Archives:1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 180 days
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil Rights Movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil Rights Movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil Rights MovementWikipedia:WikiProject Civil Rights MovementTemplate:WikiProject Civil Rights MovementCivil Rights Movement articles
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. Boscaswelltalk23:04, 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]
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! Boscaswelltalk03:39, 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]
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. Boscaswelltalk23:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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.
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.
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]
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
