Talk:American Civil Liberties Union/Archive 2

message: Can someone locate and add what the ACLU's funding and membership has been since its founding (maybe in chart or table form)?  I think this would make a good addition to the article.  Monkeyman 15:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funding and Membership 

message: I met a man named Ariah Naier at a speakin engagement at my college, Colby College.
As I understand it he was one of the key figures in the Skokie, Illinois debate, and was ejected from the ACLU by the board for his defense of the Nazis' right to free speech.
Can anyone confirm this? I wuold like to make an article about him but I don't remember that much. All I know is the above and that he currently chairs an international human rights organization.
I googled his name, but I fear I have remembered the wrong spelling, and I got no matches.
My essential comment is this:
--->I think it would be fitting to have a reference to him in the ACLU History section. Once we find the correct spelling, of course.
--Zaorish 01:39, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aryeh Neier was indeed a key figure in the Skokie case.  He was at that time the ACLU's Executive Director.  According to one site, it's not so much that he was "ejected", but rather that the organization's defense of Nazis was very unpopular and caused a drop in membership, prompting Neier's resignation because he " found himself unable to reconcile the organization's activities with available funds".    There certainly doesn't seem to be any lingering ill will, given that the ACLU named a fellowship after Neier (). JamesMLane 10:06, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ariah Naier 

message: The Walter Polovchak case is sometimes compared with a case where the New Jersey ACLU supported a minor's right to asylum when the country the minor didn't want to return to was Chile.  Does anyone have a reference to this?  I couldn't find anything specific on the Internet. Ken Arromdee 18:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chile case 

message: Hi all --
There is a lot of material on controversial ACLU cases, and it is sort of spread around. Is there a better way to organize it? We could organize it by subject, e.g., "pornography and sex", "church and state"? Or by decade? Anyway, just a suggestion to think about. I personally think this is an excellent article, and because of people's work one of the few places to find unbiased information about some of the most controversial cases (which are barely discussed on the ACLU's homepages, and are usually given in distorted form when they come from anti-ACLU sources.) Sdedeo 19:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: reorg article?

message: An anon IP has been making edits to the page; in particular, s/he wants to remove statements to the effect that the most vocal critics of the ACLU come from the right. This is really not a debatable point, although we do qualify later in the article that some liberals are also critics of the ACLU, in particular over campaign finance and pornography.
Furthermore, it is flat out inaccurate to describe critics of the ACLU's 1st amendment policies as "Christian" without qualification. As discussed later in the article, a number of Christian groups, including Jehovah's Witness and the Mormons, have a much more nuanced approach to the ACLU; furthermore, there are a great number of Christian groups (the Quakers, for example) who have been strong supporters of the ACLU's work on church-state issues.
It is necessary that the article draw distinctions and be as accurate as possible. You may feel that all Christians should be critics of the ACLU, but that does not change the fact that many are not. Please discuss here before making further edits in this vein.
Sdedeo 00:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: critics wording

message: Hi all -- I have done a partial reorg of the critics section, dividing it into three groups: conservative crits, conservative christian crits, liberal crits. I realize that logically conservative christian crits should be a subset of conservative crits, but actually, it seems to work better this way, since the two both overlap, and differ in emphasis.
Note that I've gone ahead and used the term conservative christian to describe what was previously referred to as just christian. This is semi-controversial, I guess, but if people find significant opposition to the ACLU from more "liberal" christians, then there's an obvious place to add it -- in the liberal section. I have not found any sources that point towards strong resistance to the aclu from more liberal groups (e.g., the episcopalians, unitarians, etc., etc.), or groups whose political POV may vary depending on the person (e.g., Catholics.)
(Of course, the Catholic Church will find itself on the opposite side of the ACLU on legal questions especially abortion questions, but the critics section is not a place to list every single person who disagrees with the ACLU; rather to list groups who specifically and consistently criticize the ACLU on both particular and general grounds.)
(...and again: this is not to say that, e.g., a Catholic person may not criticize the ACLU in many matters; rather that that opposition should not be described as "Catholic" or coming from a Catholic POV, but could rather be better subsumed under, e.g., "conservative crits.)
Sdedeo (tips) 01:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: partial reorg

message: I'm just dropping by to say good job.  Your article is well sourced, well organized, well written, and well balanced.  Regards, Durova 23:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Good work

message: Mrmiscellanious, I don't understand why your edits to the O'Reilly section are more NPOV, and apparently neither does Sdedeo. I think it's entirely reasonable to mention facist, even if he hasn't used it recently. As for conservative, he is the model of the modern conservative. Beyond not toteing himself as conservative, I'd like some evidence that he claims he's not conservative or someone claims he's not conservative before even adding a note about it to this article.--Prosfilaes 17:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like some claims to back up that "he is the model of the modern conservative". Arkon 00:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  O'Reilly edits 

message: Hello all -- it would be helpful if we could get some statistics about the ACLU. In particular, it would be great to know: how many cases are undertaken by the ACLU and its chapters each year? In how many cases does the ACLU simply file an amicus, how many actually are litigated by the ACLU itself, and how many are referred to a law firm working pro bono? Sdedeo (tips) 05:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Large scale statistics

message: : "The 1980 Polovchak v. Meese case is also sometimes considered evidence of liberal sympathies on the part of the ACLU."
This uncited sentence has always bugged me. It's debatable, but I've always felt that the ACLU took the conservative side in this case. That may be an overgeneralization of corporal punishment debate, but I'd anticipate more liberals would agree that a child has the right to choose where to live than conservatives. Since the key point here was returning to the Soviet Union, perhaps communist should be used instead of liberal?--Prosfilaes 09:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually, I think the first step here is to find and source a citation to someone who cites this case. Then we won't need to guess what the allegations are! Sdedeo (tips) 16:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Finding citations of people who refer to the case is easy; put "Polovchak" and "ACLU" in Google.  Most of them don't seem to say "the ACLU is liberal, as shown by..." but the case is usually criticized by conservatives and libertarians.  One casual mention at  and uses the word "Left", but in this context I don't think there's much difference between "left" and "liberal".  It's not a major source anyway (but it does mention the Richard Long case, which we also might want to include.)   is a National Review article which uses the words "liberal" and "socialist", but also looks like a copyright violation. Ken Arromdee 22:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It still strikes me as strange. The ACLU has a children's rights project. Their attorneys argue that teenage girls are competent to have an abortion without parental consent, but a teenage boy can't choose the United States over a totalitarian state. The only answer that makes sense is that their decisions aren't based on civil liberties but liberal politics. The ACLU likes abortion, and it likes the Soviet Union.
Sdedeo (tips) 22:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Why on earth would it be a reference to Gonzales? The comment about the Soviet Union and the teenage boy part makes it pretty clear the comment is about Polovchak.--Prosfilaes 00:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It isn't one or the other.  It's about both.  It's about the *conflict* between custody rights and the right of the minor to control his/her body.  In the case of the girl wanting an abortion, the girl wants control over her own body (getting an abortion) and the person with custody doesn't.  In Polovchak's case, he wanted control over his body (living in a free society) and the person with custody didn't. Ken Arromdee 18:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polovchak v. Meese 

message: Please find names, saying "some critics" over and over makes me suspect that this was the editor's view as does the phrase, "gun rights", which redirects to an artical of a different name.Pelegius 00:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh please, who doubts that claim. 01:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critics

message: I am adding a membership section but I would like some assistance. I would appreciate it. Thanks!
JJstroker 22:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed this again because it is highly suspect and there are no refernces for it. If someone could please give a citation and/or reference for the ACLU membership being "2/3 Jews", etc. it would be helpful. I have not been able to find any verification or justification for it. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 16:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean this isn't a sufficeint source?  -Will Beback 06:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The book is 24 years old. Unacceptable as a source. Ladlergo 13:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership?? 

message: The ACLU provides legal assistance in the form of lawyers and legal expertise.
I fail to see how the word "expertise" can be construed as biased. Even critics of the ACLU recognize that it provides qualified lawyers. They've been to law school, passed the bar exam, etc. Moreover, they have a particular interest in and knowledge of civil liberties issues. That makes what they provide "expertise", whether or not you agree with their political stance or interpretation of the law. Changing "expertise" to "assistance" produces a sentence that doesn't really make sense. Bill 21:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very minor thing, either is fine IMO, but I think Bill is correct here. Sdedeo (tips) 03:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Expertise

message: The deleted allegations in this edit are a smear.  The citation listed said nothing about the ACLU. Thanks for deleting baseless rumors and respecting Verifiability. -- Perspective 21:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged harboring of illegal aliens 

message: Cause no mention of leftist critics, per se, and no attempt to distinguish "left" from "liberal" above.  Ethan Mitchell 03:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me! Sdedeo (tips) 05:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted "& Left" 

message: Who wants to help me clean up the references?  Two of them are footnotes and the rest are external links.  I will be moving them to their proper grammatical position. Ladlergo 17:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem I see is that the "footnote" style is kind of hard to learn. Since we have so many people dropping in, it might be a good idea to keep the references inline  for now. That is pretty simple, and it makes it easier to scold people for introducing original research and negotiate for verifiability. Sdedeo (tips) 18:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite understandable; I'm getting some practice in it at Wii, but it's not the easiest thing to master.  In that case, I'll be changing the two footnote-style references match the others. Ladlergo 19:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Hi all -- as the recent appearences of User:Incorrect and User:Butchpenton show, we need to establish some groundrules for what kind of criticism to include here.
The main criteria is, I think, to organize things into common themes (e.g., stance on religion in government), which is what we have now. New criticisms need to either fit themselves into one of these themes, or should establish (with a lot of sources) a new theme. Any thoughts?
Sdedeo (tips) 21:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I find more important is that it be cited, NPOV, and well-placed (not in the middle of the positions, for example). I think more detailed criteria should be left for when that issue comes up.--Prosfilaes 22:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: standards for including criticism of the ACLU

message: Bruce, I'm going to lay out why the paragraphs you kept on adding were innappropriate.
During the 2000 Presidential election voting crisis, the Supreme Court of the United States allocated for itself in Gore v Bush an unprecedented role.
*True, but it doesn't belong in the ACLU article.
Tallying votes in Florida for the presidential race had become a debacle, plagued by well-chronicled false claims of inaccuracies and inequities.
*References, please.  And again, doesn't belong in the ACLU article.
The ACLU became a participant in a national campaign called "Right to Vote". They filed lawsuits in Florida, challenging the reliance on presumed flawed electoral systems that not only failed to count every vote equally, but was charged of operating in a racially discriminatory manner.'
*Basically fine, though overly wordy.  And again, references.
The nation witnessed two recounts only to find that Governor Bush had won by an even stronger majority with each count.'
*Links to Florida Recount should be here.  And once again, doesn't have anything to do with the ACLU.
Still, there were threats of riots in the streets.
*Needs (neutral) references.  And doesn't belong under ACLU.
According to Jesse Jackson in a Rainbow/Push Coalition statement dated 13 December, 2000; "When the right ingredients are present, and the fuse is lit, an explosion happens."
*Irrelevant.  Doesn't belong either here or under Florida Recount.
The ACLU attorneys were eventually successful in winning several lawsuits for voting reform but all claims of inaccuracies and inequities were never verified.
*References.
Yale University scholar John R. Lott Jr., found that the reality was just the opposite. "…by a dramatic margin, the group most victimized in the Florida voting was African American Republicans," Lott wrote. In fact, black Republicans were "in excess of 50 times more likely than the average African American to have had a ballot declared invalid.”
*No reference, and belongs in Florida Recount.
The ACLU was a participant in a national campaign to generate the appearance of a conspiracy and filed numerous lawsuits that kept racial tensions high; but in the end, failed to uncover a single "victim" to actually step forward with an actual civil rights violation.
*And now we get to the obvious bias.  References, references, references.
* Please familiarize yourself with Wiki editing standards.
In general, you appear to not understand that Wikipedia is not a collection of essays, and editorial opinions are not appropriate for inclusion.  Each statement needs to be references, not just paragraphs.  Adding one link at the end and making other people dig through the links off of that page does not comply with writing standards.  Overall, it is very obvious that you are PoV-pushing and more interested in writing editorial essays than encyclopedia entries.
Ladlergo 15:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Butch's paragraphs 

message: Tried adding that they protect the rights of insurgents but it didn't work. Had a valid source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060616/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/detainee_abuse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.74.25.2 (talk • contribs) .
:It worked, but it was reverted by another editor, probably because:
:* It doesn't really belong in the article's "lede"
:* By talking about the "comfort" of the prisoners, you telegraphed that you were editing to add Point-of-View to the article rather than facts.
:Yes, the ACLU has stated its opposition to the shenanigans at Guantanamo Bay. So has John Hutson, former JAG of the Navy, a current Republican, and dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center. So have many others. The issue isn't "comfort", the issue is: Does America always stand for human rights, or do we toss them out any time it's convenient?
:If the article doesn't already mention the ACLU's opposition to Gitmo, feel free to add it but in an appropriate context and without PoV.
:Atlant 15:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tried Adding Other Rights As Well 

message: The ACLU in my experience with them does not oppose moments of silence.  I was recently involved with a dispute over a graduation prayer, and it was made very clear that the ACLU had no problem with a moment of silence.  Can someone point out where they explicitly state that they are opposed to moments of silence?  Until then, I'm going to remove "moment of silence" from the positions section.Neutronium 02:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google for it: . A salient quote from the ACLU: " At best, it is unnecessary since teachers already have the authority to ask their students to be quiet. At worst, it is organized prayer by stealth." I've restored the text. Sdedeo (tips) 02:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: the moment of silence article itself expands on this; what I'll do is qualify the statement. Sdedeo (tips) 02:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moment of Silence

message: I applied some minor edits for English usage, punctuation, clarity and recentism. In a separate edit that I did not mark minor, I expanded the quote related to the child pornography case to clarify the core issue: according to the cited letter, the ACLU believes virtual child pornography, where no actual children are involved, is protected by the First Amendment. The critical word in the law that the ACLU opposes is "portrayal," which can include a painting, a drawing, or a computer-generated image (which the ACLU says should be protected) as well as a photo or video involving real children (which the ACLU agrees is not protected by the First Amendment). Without this clarification a reader of this article might miss the distinction and falsely believe the ACLU does not object to actual child pornography involving real children. Chester320 06:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edits, expanded the (virtual) child pornography defense quote 

message: In addition to the above edit, tonight I read this article and the talk page 
and I am really impressed
with the tone and content. But there are a few things I thought
I could point out to help to make it better. I hope this isn't
discussion overkill; I didn't want to just barge in and edit the article
without talking about these things first. 
I have split my notes into sections and signed each one, in case they spark
separate discussions. Here goes. Chester320 07:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction of a new editor 

message: In the article intro, I tripped over some of the phrasing. 
:"...though it has been harshly critical of various elected officials..."
Does the ACLU 
criticize politicians or policies? Perhaps the sentence could read that 
they are "...critical of the policies of [various politicians]." It's true they also criticize 
politicians themselves - just today I got ACLU 
literature in the mail that is (harshly) critical of George W. Bush. But in the 
intro I wouldn't want to leave the impression that they are only about 
criticizing people. Chester320 07:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticizing politicians or policies? 

message: The end of the Positions section compares the ACLU to public defenders, but 
I don't think the comparison is apt. Public defenders exist mainly to 
ensure that destitute defendants receive representation, not that 
unpopular ones do. That's a secondary function at most.
Is there another kind of office or department the
ACLU could be compared to? Chester320 07:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not really like public defenders 

message: In turning down funding that came with the proviso that "none of the money would go 
to underwriting terrorism or other unacceptable activities," did the ACLU 
specify that the objectionable part was not "underwriting terrorism" but 
the other one? That second clause means the donor would get to decide 
what's acceptable. I ask because without a clarification a reader
might think the ACLU wants to be able to underwrite terrorism. Chester320 07:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turning down funding 

message: The paragraph in the 
"Notable Cases" section about Japanese internment
says the West Coast ACLU affiliates "became some of 
the sharpest critics" of US policy. Does this need a citation - somebody 
other than the author saying they were among the "sharpest" vs. just being 
"critics" or even "sharply critical"?
In the same paragraph, can we really characterize the national ACLU position as 
"dodging" the issue? And why is "cleared" in quotation 
marks? That's a way for a writer to disparage the terminology or
opinions of somebody he doesn't agree with. Chester320 07:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emotion and editorial in laying out the facts 

message: I think the counsel here is to be bold and fix what you think is wrong. Be careful of deleting information, and do your best to respect other editors' decisions, but go ahead and clean as much as you see fit. Sdedeo (tips) 20:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: re: multiple sections

message: Now, I have no problems with having this linked to in the article, but I would first like to see the page cited as a reference for specific issues, rather than a bald link to the site.  http://www.acluprocon.org is a collection of other group's opinions on the ACLU and possesses very little original content. Ladlergo 23:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ACLUprocon.org

message: Dorothy Ehrlich has been appointed Deputy Executive Director of the National ACLU.Sjrnyc 00:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leadership 

message: The first sentence in the positions section offers a misleading impression of the ACLU's mission.  It says: "The ACLU's stated mission is to defend the rights of all citizens as enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution."
The very first sentence of the main article has a more accurate sentence (with a citation) describing the ACLU's mission. It says that the "stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."1"
The ACLU's work is not limited to the defense of the rights of citizens.  There are certain rights guaranteed to non-citizens in this country (due process, etc.), and the ACLU defends those rights as well.Sjrnyc 00:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold and fix it! Sdedeo (tips) 21:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I did.  I do work for the ACLU and want to be cautious when I edit anything because I respect the NPOV policy.  I'll limit any edits to what I believe to be clear factual errors (such as these); otherwise I'll post in the discussion forum for a more "neutral" party to verify.  Thanks. Sjrnyc 15:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positions section