The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
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
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
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
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
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
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
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
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
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]
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
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.
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
