Talk:American Civil Liberties Union/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Notable cases: NSA-related cases 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  quick note 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I studied the archived talk pages extensively, and the conclusions there do not support your positions.NBGPWS 04:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Why didn't you try  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Revisions and gutting.... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "Civil libertarian" is not the same thing as "libertarian". Ken Arromdee 14:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point is? Are you saying civil libertarians arent libertarians? Jasper23 15:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Compromise to what?  Our task is not to "classify the ACLU."--Scribner 17:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Libertarian organization 

message: 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. 
: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)
thread_title:  Ok...here is the first bit of the article up for discussion 

message: 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 , over local and state ordinances prohibiting the Witnesses from publishing criticisms of the Roman Catholic church , as well as over government reluctance to prosecute anti-Witness vigilantes. The ACLU was directly involved in these cases . The ACLU's involvement with Jehovah's Witnesses continues, and they joined the Witnesses in a 2002 case over doorbell-ringing .
End text. Jasper23 06:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here is part two 

message: 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 . 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 .
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Here is another section 

message: 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 . Ahmed has spoken in favor of blasphemy laws to prevent publication of the controversial Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed. 
Jasper23 09:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part Five 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Thanks for your comment. Lets here some more thoughts on the matter. Anyone else? Jasper23 20:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part Six 

message: 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 . However, a good number of Mormons, including some local leaders, are strongly against the activities of the ACLU .
Anyone disagree?
Jasper23 02:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part 7 of discussion text 

message: 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.  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.  
Thanks Jasper23 07:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part 8 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This needs to be wikified 

message: 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. Under political pressure that deal was later struck down and the sound permit was allowed.
Please take a look at the sources. Does anyone disagree? 
Jasper23 03:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part 9 

message: 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. 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)
thread_title:  Part 10 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Part 11 

message: 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." 
The libertarian public interest law firm the Institute for Justice, describes itself as "a libertarian answer to the ACLU" 
In 1990, Pat Robertson founded the American Center for Law and Justice, as a counterweight to the ACLU, which Robertson characterizes as "liberal" and "hostile to traditional American values."
What do people think? Jasper23 21:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part 12 

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

message: While some (such as former Republican Congressman Bob Barr) refer to the ACLU as a libertarian organization and while the ACLU has defended the US Libertarian Party in some cases , 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.
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)
thread_title: Libertarian critics

message: 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. 
Jasper23 16:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leftist and liberal critics

message: 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  (see, e.g., , ). 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.
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.
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.  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. 
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.  The suit, which was successful, overturned the Virginia constitution's ban on the incorporation of churches.
Disagreement with the removal. Please let me know. Thanks. Jasper23 06:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religous Critic Section

message: Some anti-pornography activists, including Nikki Craft and Catharine MacKinnon, who oppose pornography on feminist grounds, have critized the ACLU; in her lifetime, Andrea Dworkin's positions on pornography also led her to similar stances. 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 , 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)
thread_title: Pornography

message: 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)
thread_title:  A model for the criticism section 

message: 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)
replies: text: Good job
Jasper23 04:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cites on Skokie 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I feel 'controversial' is a 'loaded' word with negative connotations. NBGPWS 09:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Section Titles 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Anyone? Jasper23 16:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Critics and Controversial Stances 

message: 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)
replies: text: Use  rather than . Twinxor t 02:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation for funds 

message: 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)
replies: text: Looks like there are agenda drivers in here. Your edit appears to have been reverted. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 22:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  POV addition on gun control 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Redirect from Civil Liberties Bureau 

message: 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)
thread_title:  random links with criticisms or praise or whatever 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: 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.http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=300http://www.wilpf.org/issues/ccp/CCP_ACLU.htm
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)
thread_title:  Corporate Personhood 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Notable 

message: 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)
thread_title:  GA Hold: Fixes needed 

message: 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)
thread_title: GA Failed: On hold more than 1 week

message: 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)
thread_title:  Protecting Consitutional Rights or Leftist Agenda? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Civil Libertarian 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ranking 

message: 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)
thread_title:  PA's two affiliates 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyediting needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Rewrite of Controversial stances 

message: 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)
thread_title:  State affiliate example 

message: 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)
thread_title:  My first big contribution 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Attorney's fees 

message: 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)
replies: text: Apparently it breaks later uses... --OuroborosCobra 01:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation in beginning paragraph 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Critics 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Speech codes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: There is some edit warring without discussion happening on the page. Shame on you. Turtlescrubber 06:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Nope. Not relevant. I note that you have reached your third revert on this subject today. FCYTravis 07:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Former ACLU head of Virginia chapter, Charles Rust-Tierney pleads guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography on June 1, 2007 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External Links, "sites critical of ACLU" should be removed.