Talk:Freedom From Religion Foundation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Inadequate Article

This article is incomplete, outdated, and not written in NPOV--it is decidedly opposed to FFRF

From the intro and sidebar box: an "American freethought organization based in Madison" makes it sound as though FFRF is only in Madison. FFRF is a national organization with 18,500 members, including members in every single state. It also has several local chapters - http://ffrf.org/about/ffrf-chapters/

Foundation is a lay term, but not the legal status. Legal Status is 501(c)3 educational charity. A Foundation in the legal sense is an entity that distributes money for charitable purposes.

Purpose/Focus: FFRF is not a humanist or atheist group. It is a Freethought and State/Church separation group.

FFRF has no official language although it operates in English. Dan Barker, Co-President, is fluent in Spanish and often uses his skills to speak to bi-lingual groups. ````Constitutional ScholarConstitutional Scholar (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you have a number of ideas to improve the article. I think it is fine for you to go ahead and make those changes, incrementally. WP:BOLD Please be sure to include an edit summary so that other editors to see what is going on and use secondary (not primary sources) for any controversial info. If you run into any specific issues that you are not sure how to present, or if they must be included, then the talk page is a great place to discuss to get consensus before making the change. Allecher (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement Allecher. I will be making some changes in the coming days.Constitutional Scholar (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

History

FFRF has over 18,500 members now. This can be checked in any of the legal letters that FFRF sends out which can be found on their website. The FFRF staff has two co-presidents, four attorneys, and six other staffers. Not to mention an executive council and honorary officers. http://ffrf.org/about/getting-acquainted/

The wording chosen to discuss FFRF's finances is not neutral or accurate. The 2011 Form 990 (http://ffrf.org/uploads/files/2011-990-form.pdf) reveals $201,572 spent on legal actions; $508,367 spent on educational events, convention,etc.; and $455,748 spent on publishing, broadcasting, etc. See page 2 of PDF. The current wording makes it appear that that the group has far more liquid assets and interest in litigation than is accurate. Last year they spent under $1.3 million total.

Annie Laurie Gaylor is also the editor of an anthology, Woe to the Women ISBN: 1877733121 and author of a nonfiction book exposing clergy pedophilia scandals (out of print) , Betrayal of Trust: Clergy Abuse of Children http://www.ffrf.org/legacy/books/betrayal/

Ms. Gaylor was editor of Freethought Today until 2008 when Bill Dunn took over in July, 2008. Dan Barker is also the author of Godless: How and Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists ISBN: 1569756775, and The Good Atheist: Living a Purpose-Filled Life Without God ISBN: 1569758468, and Just Pretend: A Freethought Book for Children http://ffrf.org/shop/books/Just-Pretend-A-Freethought-Book-for-Children/

Dan Barker was not a Pentecostal preacher; he was an traveling evangelical preacher who, for a time, held a position at a Pentecostal church- http://ffrf.org/about/getting-acquainted/dan-barker/

FFRF has an annual conference, including in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and in October of 2012--Richard Dawkins will speak. Constitutional Scholar (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Litigation Losses

There is much wrong with this page. For instance:

“FFRF v. Shirley Dobson - March 4, 2010 a lawsuit filed against Dobson from FFRF being based on the argument that a private citizen can violate the law by praying. The courts swiftly found in favor of Dobson and dismissed the case.”

This is a fabrication. First of all, it is rare that courts do anything swiftly, it was almost 18 months after the case was filed that Shirley Dobson was removed from the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed on October 3, 2008 (http://ffrf.org/news/2008/dayPrayerComplaint.pdf) and the court dismissed Dobson in an order filed on March 2, 2010 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/27742422/FFRF-v-Obama-3-10). The challenge was to the National Day of Prayer, a government sanctioned religious event. In a later opinion the Judge found that the national day of prayer was unconstitutional. This decision was never overturned on the merits (i.e., the judge’s arguments were sound) but because the appeals court thought FFRF did not have standing to challenge the prayer. See this unbiased site (written by a Law Professor) for a more accurate description http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2010/03/plaintiffs-have-standing-to-challenge.html http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2011/04/7th-circuit-no-standing-to-challenge.html Here is a link to a description of the case at the district court level http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2010/04/national-day-of-prayer-declared.html

This is also repetitive of the loss that says “In April 2011, the FFRF’s challenge to the National Day of Prayer….”, is a more accurate statement . This repetition makes it look as though FFRF lost two cases which is simply untrue. Furthermore, it is standard for lawyers to include all possible defendants in a lawsuit and let the court sort out who should stay.

“FFRF v. Department of Veterans Affairs - April 19, 2006 challenge of the pervasive integration of "spirituality" into health care by the Department of Veteran Affairs.”

This lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice because FFRF did not demonstrate Article III standing. ayersopinion_20100930.pdf

“Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation - A case before the Supreme Court over taxpayer standing to challenge White House faith-based programs; defeated in a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling.”

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that taxpayers do not have standing to allege violations of the constitution. Defeated does not sound neutral

“In April 2011, the FFRF's challenge to the National Day of Prayer was unanimously dismissed by a U.S. appellate court.”

Again, this is misleading. The decision was not based on the merits of the arguments, but solely on standing. That is a crucial difference.

“In June 2012, The FFRF Loses a challenge to remove a Nativity Scene in Michigan”

This is very premature. This should be in the pending litigation section. The district made questionable procedural errors in addition to legal and factual issues. The case is ongoing and will be for some time, FFRF appealed to the Sixth Circuit. Why is “Loses” capitalized?

“In June 2012, the FFRF lost a preliminary battle to remove a Jesus Christ WWII War Memorial located in Montana after the United States Forrest Service renewed a 10 year lease.”

This is not true. The citation is to group intervening in the lawsuit, and the “loss” was no loss at all. FFRF is engaged in a lawsuit right now and nothing has been decided. “Preliminary Battle” is nonsense.

Constitutional Scholar (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Pending litigation

For this section there are a number of errors:

“FFRF et al. v. Gov. Richardson - Nov. 7, 2005 challenge of the state-funded Christian prison ministry program in a women's prison in Grants, New Mexico.”

The lawsuit against Gov Richardson was voluntarily withdrawn some years ago. It is not pending or ongoing, nor was it lost--even though it is listed under losses to (just under a different name). http://ffrf.org/news/releases/pennsylvania-restaurant-offers-unlawful-church-discount-/

“FFRF v. Prudhommes Restaurant, Columbia, PA - July 18th, 2012 - FFRF is challenging the restaurant after a local Atheist complained about a 10% discount being offered to patrons on Sundays who bring in a church bulletin as a coupon.”

This is not true. An FFRF member is bringing an administrative action against Prudhommes on his own. FFRF is only providing advisory support and is not named or involved in the litigation as a party. FFRF did write three letters of complaint prior to the member filing the suit, but FFRF is not a named party.

“FFRF is currently challenging the city of Woonsocket, Rhode Island to remove a World War 1 and 2 memorial which has a Latin cross on the top. The city is in the process of fighting this action.”

This is not litigation. FFRF wrote several letters but no action has been filed.

“On July 24, 2012, after being threatened with a lawsuit from FFRF, the Steubenville, Ohio city council decided to remove the image of Franciscan University of Steubenville from its town logo.”

This is not true. FFRF has written two letters : the first can be seen here (http://ffrf.org/legal/SteubenvilleLogo.pdf), the second can be seen here (http://ffrf.org/legal/SteubenvilleL2.pdf). Read them for yourself. At no time does FFRF threaten litigation, the first letter explains the law and that the city was violating the law then ask the city to change their logo, nothing more. The second letter addresses the costs of litigation because the city received an offer of “free” legal representation. FFRF pointed out that if the city were to lose, which was likely given the state of the law, they would still have to pay significant costs even with free legal representation. The image on the logo is not the Franciscan University of Steubenville, it is Christ the King Chapel at Franciscan University of Steubenville—an significant difference.

If non-litigation actions are going to be included for the sake of completeness and accuracy this page should be viewed: http://ffrf.org/legal/challenges/highlighted-court-successes/ Most of the entries on this page link to documentation that shows the victory. Constitutional Scholar (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Logo

I swaped out the blurry logo of theres for an edited clip of the logo on there website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micov (talk • contribs) 02:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

FFRF Criticisms

My main criticism of this article is that I think there should be some examination of the various criticisms of the FFRF group. There is a list of what may constitute "successes" from the organisation's point of view, but little else. The general tone of the article, to me, seems biased in favour of the FFRF.

One problem I personally have with the FFRF website is that they at one point suggest on this page:

http://www.ffrf.org/quiz/scripts/bquiz_results.php

that "You may be better off not knowing much about the bible." Well, maybe, maybe not, but the general context in which this is written to me seems to be promoting ignorance rather than "freethought". I'd be interested, also, in knowing if the FFRF acknowledge, at any point the many *good* things that religion has brought to the world, and not just the bad things. I think that would make a much more interesting site than one that just criticised religion one-sidedly.

Absence of criticism is not the same as endorsement of a particular viewpoint, so I disagree that this article is POV. As for their website, that is beyond the purview of this encyclopedia, regardless of how extreme its positions may be. -Wiccan Quagga 09:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

FFRF isn't really a "freethought" website, except insofar as "freethought" is a euphemism for atheism. Their point of view is specifically anti-religious. Freedom From Religion. They basically want religion to leave them alone--generally their point of view is "if I wanted to hear about religion, I'd go to a church--now leave me alone." Rob 14:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I wrote a full rebuttal to that FFRF quiz. The quiz is very leading and misleading. You can see it here: www.jcsm.org/Education/FFRFQuiz.htm --Jason Gastrich 17:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean you found another Wikipedia article into which you can jam in a link to your ad laden, commercial site where you hawk your wares. Mark K. Bilbo 18:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's removed...I can't see how this can be justified at Wikipedia, and it's typical of Gastrich to keep trying to put in free advertising for his site(s), which, itself, is laden with spam advertising and with mechanisms for planting data miners. WarriorScribe 18:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Still trolling me, eh? You're going to wear the Wiki admins out. You really oughta do something about this and this. If either of these were mine, I'd consider my Wiki life a depressing, pathetic failure. --Jason Gastrich 18:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Gastrich would like to represent it as "trolling." I have another thought, and that is to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia as a resource, unimpeded by Gastrich's attempts at self-promotion. WarriorScribe 18:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I actually read that "rebuttal". When it talks about God commanding his followers to kill people, it's little more than "he was only trying to scare them" or (worse) "That was then this is now." That's not a rebuttal. Harvestdancer 17:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless in the first place because it should be clear to anyone paying attention that the FFRF site is trying to be funny and sarcastic when it says "you may be better off not knowing much about the bible." Don't take things so literally, I'm sure is what they would say.VatoFirme (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I took a look at that quiz, and this discussion is EXTRA pointless because not only do you have to take the entire (long) quiz to see the screen that reads "you may be better off not knowing", but all of the answers are given and explained at length on that same screen, so it's clear they intend people to learn about it.VatoFirme (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

FFRF does not treat all mixture of politics and religion equally. On their own website, they single out the so-called "religious right" as the target of their efforts: http://www.ffrf.org/purposes/ 97.83.104.146 (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

FFRF has no obligation to be NPOV, so this comment is irrelevant. Dr. Perfessor (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be a criticism section in this article. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms out there. How about the outcry against their billboard campaigns? How about the fact that they target small towns who are unable to pay large legal fees? Without a criticism section, this is yet another article that shows the fundamental flaw in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.129.51.194 (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Deism

Do they promote deism? God and religion are distinct. 15:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the only thing they promote is separation of religion from government in America. They mostly find themselves fighting the intrusion of Christianity in government, but if deism or any other religion started intruding into government, they'd probably fight that too. johnpseudo 15:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I'm sure they would. Though I haven't heard of many deists pushing their beliefs on others, I have heard FFRF speak out against intolerance and civil rights infringement by non-Christian theists such as Muslims - but on the other side of that, they have a positive attitude toward anyone, including deists and theists, who also want to keep church and state separate. They just spoke at my husband's friend's Catholic church, and she said they were very respectful and were concerned with infringements on the first amendment, not with debating the Catholics' beliefs.VatoFirme (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

IL/Legal Bible Instruction in Public Schools

There was an edit by 68.6.58.171, which removed the use of "illegal" to describe Bible teaching in public schools, claiming the "Constitution does not make public Bible instruction illegal". This claim is not entirely true. There are legal and illegal forms of allowable Bible instruction in public schools, and the use of "illegal" is needed to distinguish between them.

For instance, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution deems certain methods as illegal, such as in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) where children were forced to recite Bible prayers read over the intercom. The case won by the FFRF was brought against explicitly illegal instruction, not all forms of Bible education.

The specific case the article blurb refers to is Doe v Porter. In the ruling, the court found that the instructors were not teaching "history" but claiming as fact that "The Lord Jesus Christ is the only Savior." That kind of indoctrination was explicitly deemed illegal by the Supreme Court in 1948, and so is fair-game to describe as "illegal" in this article. See [1] for FFRF's summary of the case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ceran (talk • contribs) 22:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree and I'm going to try and add some better wording to explain it.VatoFirme (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Founding date

When was the foundation founded? What were the dates of the important legal outcomes? Nohat 04:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly question the neutrality of this article. A cursory glance of the first few paragraphs should explain why.140.88.84.200 04:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No, please explain why, otherwise you're just making an empty complaint. --69.91.88.221 04:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

the only freethought newspaper the nation's only radio program for atheists and agnostics This sound like commercial, there is bunch of similar freethought organizations.--N Jordan 16:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is your complaint? If the FFRF really did publish the only freethought newspaper and radio program, then these are facts that bear no relevance on whether there are "similar freethought organizations" or not. The point is that there may be other organizations, but do they publish newspapers and broadcast radio programs? --69.91.88.221 04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How about http://freethoughtradio.com/? --N Jordan 16:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Maybe because freethoughtradio.com is streaming on the internet and not on the real radio? Or maybe because it plays a variety of clips and essays, but isn't one consistent "show"? Those would be my guesses. According to their website, the newspaper is the only freethought newspaper in north america.VatoFirme (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Freethought Radio is an audio content aggregation service which takes content feeds from a bunch of organizations including The FFRF. You might call it an interenet radio station. It's not a newspaper or a show. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Freethought Radio is the weekly radio show of FFRF. You are thinking of freethoughtradio.com. Freethought Radio can be found as an itunes podcast. Constitutional Scholar (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article is mostly written in a subtle but unfriendly way. The organization does much more than the article suggests and the tone is not friendly. I think the warning at the top of the article stating that it reads like a press release is misleading. It reads like a press release the ACLJ or ADF would release about FFRF is they were trying not to be obvious about their dislike. Constitutional Scholar (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Pending litigation

Johnpseudo, if "they have lots of pending litigation" you should list them instead of just removing "none".--N Jordan 17:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll get around to it. But it's a misleading, unsourced, and incorrect statement to add "none". johnpseudo 17:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations

There are a number of citations to articles that are not neutral.

Citations 8, 9, 12, and 15. 8 - CBN is the Christian Broadcasting Network, "a global ministry committed to preparing the nations of the world for the coming of Jesus Christ through mass media." http://www.cbn.com/ 9 - The Christian Science Monitor, Mary Baker Eddy's media outlet owned by a church. They are not as bias as CBN, but we could find a better citation for that. 12 - the ACLJ and FFRF are opponents on every issue. This cannot be neutral. 15 - Formerly the Conservative News Service, this is not a neutral outlet.

Citations 23 and 25 are to Fox News which is not really fair and balanced. In fact, Dan Barker, FFRF co-President, was kicked of Fox News during a segment about the Athens TX nativity scene. Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK7XHEm7BE8 Constitutional Scholar (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Citations don't have to be neutral to be factually correct. Is that why failed litigation was removed?. tedder (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Follow up question, would it be better, if available, to cite to a more neutral source though? Also, what parts of my writing are not NPOV so that he new block at the top added? I am trying to be neutral and if I am not please point it out so I can get better. I removed some of the failed litigation because it was not failed, see below in the litigation losses section. I have also suggested omitting the wins/losses distinction altogether and simply listing the lawsuits chronologically. Often, lawsuits can be both a win and a loss or both sides will claim victory. I think it makes more sense to let the reader judge based on the facts of the suit.Constitutional Scholar (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Student Scholarships

FFRF has an annual essay contest with scholarship prizes. They also give out student activist scholarships for "brave" students. They just gave out one to a 12 year old. http://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-awards-12-year-old-freethinker-for-student-activism I suggest a new section on the article about this. Constitutional Scholar (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Conventions?

I'm trying to figure out how to deal with the 2007 convention information. It is good information but FFRF has a convention with speakers every year I'd like to suggest a new section "Conventions" and move the information there. We can include date, place, and speakers. Constitutional Scholar (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Is FFRF an atheist group?

• Context: this revert (copied from User:Tedder's talk page, refactored slightly)

I think the atheist group label for FFRF is incorrect. The group has two purposes A) to keep church and state separate (B) to "educate the public on matters of nontheism." I understand that Wikipedia should not just accept any group's self-identification, but atheist is a pretty narrow term. It also suggests that the members and employees are all atheists which is not true. The rejection of religion and religious dogma as a way of thinking is simply not atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in god. Freethought on the other hand is a positive (as in standing for something and not the absence of something) definition that encompasses atheism, agnosticism, nontheism, and even state/church separation. "Freethought group" is a broader term that encompasses all of FFRF's stated goals and purposes whereas "atheist group" doesn't really encompass any. I'd love to hear your thoughts.Constitutional Scholar (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi CS. I completely understand that FFRF wants to be seen as more, as they are more than strong atheists. However, FFRF doesn't own their Wikipedia article, and Wikipedia articles are more about the common view of a term/organization/object/thing. Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view explains how pages should be worded fairly well; I'd encourage you to also read this essay: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. And a disclaimer: I'm a member of FFRF and listen to Penn Jillette's weekly Penn's Sunday School. tedder (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I read the 'verifiability not truth' truth article and I see your point. Obviously FFRF doesn't own their article and we should not simply accept their self-assessment. On the other hand, simply taking the "common view" seems like a bad idea. Wouldn't wikipedia just perpetuate common misconceptions if this were the case? I recognize that many FFRF members are probably atheists, possibly even the vast majority, but identifying the organization as an "atheist organization" seems underinclusive of their membership and goals. The next sentence in the intro spells out their two goals, so maybe it would be better to leave "national" as the only modifier of "organization" in the first sentence?Constitutional Scholar (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on verifiable truth. If many reliable sources call FFRF an citrus-hating group, it should be mentioned as such, even if FFRF is officially a "color inclusion group". This happens occasionally- I've seen it on religious articles and a motorcycle club that doesn't consider itself a motorcylce club. In fact, minding WP:OSE, the lede paragraph of Patriot Guard Riders is telling; note the lede carefully mentions both "viewpoints". If you have a proposal, perhaps write it up here and wait for some feedback. tedder (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm totally with Constitutional Scholar here. The two formal goals of separation of church and state, and education about atheism, agnosticism and nontheism, do not equate to the organisation itself being atheist. One could be a strong religious believer, and still support the separation of church and state, and broad education about religious and non-religious alternatives. In fact, I know several such people. They believe that their faith is stronger because they have looked deeply at the alternatives. (I've always thought that any "faith" that needs state support isn't much of a faith.) Simply removing the word atheist from the lead would do no harm and would definitely be more honest. HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I think HiLo48's suggestion is a good one. "Atheist organization" is simply to narrow to be accurate.Constitutional Scholar (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If that's consensus, that's fine. But at some point the lede doesn't state what FFRF is. tedder (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

What about changing it to "non-profit organization" and leaving the second sentence to state the group's purpose. The only other solution that is accurate would be "freethought organization," "church/state organization," or even "First Amendment organization." Even the latter two suggestions leave out one of the two goals of FFRF. User:Chargee strikes me as having made the change out of desire for something other than accuracy.Constitutional Scholar (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Annie Gaylor has jewish ancestry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.19.183 (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

State Capitol sign

I'd like to suggest adding a citation to the article section titled "State Capitol sign". The FFRF has a few press releases on their website:

http://ffrf.org/news/2002/solsticesign.html

http://ffrf.org/news/2002/signphotos.html

http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2002/janfeb02/solsticesign.html

As well, there are photos of the sign itself at:

http://ffrf.org/news/images/Sign.jpg

http://ffrf.org/news/images/Signfront.jpg

http://ffrf.org/news/images/Signback.jpg

I would also be curious to see a reference to any kind of legal battle they may have gone through in order to get this sign posted in the Capitol building.

Caen 01:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall any legal battles, because from what I remember all religions/POVs get to post something around the holidays if they want. We usually just get conservative lawmakers speaking out against them on local news, but it seems like it's more for show or to pander to religious voters - they don't take any real legal action against FFRF because that would be a blatant violation of religious liberty (which would only give FFRF work and fuel their cause).VatoFirme (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Posting one of these references as a citation in the text at the "citation needed" tag might justify removal of the tag? I suggest "Signfront." Dr. Perfessor (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If this article is to have a State Capitol Signs section there should be a billboard section and newspaper section too. FFRF's "It's time to quite the Catholic Church" Ad was very controversial and got lots of media attention this year. It ran in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the LA times.

FFRF also has a blasphemous manger scene in the Madison, WI. state capitol. It was first placed in 2011. http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/capitol-report/article_ba2a0390-267e-11e1-9cba-001871e3ce6c.html http://www.channel3000.com/news/Another-Nativity-Scene-To-Be-Displayed-At-Capitol/-/1648/8298288/-/mh76l6/-/index.html http://www.channel3000.com/news/Alternative-Nativity-Scene-Set-Up-At-Capitol/-/1648/8298248/-/15rk1dxz/-/index.html http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/wisconsin/capitol-nativity-display-has-company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constitutional Scholar (talk • contribs) 20:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I'm going to remove the Nativity Scene photo from the page, seems kind of silly to advertise a Nativity on an freedom from reliCap020570 (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)gion page...

Wikiprojects

I feel that the religion wikiproject is inappropriate for the FFRF and should be removed, in that atheism/agnostic is not a religion and I believe that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Atheism would be more appropriate, that and the article already has atheism portal boxes on it. Cap020570 (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a decision that should be made by those involved in the project, not the editors of this article; they are the ones who manage the project box at the top of this page. If you believe you have a persuasive case, take it to them. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks! Cap020570 (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Litigation

This section is woefully incomplete and what is complete is very misleading. FFRF has far more victories than losses in litigation (some can be viewed here: http://ffrf.org/legal/challenges/highlighted-court-successes/) FFRF also has far more victories than are listed that did not require litigation (http://ffrf.org/legal/challenges/other-legal-successes/ )

Citations 8, 9, are to religious sites which actively oppose FFRF’s work and cannot be considered neutral sources.

The first four cases under losses are either un-cited or cite to organizations opposed to FFRF’s work. The tone of these is clearly not neutral and hostile to FFRF. Someone is trying to make them look bad. Constitutional Scholar (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I am starting to think it would be better to list this chronologically as opposed to breaking them up into wins and losses. In some of the cases both sides will declare victory (most recently the Whiteville TN case). I suggest we eliminate the wins/losses and just have it a chronological list of litigation the FFRF is involved with the outcome in the description itself. This would also be better becuase some of the cases are not really losses in a meangingful sense, i.e., the court did not decide on the constitutional merits of the argument, rather it stated that FFRF did not have standing. This is an important distinction. Constitutional Scholar (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the win-loss-pending sub-categories are kind of a mess and will require lots of updating and reformatting as cases go through the system. A chronological listing with the outcome makes a lot more sense and is what I am used to seeing on other pages. Cap020570 (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

And I've changed my mind. While trying to do a chronological writing I discovered that a grouping of related cases works better for flow. Cap020570 (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Archive this Talk page?

I propose to archive this talk page using MiszaBot per example 2 incremental archives but setting the old parameter to 90 days. Please comment. MrBill3 (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree. tedder (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Another vote in favor of archiving. Cap020570 (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Changing References and Adequate 3rd Party References

An IP editor (71.139.156.133) made substantial changes to the references section. I don't think it is appropriate to change a reference unless one actually reads the reference and is citing what one read. If it is a website for a newspaper that is different from reading the newspaper itself. Examples:

• Aubele's peice did not appear in The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review it appeared in the Valley News Dispatch and was also published online at TribLive.com (a website from the Tribune-Review Publishing Co that includes multiple sources). If the editor making the change actually read the story in the physical newspaper that is different. The OCLC number assists those interested in reading the newspaper as published from a library. Similarly issn's assist in finding phsyical copies of published sources.
• Did the editor who changed the reference for Erickson's article read it in The Wisconsin State Journal? I read it at Madison.com.
• Elbow's article in The Capital Times or at CapTimes.com? It was part of a continuing series of articles on Crime and Courts.
• Gilgo's peice on CNN or at CNN.com?
• The Associated Press does not publish (it is a news agency, a parameter of the template), individual members do such as The Plain Dealer at it's website Cleveland.com or The Knoxville News Sentinel at it's website Knoxnews.com.
• Were TV news stories viewed on the stations that the references were changed to or at the websites for those stations? etc. etc.

Why change the date format? The format in use was acceptable per WP:DATEFORMAT.

Changes reverted.

Third Party References

The same IP editor placed the third party ref tag. The article currently has 28 references which are news items, cites 14 court cases including a Supreme Court case and a book from a university press as well as several journal articles (some in a journal published by FFRF). The majority of self pub citations are to provide details of convention dates, locations, speakers and awardees and fall within WP:selfpub guidelines. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your citation style is curious, to say the least. 1. When the city is in the name of the newspaper, it's not necessary to provide the name of the city again. 2. OCLC numbers and ISSN numbers are not needed or helpful for newspapers (or for other references). 3. The general rule about dates is that articles about American subjects use American dating. See: WP:STRONGNAT. 4. Publishers are generally not included in citations to newspapers or journals. 5. Website versions of newspapers are cited just as the newspapers themselves, with links. Citation style is obviously challenging for you. Perhaps it would be helpful to review the style used in some featured articles.

As to the tag, about 1/3 of the citations in this article come from the FFRF website. Replacing those with citations to neutral, reliable sources would improve the credibility of the article.

Finally, it might be helpful to read WP:OWN, WP:HUMAN, and WP:NEIPIAV. I was only trying to improve the article, but if you're intent on messing it up, don't let me stop you. 71.139.148.214 (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. After looking over several featured articles, I generally concur with your edits so I have redone them for the most part. Thank you for your work on the article. If you would look at how the references look now I would appreciate any further input you may have.

Regarding the high number of citations from the FFRF website. As they mainly supply cities, dates and speakers for conventions aren't they within the WP:selfpub guidelines?.

In closing I hope my response and restoration of your edits has made clear I appreciate your work on the article. I have no feeling of WP:OWN as my contributions have been just checking the links and updating the references. I appreciate you steering me in better direction for citation style. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued work on this. The citations look much better, with extraneous info pared down. I don't have time to look at them in depth now, but I did notice that some had the news service listed, in addition to the newspaper. That's usually not necessary. If the purposes of citations are to attribute and locate the source of the info, the names of the journalist and newspaper should be sufficient. Thanks again for your help. 69.183.116.131 (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm the one who has been expanding the convention section. I guess I don't understand how that got the article tagged. I thought I was following the WP:SELFPUB guidelines. Cap020570 (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I had been looking overall at the number of cites to the FFRF website, not to the specific instances it was cited. While the citations may pass WP:SELFPUB scrutiny, a better strategy would be to locate the same info in neutral third-party sources. That would better demonstrate the notability of the information and squelch any concerns about the self-serving nature of the information included in the article. 69.183.116.131 (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The article no longer seems to "rely excessively" on associated sources. Pending discussion here I will be removing the tag. MrBill3 (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

In the next week or so I'm going to remove the 'convention table' that got this page tagged for sources. If anyone else finds outside sources for conventions, speakers, awardees, etc.. feel free to leave it here or on the page in the appropriate spot. Cap020570 (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The Clergy Project

I've been doing research on The Clergy Project which redirects to this page. I think there are enough sources and information to merit a new page entirely for the Clergy Project. So I'm going to alter the redirect page. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Reversion by Harizotoh9

Hey @Harizotoh9: why did you revert the edits including the charity stats, etc? Those seem like useful information to me.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I mean the "opinion of morality" section can probably go for WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV reasons, but the charity stats and the bus campaign seem good to me.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Bus signs

User:Harizotoh9 How about using [2] [3] [4] [5] and this book published by the University of Chicago press.[6] Dougweller (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't object to the section, just the using of self-sourcing. Self-sourcing should be used as little as possible. Otherwize pages run the risk of being filled with non-notable fluff, and the POV of the organization. If it has third party sources, then fine. I don't know if Christian Post is a reliable source, but Madison newspaper and the Uni of Chicago book look fine. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)