Wikipedia

Talk:American Family Association/Archive 8

< Talk:American Family Association
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Yilloslime in topic Daily Mail source
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Improve sourcing or remove content

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

@Aronzak: Please make sure that what you're adding has reliable secondary sources - that's how we ensure due weight for purposes of neutrality, even if the person verifiably did say these things. A section on Fischer's bigoted statements can't be sourced primarily to his own writings - please consider rewriting the section using reliable secondary sources and see which statements they mention. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Firstly @Roscelese: thank you for your politeness. Fischer's 2010 AFA blog is almost entirely copied from the 2008 Renewarmerica blog - 2010 has been reported on widely (it's linked from recent Haaretz article) but 2008 appears only to be mentioned by one activist at the time. The New Yorker mentions that Fischer and Lively promoted the book in 2007. I believe it's WP:DUE to point out that his views on Nazism haven't changed from 2007/08 to being "rejected" by AFA in 2015. I'll re-write the 2008 section to reference the Newyorker article about Lively in 07.
Were there other issues about self published sources? -- Aronzak (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, I removed some quotes from 2010 not used in thrid party outlets (only neo nazi websites). I copied and pasted from my work on Bryan Fischer, will reduce down to RS and DUE then merge back -- Aronzak (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your willingness to edit your contribution. Some good changes, although I think it would probably be sufficient to sum up his position in a sentence or two rather than quoting - once you know his thesis is that Nazism was totally gay, a lot of the details are pretty immaterial, IMO. Also, I've noticed that your wording appears to be copied directly from the source in at least one case. If it's decided not to reduce the weight of this section further, or if the discussion about it carries on any significant length of time - let's see what other editors have to say too about weight and sourcing - it will be necessary to reword in order to avoid copyright infringement. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe the phrase "gay bar" is WP:DUE because it's used in article titles from 2013. The article in the Lede is used in Haaretz, RWW, SPLC, New Yorker, as well as HRC and pinknews. The quote "Nazi Germany became the horror that it was because it rejected both Christianity and its clear teaching about human sexuality" can be dropped to condense. -- Aronzak (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Do people have the right to have firearms in American Family Association? Is it legal there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.200.28 (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER Labels Christian organizations who support the Biblical definition of marriage as “hate” groups and falsely disseminates this information to liberal news media, and military and law enforcement training sessions. SPLC’s listing resulted in the violent shooting attack against a pro-family group’s office in 2012. [1] Not sure if your comment is real or not, or are you trying your hand at satire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.141 (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Please move to correct topic

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I fail to see how the SPLC is even relevant to what AFA is. This is not a news article for point and counter point. Nor is a forum for slender which by the article on admission the "FORMER" Bryan Fischer own views should be placed in his Wikipedia article. Not the Article about AFA if anything you could make a new article just about AFA theories, or conflicting views why in the summary of what AFA is? I do not see the section of homosexuality opinion in the homosexual Wikipedia so why is this slanderous rhetoric allowed? This slender is subjective of nothing more then hoping the average ignorance of the reader underscores what AFA is. Like wise a lot could underscore other articles in Wikipedia, last I checked this is not a forum in which we debate. The below is about one person who at one time was a part of AFA. SPLC is a minor player in this and is completely not relevant to AFA. I am sure thousands agree and disagree with this group motives or should we list all groups that do and do not, what would that contribute to AFA? It is pointless and dare I say childish to even allow this droll in Wikipedia very insulting to actual intelligence of the long time readers and users. Find a better place for this. If you can not justify this as anything other then droll then remove it.

"AFA has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)[19] as of November 2010 for the "propagation of known falsehoods" and the use of "demonizing propaganda" against LGBT people.[20] In 2015, the organization officially repudiated views of former Director of Issues Analysis Bryan Fischer, including the claim that black people "rut like rabbits"; that the First Amendment applies only to Christians; that Hispanics are "socialists by nature" and come to the U.S. to "plunder" the country; that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian, and that "Homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and six million dead Jews."[21][22]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.226 (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

So can I start a group, website and label someone a hate group then submit that? This an actual legit reference you have any idea how many groups there are in this LnG debate. Hate groups of the SPLC should be listed in their own Wikipedia their view is not relevant to this at all just like my personal view or website would not be accepted. I personally don't like how SPLC defend would be terrorist that threaten school kids or how they set cold blooded killers free, all because they where under the age of 18. Labeling them a hate group is like ACLU and the SPCL are hate group of the all religion because they want to censor them completely. If anyone dare says hey you are doing wrong then they are a hate group.

ps forgive me for so much editing working late, not real familiar with working with Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.226 (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to understand what you're saying. Can you provide an explanation of why the section is not neutral with reference to Wikipedia policy? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • It is not relevant to AFA because those are views based on one person. This person is not a representation of 180k members, the only reason it was placed in this article is to negatively impact views that directly conflict with AFA. It is a droll and not relevant, you have not proven it is by even the smallest amount saying it is highly relevant is not telling me how it is relevant. My feelings about something or opinions on something does not change the structure of a building right? I look at a building and I say look there is a blue 30 story building. Now you come in and add negative views about someone on the 2nd floor in a small corner office, and some group that is ACLU related that do not agree with this building at all and stat its views. How is that relevant even when that person is not in the freaking building because his views contradicted AFA? It is a droll pure and simple and until you prove otherwise do so by more then saying its highly relevant. If you truly looked into AFA it is highly misrepresenting it and slanderous. IF it is relevant then place it in the persons Wikipedia and a footnote for AFA article. This would be a more accurate way of representing it. I will resubmit because you have fail to state how it is highly relevant.
Personally I think a lot of items are highly relevant in the homosexual article like the bias and lies in science, how each and ever article says it is OK to be homosexual; because this and this. But only because I think its highly relevant does not make it describe the building better, matter of fact it would just interfere with a none bias view and negatively impact its substance. Which is what has happened here.
When you cherry pick items you twist there meaning to create droll in the article you gave he goes on and says in the "rut like rabbits". This is negatively impacting the article.
  • "The Christ-centered statesman puts himself in the place of a fatherless black child, sees the catastrophic damage that the meltdown of the family has caused, and pursues policies to wean people off marriage- and child-destroying welfare, and pursues policies that incentivize marriage, incentivize self-reliance rather than abject dependence, and incentivize the reconstruction of the American family. "
This is far different meaning then saying all black people rut like rabbits. Also he never said black people "Kyle Mantyla" said this "As such, it is time to end welfare to the poor because all it has done is give money to African Americans "who rut like rabbits":" Fisher stated this "We have incentivized fornication rather than marriage, and it’s no wonder we are now awash in the disastrous social consequences of people who rut like rabbits." That is a lot different then black people such is droll and inaccurate and damaging. [2]
Having empathy is different then racism. Even so is still opinion of one man but there is truth in what he is stating no matter how you look at it. Big time hate group wanting to build stronger families.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.141 (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
To answer one of your points, the SPLC is accepted as an accurate research and analysis source by a great many scholars of sociology, criminology, etc. That is why the SPLC's characterization of the AFA is important. Binksternet (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • so you accept them is different then what they think is not relevant to AFA, I do not believe in same sex marriage as defined but I do believe in domestic partnership. SPLC labels any groups no matter how peaceful "hate groups" if they do not agree with same sex marriage.[3] It is not relevant and does little to describe the building, or do we list all organizations that agree and disagree on same sex marriage which is a minor part of this faith based group under attack in Wikipedia. I did not think this was the place for such attacks and if it is relevant then place this information under SPLC opinions not fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.141 (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Read WP:SOAP and WP:SELFPUB. Comments that are self-published are not given the same weight on Wikipedia as independent, secondary sources. -- Aronzak (talk) 06:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

neutrality of this section is disputed

Latest comment: 9 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

Violates Wikipedia Foundation Terms of Use [4]

  • Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation, or Fraud
  • Intentionally or knowingly posting content that constitutes libel or defamation;
  • With the intent to deceive, posting content that is false or inaccurate;
  • Attempting to impersonate another user or individual, misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the username of another user with the intent to deceive; and
  • Engaging in fraud.

Using Bryan Fischer personal blog to for the soul purpose of defamation of AFA is against Wikipedia Terms of Use. Knowingly using this information with the intent to deceive readers, and posting false and inaccurate statements which have never been said in this fashion, to solely discredit an organization who never said them. Also posting SPLC defining AFA as its only HATE Group in 2010 is misleading and misrepresenting what AFA actual is. SPLC are a frivolous lawsuit profit for only themselves organization that attack all faith based organizations if they do not believe in same sex marriage. SPLC has no affiliation with government other then law suites they file against them. Their income source are these lawsuits from tax payers and religious organizations. Editors representing SPLC as a legitimate label of AFA is misleading and subject to personal opinion of SPLC with the only intent to deceive.

This is my last request before I official file a complaint. Do not remove my signed tag until this dispute is justified. I am sorry but saying it is highly relevant does not make it so. please state why Bryan Fisher personal blog is relevant to AFA and also stat why SPLC bigotry to faith based religion is being used other then to defame AFA. Jadean Brooks talk 02:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC) (Jadean Brooks (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC))

As you'll see in the talk page archives here, this was extensively discussed in the past. The SPLC's designation and the AFA's reaction to it got a large amount of coverage. The SPLC's designation also continues to be included in much of the mainstream coverage of the group. As such, that labeling is a significant element in the topic of the AFA, and worthy of inclusion in the lede. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you and you are right The actual article covers this but my statement is in the summary which stats that only AFA in 2010 was designated as a hate group because it does not believe in same sex marriage. This organization should be listed in the summary stating that other faith based organization that print what the bible says are consider hate based groups. Maybe the bible itself is a propagation of "known falsehoods", you know we all came from a big bang, that creationism holds no water, and that ever single society that has embrace homosexuality have great and long term futures./? Epigenetics is the study of how our lifestyle and even what we think can change our genes [5] But they have only found that some about 50% in the study have actually made themselves homosexual, other half is not conclusive. [6] So basically saying homosexuality is still a choice and they made themselves that way is not a false hood and is backed up by science. Pointing out higher chance of std for gay man and woman is another falsehood even though I fail to see many options for them in the safe oral sex department[7]. Pointing out how abuse victims of homosexual assault namely children cannot seek help is another falsehood right [8] (Jadean Brooks (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC))

Proven wrong born this way theories - such as the Twin study[9] failed to take into account similar lifestyles, social groups, gay friends or abuse victims. Stating the my moms antibodies made me do it does not explain lesbians at all, and does not explain Bi sexual either and lets not forget it is a completely unproven theory. But people like me not in the AFA, that defend family and faith point out known falsehoods like I have stated above are consider hate groups? SPLC I state again is its "Opinion" is 100% defamation as stated in the >summary. You need to balance it at least and point out the they consider all faith based religion Hate groups using the bible as a known falsehood. Because that is what is happening here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.236 (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC) (Jadean Brooks (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC))

What I consider hate is the inability to tell the truth, which might hurt but it is worst when you take a child tell them they have no choice. If we are honest with ourselves that is what is happening today. That in the defense of homosexuality a line is being drawn that confuses kids into being something they where never meant to be. This has caused an increase in suicide rates[news]. That some are 100% homosexual is a given, some are confused, some are victims, some are this and some are that. But because we point this out does that make us a hate group for telling the truth, I must be a hateful person then knowing the truth.[myself who was formerly gay] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.236 (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC) (Jadean Brooks (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC))

Talk pages are not forums for general discussion, please just get a blog. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"my statement is in the summary which stats that only AFA in 2010 was designated as a hate group because it does not believe in same sex marriage"? No, nowhere in the article does it state that only the AFA was designated a hate group, nor does it state anywhere that the designation was due to it not believing in same sex marriage. Neither of those statements would be accurate if we had made them, as the AFA was one of 13 anti-gay groups that the SPLC announced they would be designating as hate groups in the same announcement, and it was not for opposing same sex marriage (plenty of groups that oppose same-sex marriage do not get so designated.) No, we do not need to put in a claim that "they consider all faith based religion Hate groups", because it simply is not true, and we do not balance the truth with falsehoods.
You may well disagree with the SPLC's assessment. Wikipedia is not a platform for voicing your opinion. Luckily, there are many platforms out there that are appropriate for doing so. Also, if you are a member or employee of the AFA, you may wish to review Wikipedia's guidelines for dealing with conflicts of interest. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Then I would suggest you add that in summary > what you just said, it would not be defamation in the summary you only mention AFA, and it is an opinion of a frivolous lawsuit organization. Stating they known falsehoods, and hate group is insulting and a matter of that one groups personal opinion, media making a show out of it and it being in here just for that reason. I have many personal opinions if they make the news I guess I can place them where ever. My examples are meant to showcase a view of a hate groups is in the eye of the beholder and defamation is what SPLC as done. Repeating this defamation should not be done in this manner for the soul purpose of underscoring what AFA really is. I do like the balance in the main article and summary needs to reflect that. Practicing of free speech cuts both ways but at least in Wikipeida you can balance it. Sorry about my illustrated examples and reference about what SPLC consider hate grups... or known falsehoods was a bit long winded.

State this "AFA was one of 13 anti-gay groups that the SPLC announced they would be designating as hate groups in 2010" would that not single out one group? Adding the "propagation of known falsehoods" and the use of "demonizing propaganda" against LGBT people is insulting and defamation because it is an opinion.

Against Faith based organizations that do not agree with same sex marriage is a true statement less I read the factual article wrong. SPLC also only places on the list of those they can reach. They don't seem them placing Roman Catholic Church for having the same views on there, and you never will either because they not interested in defending a defamation law suit from a bigger player.(Jadean Brooks (talk) 06:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC))

Two points I'd like to make here. First, this article doesn't say "The AFA is a hate group". If it did, that would be using what we call Wikipedia's Voice to assert something as a fact. Instead, the article says it has been "listed as a hate group by the SPLC". Because it is stated that way, it is attributed to the party/entity saying it's a hate group. It is also clearly an uncontroverted fact, i.e., the SPLC has indeed said this. In turn, the AFA disavows this and says it is not a hate group. Secondly, the comments above frequently make reference to defamation and law suits for defamation. However, one group calling another group a "hate group" is not legally actionable defamation; on the contrary, it is protected free speech. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "factual article" you read, so I have no way of telling whether it misrepresented situations or you just misunderstood it, but you seem to have gotten ahold of a false assumption (that groups get listed as hate groups solely for having a religious objection to homosexuality) and run on to a string of assumptions based on that (that they consider all such organizations "hate groups", that if they don't announce that the Catholic Church is a hate group, it must be because they're too big, etc.) Even when they were making the statement that AFA was being added to the list of hate groups, they listed smaller-than-AFA religious groups that were similar or smaller in size (such as Coral Ridge Ministries) as being anti-gay groups but not hate groups. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

How about this, "In 2010 AFA was one of 13 anti - gay groups designated by the SPLC as a hate group for actively campaigning against same sex marriage. "

That is what AFA did in response that is what SPLC did. Stating the other is well discussed in the main but a bit one sided in the lead. That looks a lot more balanced? (Jadean Brooks (talk) 04:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC))

As, again, that's a factually untrue statement, it is a non-starter. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't we use Wikipedia's definition of a hate group rather than the SPLC's definition? Wikipedia says a hate group is someone who "advocates or practices hatred, hostility or violence." Donating money to political campaigns (especially ones that receive majority votes, not fringe campaigns) would not be considered hateful to a reasonable person. Now, if you apply the Wikipedia definition to the SPLC... Didn't their claim of the Family Research Council being a hate group directly cause someone to be shot? THAT sounds like violence to me...Crouchs (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Crouchs

SPLC hate group listing

Latest comment: 9 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

I am opening this section so that Joppa Chong can explain removing the one sentence in the lead about the SPLC's hate group listing. I object to removing this material per WP:LEAD. It represents a significant aspect of the AFA. - MrX 00:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the introduction is supposed to be redundant with the main body of the article. It is meant to serve as a summary of the article. As such, the fact that something has a whole section below does not mean that it shouldn't also be mentioned at the top. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The introduction is not the right place for trying to discredit organizations holding controversial positions not everyone agrees with. We should keep that in mind and maintain the neutrality of this article. I think that the sentence in question cannot remain this way as it is unbalanced and might be easily misunderstood. An allegation should not be treated as a matter of fact. – Joppa Chong (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure who you think is trying to "discredit the organization", but the simple fact is that one of leading civil rights organizations the US has classified AFA as a hate group for what they describe as propagating known falsehoods and using demonizing propaganda against LGBT people. The goal of an encyclopedia article is to present information from reliable sources in proportion its coverage in those sources. We don't try to "balance" information. There are 20 sources in the article that cover the SPLC hate group listing. By comparison, this sentence in the lead only has one independent source, yet you didn't remove it: "AFA owns 200 American Family Radio stations in 33 states, seven affiliate stations in seven states, and one affiliate TV station KAZQ TV) in New Mexico." - MrX 03:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, there is no need to discuss whether SPLC did list AFA as a hate group, but another point: ″Propagation of known falsehoods″ and the use of ″demonizing propaganda″ against LGBT people—these are allegations and it should be made more clear. The undue weight given to one particular critical entity is an issue, too. – Joppa Chong (talk) 03:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
If you want to suggest alternative wording, please do, but I think the use of quotes makes it clear that we are quoting rather than stating a truth in Wikipedia voice.... and listing why they are getting that classification is actually a softening in some ways, as it points away from what some might assume the hate group designation to mean (i.e., it's not for "a history of lynching", say.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Words like "allegedly" or "claiming" seem rather correct to show distance, I guess. However, the second part of the sentence we talk about is sourced with a reference that doesn't include the reasoning stated. It could be removed at no expense as the section below covers it.– Joppa Chong (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course it should be mentioned. TFD (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
It is about how it should be mentioned. Congratulations for your LGBT barnstar. – Joppa Chong (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
News media, the academic press and foreign courts routinely cite the SPLC hate group designation, not only for the AFA, but for similar groups. Is it fair? Does not matter, what matters is weight, that articles correctly reflect what mainstream sources say. TFD (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you give an example of a citation from a foreign court? StAnselm (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
See p. 7 of the correspondence from the Treasury Secretary: "[Robert Spencer] is also co founder of Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) and Freedom Defence Initiative (FDI) with Pamela Geller. Both organizations have been designated as anti-Muslim hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Centre."[10] Spencer and Geller unsuccessfully challenged the decision in the England and Wales Court of Appeal.
Evidence from the SPLC was also used in the case of Harry Robert McCorkill, a New Brunswick resident who wanted to leave money to a U.S. neo-Nazi group. I cannot find a copy of the judgment, but on appeal the defendants argued that the trial had been prejudiced by SPLC evidence.
TFD (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I see, however, that the mention is in a submission to the Home Secretary. She may have based on her decision on the SPLC listing, or it may have been on other factors. Likewise with the Court of Appeals. We'd have to be careful how much weight we give to these occurrences. In any case, I'm fine with saying AFA are listed as a hate group, I just don't think we can conclude from that that they are a hate group (whatever that means). StAnselm (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree we should not say they are a hate group, but we should mention that the SPLC classifies them as one. TFD (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on American Family Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on American Family Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on American Family Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on American Family Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on American Family Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on American Family Association. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Family Association. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A floating IP user has been repeatedly inserting the same edits, including changing sourced descriptors. I cannot count on them seeing notices on the talk page for any given IP. As such, I raise the notice here that they are clearly edit warring, that they are on the edge of violating our three-revert rule. All of the changes being made are problematic; the changes to describe someone as an "Islamist" is a violation of our WP:BLP policy. The user has already been told repeatedly to take their changes to this talk page, and has stated their intention not to comply, claiming that they are a source. I suggest that that user read our guide to reliable sources; clearly, "anonymous Internet user" does not rise to that level. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on this as well. If it continues, we can request page protection. - MrX 14:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
And I have now filed same. I was just giving a warning before doing so. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on American Family Association. 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:

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) 16:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on American Family Association. 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:

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) 17:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Critical lead sentence

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

The third lead sentence of this article reads that the American Family Association (AFA) is listed as a hate group. First of all, why does this notorious truth need to be in the lead? Is it not present down in the "Hate group listing" section? As far as I am concerned, the lead should not be very critical of the article's subject. If this fact must be preserved in the lead, it should be showing less criticism. I just think that this sentence makes the AFA look obnoxious. It is not about "whitewashing" because I left the fact that the SPLC listed AFA as a hate group. Providing a reason in the lead makes those who read it believe that the AFA is a notorious organization. Any comments on this issue are welcome, provided that they are not harsh or critical of this topic. Thank you. –MPWikiEdits (questions?) 16:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not out goal to only given a positive view of the subjects of our articles. That a fact is somewhere else in the article does not preclude it from being in the lead; indeed, the goal of the lead is to summarize the content below. And the AFA does indeed have some notoriety.
As for your suggestion that comments that are critical of the topic are not welcome: they may not be welcomed by you, but that hardly seems a filter that is appropriate to the content discussion, where truths about the AFA that may be uncomfortable to you may be well within the topic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for providing information about the lead in this article. I understand your reasoning, but why should the lead expound on SPLC's listing of AFA? It is completely acceptable to mention in the lead that the SPLC lists AFA as a hate group since that is a well-known truth, but why add detail about it in the lead when that is already provided in the section "Hate group listing" (which I linked above)? Sure, AFA has gained notoriety (which is fine to include in the lead) but why give more detail on that in the lead?
Regarding the comments that are welcome in this discussion, I meant that anyone who provides information here should be constructive. Comments that are not helpful in solving this issue are not acceptable in this discussion. –MPWikiEdits (questions?) 19:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :::See WP:LEAD. I also have a problem with the sentence in that it simply isn't enough. If the lead summarises the article and the article has so much criticism, perhaps it should include more than just the SPLC mention. I don't see anything above that isn't appropriate.. Doug Weller talk 20:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If you wish to suggest some shorter version of it, feel free, but I don't think the level of detail included in the single sentence there is particularly deep, and if anything it softens the edges of their listed-as-a-hate-group status, as by being specific about the reasons for their listings it pushes away from a range of assumptions that may occur when one sees the hate group listing mentioned.
Meanwhile, launching into a discussion by announcing what is acceptable in a discussion comes across less as an attempt to grow a fertile discussion and more as an attempt to annouce yourself as the acceptability police, which is at best a distraction from the discussion, if not an outright discouragement of it. You may wish to reconsider that strategy in the future. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanations. I do not wish to tackle this problem further. I have already given my insight and still believe that the detail on SPLC's listing should be reserved to the section cited above. That is, in the lead, instead of


"AFA has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as of November 2010 for the 'propagation of known falsehoods' and the use of 'demonizing propaganda' against LGBT people."


I think it should read something like:


"AFA has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)."


with detail on that sentence to be left to the aforementioned section.
Feel free to give your last word before I close this discussion. I will not alter this lead sentence in the future. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to know.
As for the issue on my "discussion filter", I apologize. I just wanted commenters here to know that this is not a place to complain, but rather to provide useful information. If you think that my notice should not be written in future discussions, I can agree to that but I would see a discussion as unhelpful should such comments arise. Thanks for understanding and for your information. –MPWikiEdits (questions?) 20:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
No way. The lead section must summarize the main points discussed in the article body. The SPLC finding is very important to the topic – critically so. Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
SPLC's listing is absolutely okay. It is the details on it in the lead that I am referring to above. –MPWikiEdits (questions?) 22:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
The only detail in the lead related to the SPLC is the rather extraordinary reason why they are considered a hate group: for the "propagation of known falsehoods" and the use of "demonizing propaganda" against LGBT people". Those 15 words hardly seem excessive given the substantial coverage of that aspect of the subject. - MrX 🖋 22:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
"Feel free to give your last word before I close this discussion." - funny, I was never under the impression that I would even need your permission to write on this page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the insulting and unnecessary "closure" of the discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC) And have done so again, after the unneeded closure was once more attempted, again with an attempt to deny the helpfulness of the four editors who responded to the query. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Family Association. 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:

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) 03:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Daily Mail source

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There has been an attempt to delete material that was sourced solely to the Daily Mail, along with attempts to restore it. Thing is, we are barred from using the Daily Mail as a source, not just for BLP issues, but for anything but statements about the Mail itself - see WP:DAILYMAIL. That the Mail covered it doesn't even get to count to the import of this particular incident, which is just one example of many of AFA opposition to a piece of media. It should not be readded without a proper source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

yep - if a claim is cited only to the Daily Mail, the claim needs to be removed too, because it's a source that cannot be trusted - David Gerard (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, WP:DAILYMAIL, but this is half-assed editing. At least attempt to find a better source (there are many https://www.google.com/search?q=%22american+family+association%22+%22GEICO%22&ie=&oe=) before deleting and then warring over the deletion. Yilloslime (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Family_Association/Archive_8&oldid=1146016836"