Jump to content

Talk:American Civil Liberties Union

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAmerican Civil Liberties Union has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 17, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 25, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
February 19, 2012Good article nomineeListed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 19, 2020, and January 19, 2023.
Current status: Good article

1931 congressional investigation into ACLU report - ignored here

[edit]

The report stated: "It claims to stand for free speech, free press and free assembly, but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is to attempt to protect the communists in their advocacy of force and violence to overthrow the government." Issued in January 1931. Maybe 17th Jan. I can’t conceive of any possible reason to exclude this. Boscaswell talk 23:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There could be many reasons, among them being that you did not provide a reliable source on this investigation or its report, any context in terms of tensions and red scare type fears (which ended up with labels of communist support and attacks on many people and organizations that were entirely undeserving of said labels), etc. Indeed, without a source provided, we don't even know if what you have given is a cherry picked quote of the opinion of one member of the investigation, rather than the conclusion of the report. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s here: [1]
This was a formal report by no less an institution than the United States Congress! On the ACLU. Whether you consider it to be red-baiting is really of no consequence, surely. It deserves to be in the article! Boscaswell talk 03:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I personally consider anything is not important. What reliable sources consider it, however, is. The HUAC and the Army–McCarthy hearings were by no less an institution than the United States Congress, but are largely viewed today quite negatively, and we don't turn around and say that random people accused (and blacklisted) by McCarthy actually were traitorous communists. Your own source shows the hyperbolic nature of these comments. It literally accuses the ACLU of intending to replace the American flag with that of the Soviet Union! This seems to be based on the Fish Committee, which as I guessed, is not exactly viewed as positive or even remotely accurate in its work. https://depts.washington.edu/depress/fish_committee.shtml There's also the question of weight and whether this is even important enough to have in the article (and no, being by Congress doesn't automatically make it important). Is this something that had genuine impact on the history of the ACLU, or is this just some footnote? It seems that, even at the time of its publication, the work of the Fish Committee was largely ignored. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10072151/1/Goodall%20Red%20Herrings%20-%20The%20Fish%20Committee%20and%20Anticommunism%20in%20the%20Early%20Depression%20Years.pdf Being a product of Congress doesn't make something notable or accurate. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Checking back on this, are we satisfied with leaving this out per WP:UNDUE? --OuroborosCobra (talk) OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Boscaswell:? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OuroborosCobra Why yes, of course. It’s absolutely ridiculous of me to suggest that anythimg at all which refers to a leftist organisation as communist and anti-American is notable, particularly when it’s the report resulting from an investigation by the United States Congress. Ridiculous. I’m giving myself a big slap on the wrist. Boscaswell talk 23:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's very possible that we could include some due, high-quality content on the ACLU and the Fish commission. The commission's report is mentioned in Paul L. Murphy's [https://archive.org/details/meaningoffreedom0000murp The Meaning of the Freedom of Speech, most relevantly on and around page 233. Maybe someone wants to go digging for more? It would not be neutral to present the commission's findings as fact, so at least a couple sentences on context would be needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1960s and 1970s or 1970s and 1980s

[edit]

In the Overview section, it is stated that, "In the 1970s and 1980s, the ACLU ventured into new legal areas involving the rights of homosexuals, students, prisoners, and the poor." However, in the "Victim groups" section, it is stated that, "During the 1960s and 1970s, the ACLU expanded its scope to include what it referred to as 'victim groups', namely women, the poor, and homosexuals."

Am I wrong in assuming there is a contradiction between the two sentences? If I am not wrong, is there a way to reconcile the two? Thanks, 2013creek (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is a contradiction. The article mentions a few cases involving students and prisoners in the 1960s, so maybe 1960s and 1970s is the correct one? 23impartial (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would make sense. 2013creek (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just changed it. It was a nice catch. 23impartial (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) 2013creek (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Source In Intro?

[edit]

Two out of three of the introducing sentence sources are directly from the ACLU describing themselves. Is this not some Wikipedia:Verifiability AboutSelf conflict? Citing the organization as what the organization is, is problematic. I read the Institute for Justice that confidently labels them as libertarian without sourcing. Burden of proof seems incredibly low for that article.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210607011010/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html New York Times labels them as progressive as recently as 2021. HoadRog (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re the ACLU sourcing itself, I've added "states that it", in order to place the quotation in context. Other characterizations can of course be added, per normal editing. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AboutSelf is "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves." Since the ACLU is a reliable source, it does not apply. Furthermore, even if it did, it relates to material that is self-serving or makes exceptional claims.
Since the information was already in quotes, adding your qualification probably violates MOS:DOUBT.
TFD (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the textual qualification were "claims that it...", then MOS:DOUBT might be applicable. But "states that it..." is neutral, and does not violate MOS:DOUBT. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated sourcing to be archived FAQ pages, as the three previous sources didn't have the exact quotation. Today's ACLU website doesn't seem to have such a concise overall mission statement, so I used older (archived) versions of the FAQ page. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Positions section?

[edit]

The Positions section is in pretty sad shape: it only has a couple of random sentences. Conversely, the second paragraph in the lede is better: contains info that many readers consider important, even vital. Recently, User:Marquardtika removed quite a bit of text from the Positions section, reasoning that the sources were links to ACLU web site ... that was a valid decision. Perhaps the Position section could be defined as follows:

  • Independent Source: Source must an independent RS (news sources, etc), not an ACLU document
  • Current positions only: any source from, say, before 2000 is probably not acceptable for defining a current position of ACLU, unless position is a long-standing core position
  • Relatively important positions: no need to clutter the section with obscure positions
  • Terse summaries preferred: Additional detail can be lower in the body of the article, in appropriate section
  • National vs State: Should only include positions of the national ACLU; state chapter positions should be included only if very noteworthy

Thoughts? Noleander (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"History" section vs History of the American Civil Liberties Union .. too much overlap?

[edit]

This article has always been huge. So it made sense when the entire History section was cloned and put into a new article History of the American Civil Liberties Union in April 2024. But what is the plan for the remaining History section left in this article? It is still huge.

Also, the History section used to have subsections like "1980s", "1990s", "21st Century" and so on. Those subsections are gone now ... was that deliberated in the Talk page? I see that those subsections are still used in the History of the American Civil Liberties Union article.

Should the History section in this article be pared down to be a brief synopsis of the History of the American Civil Liberties Union article? That may help with editing going forward; specifically, it looks like this main ACLU article gets heavily edited, but the History of the American Civil Liberties Union is being ignored. If this article's History section were to be condensed, that may prod more editors to go to the new History article.

Thoughts? Noleander (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Civil_Liberties_Union&oldid=1266663226"