as they tend to become POV dumping grounds) and there has been a great effort among the wikipolitics projects to dismantle these sections and weave relevant notable criticism into the body of the article (as is done here). This is not a left or right wing effort, it is being done across the board. As for your other points, this article is about the ACLU, not Baldwin. The article on him (which is linked from this article) does discuss the fact that he embraced certain communist ideas early on (but later disavowed communism when it became apparent that it was incompatible with civil libertarianism). I doubt that you will find a reliable source which states that the ACLU is an "anarcho-collectivist organization" whose leadership is "bursting with hypocritical snakelike criminals" but feel free to discuss it here if you do. Also, please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

--Greetings everyone. I am not a regular Wikipedia contributor, and I am also neither "anti-Aclu" nor "pro-Aclu", but it seems this individual has a very real point. The article is almost exclusively celebratory and offers virtually no critical discussion on the Aclu's origins in socialistic and anarchist-antigovernment ideologies. I think this article should be restructured to fit the goal of non-partisanship of any worthy encyclopedia. I find the coercive, suppressive behavior of the power-holding editors here (RepublicanJacobite, etc) quite unworthy of a free democratic civilization dedicated to open-ended debate. To sum up: This individual has a legitimate point, and Wikipedia's community owes it to their own democratic values to address the grievance instead of facilely dismissing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.62.151 (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the previous poster. Due to the wild excesses of injustice and denial of legitimate grievance of this individual by 'editorial gold old boys' on Wikipedia, I, a non-Wikipedian who could not be less interested in internet activities, have taken time out of my own life to rebalance the article by citing competent authorities to reflect nonpartisanship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.132.93 (talk) 08:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Fringe-left"? What is it with simpletons who are incapable of identifying just how irreconcilable socialist theory is with the motivations of a bunch of civil rights lawyers who opt to represent white, male and middle class hegemons? Pseudo-left! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.18.34.5 (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Contentious Origins and Criticism"

The new section with the above title, created by the previous anonymous user, has now been removed. The entire section, as I stated in my edit summary, is highly problematic. Many of the sources it quotes, despite the claim that they are "iron clad," are highly POV and biased against the ACLU. Some examples of its questionable content:

Baldwin counted among his friends Margaret Sanger (1879-1966), leader of the birth-control movement and an ardent advocate of eugenics who was admired by Adolf Hitler (John Ray, "Eugenics and the Left," Frontpagemagazine.com, Sept. 25, 2003; [6]).

Of what significance is it that Sanger may or may not have been admired by Hitler? Yes, she was an admocate of eugenics, as were a great many Progressives of the time. But, what has that to do with the origins of the ACLU? Did the ACLU, or Baldwin, advocate eugenics? No, actually, the ACLU has fought against eugencs legislation.

In 1920, a joint committe of the New York State Legislature described the ACLU as "a supporter of all subversive movements; and its propaganda is detrimental to the interests of the state. It attempts not only to protect crime, but to encourage attacks upn our institutions in every form" (Daniel J. Popeo, "Not Our America ... The ACLU Exposed," Washington Legal Foundation, 10, 1989).

First of all, the conclusion reached by a New York legislative committee in 1920 might be an interesting source as to some governmental opinion in that time period, but I would like to see an original source for this. Still, it would only be of limited value. But, seeing that it is quoted in a paper issued by a known anti-ACLU organization makes it suspect.

We are then treated to lengthy quotes from "William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights" and "The esteemed lawyer and American federal judge Robert Bork," both of whom are well-known opponents of the ACLU.

The sum total of what we are presented with in this section is a mix of facts and opinion (leaning more toward the latter) which is unencyclopædic in its tone and presentation. A legitimate criticism section would not look like this. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite, you have displayed your autocratic tendencies on this issue quite clearly. According to you, there is no such thing as legitimate criticism of the ACLU; they are ideologically and morally untouchable. You would erase with fanatic desperation any mention of the possibility that not every single person on earth is in alignment with the ACLU's worldview, which I find tyrannous and immoral. This page is now, no question, POV and the POV label will remain until some non-biased person mediates it or some of the information in the 'contentious origins and criticism' section is restored.
True, the section in a few areas could be cleaned up (which i will try to amend), but that doesnt justify wholesale suppression.
Your way of thinking on this topic is absurd. You say that Robert Bork is a "well-known opponent of the ACLU". Well, that's the point. It's ideological conflict and critique. An objective encyclopedia can't have an entry that unilaterally celebrates an organization and touts its achievements and then not mention any legitimate philosophical opponents.
You are basically saying that *there is no such thing as legitimate criticism and philosophical critics of the ACLU*, which is an evil philosophy going back to the absolutist-autocratic days of divine right of kings.
The problem is not the info or the opponents posted, but you. If you do not cease your irrational vandalistic coercive tactics shortly, this problem will be refered to higher wikipedia authorities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.129 (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Listen, you refer this to any authorities you like. I stand by my edits. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW, the conclusion by the American govt comittee that the ACLU is a pro-criminal org is wellknown outside 'true believer' circles; the reference can even be found on the internet:
http://books.google.com/books?id=HBwlIE4jo-MC&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=%22a+supporter+of+all+subversive+movements%3B+and+its+propaganda+is+detrimental+to+the+interests+of+the+state%22&source=web&ots=H1TiLhwW9x&sig=AWLSQjOShCgRBZs_0aQh5nBh4uo#PPA136,M1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.129 (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
My response to that is exactly this: So what? I am well aware that various gov't. agencies and departments investigated and harassed the ACLU from its founding. I take this as an indication that the organization was effective. It was feared and despised precisely because it was successful in its attempts to prevent tyranny. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine, you asked for it. This matter will be refered to honest wikipedians and your autocracy will indeed be punished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.129 (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Your threats are absolutely meaningless to me as anyting other than a joke. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
What the hell was that supposed to mean? Punished? Angncon (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
That is why I said it was a joke. He has no ability to punish me nor to see me punished. My edits were correct and proper. I notice that he has ceased his campaign, so apparently he realized he would lose. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

While bunchofnumbers there did plainly try to the article into a hatchet job, there is probably a bit of legitimate criticism and controversy in what he added that could be included. Certainly the attempts to undermine the organization by attacking its founder don't belong (he has his own article, which is where the criticism of him should stay, while maintaining NPOV), but the statement by the NY legislature is interesting, and seems worthy of inclusion somewhere, given the proper context. Maybe some of what Bork said could be incorporated, without turning a section into a bunch of quotes about people hatin' on the ACLU. Based on bunchofnumbers' talk page contributions so far, I'm not expecting any overtures from that direction towards a mutual agreement on legitimate criticism, but we should try to exmaine any POV issues that may exist in the article. -R. fiend (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have never once claimed or argued that the ACLU is above criticism. At the top of this talk page, I state very clearly that I believe otherwise. Certainly, some kind of legitimate criticisms can be made, but not in the manner that has been done up to this point. I would like to see a reasonable and polite discussion of this topic, rather than the accusations and threats that have been made up to this point. Your comments, R. fiend, are, I believe, a step in the right direction. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. There is criticism woven into the article, and if there are other specific notable criticisms that should be added, they should be discussed here and included. Of course, just because somebody criticized the ACLU (and there are a lot of such somebodies considering how vilified the organization is among those of a certain political slant) doesn't mean that their criticism is worthy of inclusion. That's not how wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The criticism itself has to have a reason for inclusion; that is, it has to be relevant to the article and it has to be notable. The "two" disruptive anons have no interest in following this normal process of wikipedia (and, totally coincidentally, are using the same Virginia-based AOL proxy server and write in a similar voice using bizarre phrases such as "arbitrary, autocratic, cliquish advocator-partisans") I have very little patience for a troll that insults or threatens experienced editors and disrupts wikipedia simply to make a point.--Loonymonkey (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The criticism section was reinserted on 29 February against the consensus on this talk page. Before deleting it in its entirety, I would like to see further discussion of the matter. For myself, I agree with what Loonymonkey has said above, i.e., that there is no reason to have a "criticism" section just for its own sake. The question is, are the criticisms valid, reasonable, well-founded, and notable? Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

After it was reinserted, I took out the hatchet job elements and tried to leave the more valid stuff. As the ACLU is the bugbear of the conservative movement in the US and the posterboy of what they hate about liberalism, the criticisms of it are widespread and certainly notable. They're not really covered terribly well in the article, from what could tell. There's the Controversial stances section, but those specific examples don't really get to the heart of what so many object to about the ACLU. When Republicans rant against it, it's not because of Oliver North, or Frank Snepp, or even Fred Phelps; those are basically separate issues. I'm not sure the criticisms section is all that great either, but there is an appearance of trying to whitewash some of it, which is not good. To probably about a quarter of this country, the ACLU is considered one step behind Al Qaeda, and that isn't brought across well.
So to answer your question, are the criticisms valid, reasonable, well-founded, and notable? Well, valid is subjective. To many they are valid, to others they are not. They are not invented by an editors here, however. Reasonable? Again subjective. I think what is currently included is reasonable, but the quote by Bork may not be necessary. Well-founded? There should certainly be no trouble finding widespread criticism of the organization, at least. Notable? Criticism of the organization is very notable. It probably belongs in the lead, in fact. These specific examples? Well, the New York Legislature is a very significant organization, and I would say an official condemnation by a committee is notable. Bork isn't some random pundit or blogger, so what he says carries some weight, anyway. If these two quotes sum up well the chief criticisms of the ACLU from the right, then it is fair to include them. They are sourced, so they can't be removed on those grounds. If tons of this sort of stuff gets added, turning much of the article into an attack piece, then it can certainly be trimmed. But what is there now does not strike me as unfair, and until something better is added covering the controversy, I don;t see any strong reason for its removal. -R. fiend (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You're confusing notability of the subject with notability of the quote. Yes, Robert Bork is notable. But that doesn't mean that his general criticism of the ACLU is automatically notable to this article. How is it any different than the generic criticism that flows from those of a certain political slant? It has to be about a specific subject, not just about the ACLU generally. Why couldn't any of his criticisms be woven into the "Controversial Stances" section? For reasons stated above, "Criticism" sections are a terrible idea and are being dismantled across wikipedia. Ask yourself, would you support the idea of a general "Praise for the ACLU" section with favorable quotes by notable people? No, of course not and neither would I. I didn't even notice until today that this one had been added a few days ago. I'm going to remove it, but if there are specific criticisms that need to be mentioned, let's discuss weaving them into the other sections (for instance, I thing the New York Legislature quote could be mentioned in the historical section, but we would need to include the context of what specifically they were referring to and it would need to be properly referenced).--Loonymonkey (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I know what you mean, and I wasn't really thrilled with the section as it was, but the article basically glosses over the fact that the ACLU is a very controversial organization, demonized by a pretty large swath of the nation. The little "oh they've done a few things that have been unpopular" section doesn't really get this point across well. They are probably one of the most polarizing organizations in the country, which you would never know from reading the article. Ideally the "Controversial stances" would be redone to bring the point across that the entire organization is controversial, not merely some of the cases they've been involved with. The NY Legislature item, for instance, is pretty significant, but isn't properly a "controversial stance" (and I see it has not been moved into that section). The fact is, conservatives tend to revile the ACLU for reasons such as that they perceive them as having a hostility to religion, inclinations towards the rights of criminals and the accused over the rights of victims and law and order in general, favoritism towards homosexuality, and defense of indecency (to name a few of the major perceptions of the group). Spam, Nazis, Oliver North, and even NAMBLA are almost red herrings. The controversy around the ACLU is probably one of the most notable things about it, and really should be mentioned in the lead, and covered better in its own section. The Bork quote itself is unnecessary, sure, but it did serve the purpose of outlining the view of the ACLU by many. As it stands now, the article doesn't do that too well. -R. fiend (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Court-Awarded Damages

The section on court-awarded damages seems defensive and (thus) POV. I think the underlying issue is that such payments are not well understood, but form a major element of ACLU criticism. Can we create a seperate page? Ethan Mitchell (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ACLU internal conflict

wasn't there some big deal about how the aclu was trying to censor dissent from within, and had some crazy employee confidentialty policy a few years back? could somebody knowlegeble on the topic add that to the entry. it's a bit of a glaring omission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.133.211 (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

never mind, i wrote something up. but please add more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.133.211 (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted your additions because they were unreferenced. Unless and until you can find a notable source for that information, please do not add it to the article. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I was in error when I deleted this information, as a notable source was provided. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 05:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two elephants

I do not contribute to this article, as I have a COI. But I would like to suggest that the edit battles here have prevented the article from articulating two keys points. First, the ACLU has a policy and practice of being the legal-defense-of-last-resort for unpopular clients in civil liberties cases: "their client is the constitution," as the phrase goes. Whether or not we believe that the ACLU has toed that line, it seems important to explain that the ACLU has claimed this position, and does not just defend NAMBLA and neo-Nazis because they're bored.

At the same time, it seems important to explain that the ACLU is one of the most reviled organizations in the country, and that criticism of the ACLU is not simply a sporadic response to particular positions, but is virtually a movement unto itself, with web pages, etc. devoted to attacking the ACLU per se. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time to get a discussion going on any POV issues this article may or may not have. Ethan here makes some good points, and right now it seems most discussion is happening in the edit summaries of the revert wars that are raging, which is not the way to do it. Now, while my words are being used to support a POV tag on this article, I'm not entirely convinced it warrants one (mostly because I spitefully detest the overuse of tags that has become a plague upon Wikipedia in the past year or two). Though there is nothing that says a consensus is required for such a tag, only a rationale. My view (and I'm not alone) is that the exceedingly controversial nature of the ACLU is almost dismissed by this article, which don't seem right. Adequate coverage of the controversies is hardly POV, in fact, doesn't the ACLU wear them as a badge of honor? Anyway, can we try to figure out if or how we can address the controversial nature of the ACLU better? -R. fiend (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe it would be more appropriate to say "another discussion" on POV issues, since this has actually been ongoing for two or three months, intermittently, with anonymous users adding POV tags, making threats and accusations here on the talkpage, and adding inappropriate "criticism" sections for so-called balance. The ACLU is a controversial organization, yes, and a great many people hold to untoward opinions about it, egged on by ultra-right commentators with an axe to grind. But, should the opinions of cranks be added to the article just for the sake of balance? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying we should throw in a bunch of inappropriate criticism and opinions of cranks, but it's not just far-right cranks who revile the ACLU, it's many conservatives, and fair proportion of the population. Ethan, above, points out that the ACLU is one of the most reviled organizations in the country (perhaps an exaggeration, but discounting fringe organizations like NAMBLA, the Nazis and even the KKK, it's up there). This article seems to ignore that. I'm not saying we need to add all sorts of quotes by Rush and O'Reilly and Coulter and other windbags, but the very widespread opposition should be covered. Right now, from reading the "controversy" section, you'd think the ACLU was no more controversial than the American Red Cross (read their controversy sections for comparison) which is hardly the case at all. The highly controversial nature of the organization should go in the lead, and there should be greater explanation further in about why so many find the ACLU abhorrent. Look at this article, for example; hardly a hatchet job, but it goes into the controversy around the ACLU in the second paragraph. Our entire lead only mentions the ACLU's criticism of others. To me, that seems amiss. -R. fiend (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that I have been clear that a discussion of the controversy is necessary, and that a discussion of criticism can and should be included. The question is not whether, but now, this should be done. The manner in which the anonymous user(s) have been behaving is inappropriate, and that includes the addition of POV templates without any attempt at engaging in discussion as to the issues involved. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we're in basic agreement. I'm not fond of the methods some of the recent critics here have used, as they clearly have an agenda, but understanding that even a broken clock it right twice a day, the article, to me, seems a bit POV. That can easily be remedied with the expansion of its controversies. I can go ahead and add a paragraph to the lead, but if it's going to be reverted I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. I also don't feel like spending a lot of time looking for sources for facts that nobody really disputes, such as: they're very controversial by nature, most of their support comes from the left and their criticism from the right, and that their opponents view them as anti-religious and subverting anti-crime and terror initiatives. Just putting that much in the lead should be a pretty big improvement to the neutrality of the article. -R. fiend (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with all of that. Thanks for your efforts, they are appreciated. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I added those basic sentiments to the intro. It's hardly polished writing, so people should feel free to tidy it up a bit, or expand. Please don't remove it without discussion, anyone. -R. fiend (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed this paragraph from the lede. My edit summary was perhaps a little more bitey than I intended it to be, I actually think the balance was almost there (although it really needs to be referenced or it just falls the weasel word trap and it has a little bit of an WP:OR problem right now which reads like an editorial). That said, it's really inappropriate for the lede. The ACLU does not draw its notability from that controversy and it is not defined by the fact that many on the right vilify them, any more than the NRA is defined by the fact that they are demonized on the left. I think something along the lines of what you wrote would be appropriate as an introduction to the Controversial stances section, though. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I added it back. I put in a few refs, and can do more, but let's face it, this is not the sort of information any sane person denies. Regardless of one's opinion of the ACLU, one cannot deny they are very controversial. To whitewash that fact, making it seem like the ACLU and the Red Cross are both viewed the same across the country, is ridiculous. Their controversy is one of the most notable thing about them. And I'd have a little more faith in your edits if you could spell "lead" correctly. -R. fiend (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, there is often controversy surrounding the organization, but that controversy does not define them (or account for their notability). I didn't say they were viewed the same as the Red Cross. Please don't resort to strawman arguments to make your point. The paragraph is completely inappropriate in the lede (and I invite you to look up the spelling of that before insulting others. It makes you look foolish). Please read the guidelines for such at wp:lede.--Loonymonkey (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say the controversy defined the organization, just that it does account for a deal of their notability. If they didn't regularly take controversial stances on issues they would certainly not be as simultaneously popular and unpopular as they currently are, and they would not be as well known or as ubiquitously referenced. Nor did I accuse you of equating their controversy with that of the Red Cross; it's their respective articles that do that. Looking at the articles an otherwise uninformed reader would be left with the impression that the Red Cross was the more controversial of the two organizations, thanks to the whitewash of this article. And as for newfangled spellings, well, certain parties don't seem to agree. -R. fiend (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you agree that controversy does not define the organization, the the problem is simply that you don't understand how a lede section should be written. It is a summary of the article and describes why the subject is notable. The paragraph you wrote fails on both of those points. Again, the ACLU is not notable because of the opinion their critics have of them. A Lexis/Nexis search of the organization turns up hundreds of reliably sourced references to the organization in the past month alone, only a few of which have anything to do with criticism. Perhaps your perspective is skewed by the sources you are reading? If you spend a lot of time reading blogs of a certain political slant or listening to AM radio, it would be easy to form the opinion that they are notable simply for being criticized. There is no "whitewash" here, you are simply placing this in the wrong place. Your edit is a good start as a description of why they are criticized in the controversial positions section, but the lede is not the correct section for it (and it would need to be rewritten a bit as it relies too heavily on [[WP:AWW}weasel words]] and doesn't cite any of the specific claims you are making). As for spelling, there is nothing new-fangled about it. "Lede" is the correct spelling as used by journalists and writing professionals (a group that nobody would ever accuse you of belonging to). "Lead," while technically incorrect (it is a shorthand version of the adjective form "lead paragraph" and not the noun "lede") is also acceptable as it is in common use by laymen. Perhaps you should email the New York Times and let them know that their news blog The Lede is spelled incorrectly.--Loonymonkey (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

<---

You keep putting words in my mouth, while simultaneously shifting the criteria for inclusion in the lede. We both admit that the controversy does not define the ACLU (I never said it did), but the opening is more than just a definition. Wikipedia:Lead section says it also includes "the important aspects of the article's topic" that "should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." So your argument seems to be that the controversy is not an important aspect, and should be left out of an overview of the topic. I disagree, and I don't think I'm alone. Furthermore, you keep accusing me of inserting my opinions into the article, despite the fact that, for one, you don't know what my opinions are, and additionally, the controversy surrounding the ACLU is not a matter of opinion. You seem to admit to that at least by moving the information elsewhere in the article. The opinion here is whether it belongs in the aentroduction to the article; that it does not is merely your opinion. If there is a concern about weasel words, I'm not sure exactly what to say. American conservatives frequently demonize the ACLU, but no one is going to list all of them, so I'm not sure how much more specific one can get without merely naming a few specific examples.

I admit it could use more sources. Sometimes the things everyone knows are the hardest to find reliable sources on (unfortunately "throw a rock..." is not a reliable source). It's easy enough to find isolated examples, but I'm not going to add 200 footnotes to a sentence just to show that a particular view is not isolated. One needn't listen to tons of AM radio to pick up on the controversy, either. George H.W. Bush used them to make a prominent attack on Dukakis; one that wasn't just aimed at the far right. We're not talking Michael Savage here.

That being said, at least the controversy section is more complete now. It previously gave the impression that most of the controversy comes from the defense of groups like NAMBLA and nazis, which isn't really the case; they were very controversial before the defended NAMBLA, and I'd wager there are ACLU-haters who are somewhat sympathetic to nazis. Much of the commonplace contemporary criticism comes from religious folk who view them as hostile to religion (mostly theirs). The main question is whether any of this belongs in the openninge sexion, and I, for one, would like to get other's thoughts on this before it is moved into the laeter paragraffes. -R. fiend (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lock?

Would it be appropriate to lock editing on this article until some of the POV items can be taken care of? It seems to me like both sides are using the editing of the article (and the subsequent summaries) as a way to snipe at each other instead of organising an unbiased encylopedia article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes, I do believe a lock is in order. I believe the differences between the registered editors can be worked out here on the talk page. However, the problems with the anons willm I am afraid, remain. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This would indicate a semi-protect, not a "lock." I'd be against "locking" the page against all editing. --Paul (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection is probably a good idea. Not sure if full protection is necessary yet. The strongest partisans on both sides seem to be anons. -R. fiend (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The "strongest partisan," I would argue, is the anonymous user at IP 63.3.10.1 (and variations of same), who has just been reported to AiV. Semi-protection is warranted, though, after which, we need to sort this out. When we have come to a consensus here as to the "controversial" nature of the ACLU, and criticisms thereof, and how this fits in the article, we will be in a better position to deal with the anons who wish to push a POV. I would like very much to see the POV template gone before the end of the month. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the need for semi-protection has decreased for a little while. (keyword being maybe)

The long series of acts of vandalism today would seem to indicate semi-protection is still in order. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Find a better quote?

There is a pull-quote in the article now, by the ACLU president. I find it incoherent and out of place. I think it was transcribed from spoken English, because it's not even a sentence. I get that she's trying to say "People who attack us by distorting our positions shouldn't act surprised when people believe them." But you really have to work to extract that meaning from this quote. Besides, what is her point exactly? It's hard for people to tell what? How are the distorters harmed when politicians believe them? Bottom line: I think this is not a good choice as a pull quote. The current text of the quote appears below. Chester320 (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"It’s hard for people to tell, because those who want to say the ACLU is hostile to religion distort what we have done, distort what the Supreme Court has done, and then they are surprised that government officials believe them and say, 'Oh no, no religious display is allowed at all, or no student is allowed to make a religious statement,' which is not the case."

[edit] Opponents of the modern ACLU stances have a voice as strong as their supporters.

In May of 2006, I first challenged the monitors of the ACLU page and suggested that many contributions were entirely biased and I offered several well-researched suggestions for entry. I was attacked immediately and indeed shocked that such a one-sided discussion could silence any other point of view. We all understand the incredible power that Wikipedia has regarding nearly any issue or subject and it is a fact that many young Americans come to Wikipedia for a quick information fix and even rely on this page for research. I have come to the opinion that this page has evolved into a very balanced perspective. I particularly like that the "controversial issues" have been added to this page rather than relegated to a link at the bottom of the page. Every page on this site should be open to honest and thoughtful challenge. I thank everyone of you for working to make this a nicely balanced political forum. Butchpenton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butchpenton (talk • contribs) 20:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Added "liberal" to the title.

I felt that it would be a better balanced article if the words "liberal" were added to the title. This should solve many of the arguments surrounding this article. I justify this for several reasons:

1) The stances of the ACLU described in the "POSITIONS" section of this article indicate a general position of liberalism, such as promoting GLBT rights, abortion and contraception rights, Affirmative action, illegal immigration, and gun control. It is clearly a liberal organization.

2) Becuase of the fact that it is indeed a liberal organization, neglecting to reference it as such clearly shows a bias.

3) Its counterpart, the Thomas More Law Center, is listed as a "conservative Christian" organization. It is only fair to also identify ACLU as "liberal" and "secular." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjford (talk • contribs) 15:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Bjford. As you have not provided a reliable source to verify the claim that the ACLU is a "liberal" organization, your above analysis constitutes original research which Wikipedia does not tolerate in articles. Regards, Skomorokh 16:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The reliable sources are provided in the article itself, as I have shown. Sources are shown in the "Positions" section of the article. Is this not sufficient? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.76.138.251 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
That cannot be the case, because the word "liberal" does not occur in the Positions section, and I have not removed it. Skomorokh 17:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I have removed an unsourced statement claiming the ACLU to be "liberal". This is neither supported by reliable sources or by relative weight guidelines. Regards, Skomorokh 18:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have cited the materials from the article on modern liberalism. How have I broken NPOV? Do I need some sort of political scientist to confirm that they are liberal? Enough of this hogwash. The article clearly shows that they are sympathetic to many of the views held by social liberals (which I linked to), and that is exactly what I said. Read the articles yourself. --Bjford (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say you violated NPOV, I said the material you added was not supported by any reliable source, which it wasn't. Other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources; they are (at best) summations of what is presented in reliable sources. Skomorokh 19:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's not even a WP:RS issue. Whether the organization is "liberal" or not is an opinion, not a fact. It cannot be stated as fact in the lede (even if a reliable source can be found which refers to them as such) without violating WP:NPOV. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Loonymonkey, labeling an organization as liberal is not a matter of "opinion." If you hold positions that are defined as liberal, then you are to some degree liberal. Likewise, if you in general do not hold to conservative views, then you are not in general conservative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjford (talk • contribs) 19:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
What is "liberal?" What is "conservative?" Those are subjective terms and matters of opinion. I'm not really sure which views you are referring to (regarding the organization) but labeling them as anything which is a matter of opinion would be improper. And why would you want to? Better to simply present the facts and let the reader decide. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Positions, etc.

I think it's appropriate that a "Positions" section on an article for an organization states that organization's positions as they themselves would. It should also be clear that that's what the section is doing. General critiques of the ACLU wouldn't belong in this section. Possibly responses to specific positions would belong there? The WSJ editorial was just one editorial, but if cited correctly (ref the author, not just link the article), it seems reasonable. Again, probably not for the "Positions" section.Cretog8 (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not clear that's what the section is doing. The section is entitled "Positions", implying fact, not opinion. Responses to specific positions do belong in this section as well. The ACLU statement as to posisions is just one editorial, just as the WSJ editorial is one editorial. C08040804 (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the section "Controversial Stances" is a better reflection of the ACLU's actual positions, since it goes into the specific cases reflecting the ACLU's positions, rather than blanket self-serving pronouncements on what the ACLU stands for. In addition, the ACLU's overall position per the organization is already stated in the introduction to this article. C08040804 (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the entire section as a retaliatory act is a violation of WP:POINT. You can make your case here without doing so. Gamaliel (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)