Talk:Alliance for Marriage

Vandalism of Alliance for Marriage

I created the original article for this page, which has been blanked out and substituted with material obviously pasted from the group's website[1] and hagiography of its president, Matt Daniels. All my cross-linkages to other Wikipedia articles were destroyed, as well as external sources. Research on the group's role in the current schism in the anti-gay marriage movement have been destroyed. I can't find any record of the article I created.

Clearly this group requires a topical article if its partisans deem it worth destroying. The creator of the current page is User:Clearwordjosh82. This is pure vandalism.

I'm not experienced enough with Wikipedia's conventions to know what to do in this situation.

Hawk4free 19:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Newly created/added cat is POV/OR

Adding new cat Category:LGBT rights opposition is not appropriate here for reasons stated on the cat's Talk page section entitled, "Cat violates Wiki policy?"

Further, as illustrated on Concerned Women for America, the cat may be controversial, and cats are not used for controversial material. The existence of controversy evidences the cat is inappropriate for the page. In particular, WP:CAT says:

Particular considerations for categorizing articles:

• It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the {{Category unsourced}} template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate, or the {{Category relevant?}} template if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category.

Obviously, it is not "clear from verifiable information in the article" if the wiki community keeps removing it.

I urge and support removal of the cat, else I urge the addition of either or both cat templates shown above from WP:CAT.

I am repeating this on all pages in which this new cat was added so communities there can discuss. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Alliance gone?

I've been looking to see if there's any sign that this group still exists. Their website is the same as it was since at least some time in 2010, and I'm not finding any news sources with more recent information than that. Obviously, we should not declare it dead without a reliable source, but we may want to keep our eyes open for just such a statement. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alliance for Marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/marriagesumm.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090515103309/http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/ to http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

More evidence of defunctedness

This website refers to them past-tensedly. It is not 100% clear who this website is. At the moment, it just has three blog posts on it, although I'm finding Google links to prior content, now at 404. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Defunct

In the absence of any evidence for the organisation's activities in recent years, and in light of the fact that both Guidestar and a website which seems to represent the group both refer to the Alliance in the past tense, I'm going to update the wiki page to reflect the Alliance's dissolution. --Paracelsus888 (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)