Talk:Alliance Defending Freedom

Lisa Biron

Excluding Biron seems perverse.

• Lisa Biron, N.H. lawyer with ties to conservative Christian group, arrested on child pornography charges - Biron has worked with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a group of attorneys known for their work against gay marriage and Planned Parenthood, but according to the ADF she was never an employee.
• Awaiting Child Porn Hearing in State Court, NH Lawyer Is Arrested by FBI Agents, Held Without Bail - Biron was also admitted in Massachusetts in 2008, the same year in which she became a New Hampshire lawyer. She is associated with a national Christian lawyers group known as the Alliance Defending Freedom and reportedly listed her favorite book as the Bible on a Facebook page that was recently taken down.
• Anti-gay activist lawyer guilty of child pornography after videotaping daughter - Biron, who claimed on her Facebook page (which was taken down, according to the Concord Monitor) that the Bible was her favorite book, had worked with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), formerly the Alliance Defense Fund, in defending a Pentecostal church in Concord in a tax fight against the city.
• N.H. lawyer held on sexual exploitation, porn charges - "she represented the Liberty Assembly of God church in Concord earlier this year in a tax dispute with the city, working alongside the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Arizona-based group of lawyers."
• Anti-Equality Female Attorney Arrested on Underage Sex Charges - "The Concord Monitor reports that Biron is affiliated with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a self-described "servant ministry building an alliance to keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel by transforming the legal system and advocating for religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family." The group's website has an entire section devoted to its fight against marriage equality and calls a federal judge's decision against California's Prop. 8 "a dangerous decision that could ultimately threaten your religious freedom and the democratic process."
• Manchester lawyer facing federal child pornography charges arrested by FBI at courthouse - "Biron is associated with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a group of lawyers who, according to their website, are committed to keeping “the door open for the spread of the Gospel” by advocating for “religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family.” In Concord, she worked with the ADF in defending a Pentecostal Church on Mountain Road in its tax fight against the city."

I could go on. A lot of sources on Biron prominently mention the association, and there's a well known theme of outspoken Christian bigots turning out to be associated with child abuse. I agree that we should be careful to say that she was only associated with the group, but given the number of sources that say she was associated with the group, removing all mention looks like whitewashing - especially when the arguments against tend to original research, inserting a distance that does not exist in the sources themselves.

There should be a brief mention, because there are too many sources for there not to be. Guy (help!) 08:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. SPECIFICO talk 09:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, JzG, I have added it in, under the People section. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Balance is not undue weight

Regarding these changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alliance_Defending_Freedom&curid=1401587&diff=955227759&oldid=955225067

The prior editor tagged on what I think is unnecessary to the prior sentence about former U.S. Attorney General: "who is noted for his support of anti-gay policies and opposition to LGBT rights." To give balance, I added the sentence, "The SPLC hate group label has also been criticized by writers in major online media sources for including ADF and similar conservative organizations on the list with violent groups.[14][15][16][17][18]" The references are to articles in the Washington Post, New Yorker, USA Today, and National Review.

That explanatory sentence is necessary to balance out the bare assertion about ADF by the SPLC, which used to do work that everyone could applaud, but has started being looked at as unreliable in many sources. Wikipedia needs to change with the times and update what sources are acceptable. The SPLC's opinion, if printed, must be balanced with contrasting information or the entire section looks biased. Let readers make up their own mind after presenting articles from major sources. I thought that is what Wikipedia was about. Furthermore, how many citations does it take to become undue weight? It behooves us to add balance to every reference. I would be agreeable to removing 2-3 sources after than sentence, and I do not care which ones. The sentence needs to stay or the description that was added about the Attorney General, which is more about him (Republican, anti-gay) than about ADF, should go.

Thank you Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

I concur. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The SPLC statement is not a "bare assertion", which is obvious to anyone reading the citation from then, It is the result of their analysis of the ADF's activities, and is based on the SPLC's long history of evaluating hate groups of many types and many ideologies. The question of whether the SPLC is a reliable source has been brought up many times at RSN, and the organization has always been found to be reliable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Weird that a group which says gay people are pedophiles and supports literally criminalizing and imprisoning LGBTQ people would be deemed a "hate group." Unfathomable. I mean, whatever happened to the good old American tradition of burning witches, too? The ADF is just defending fundamentalist Christians' freedom to take other people's freedom away because their book of myths said so.

The challenge for you here is that the ADF believes that LGBTQ people are fundamentally lesser than other human beings, and has repeatedly worked to make and defend laws which enshrine this viewpoint into civil governance. That treating LGBTQ people in such a manner - whether imprisoning them, firing them, smearing them as dangerous pedophiles, barring them from fundamental civil rights - is increasingly unpopular and widely viewed as hateful... is not something Wikipedia can fix. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

That is great and all, I even largely agree with you, but WP:NOTAFORUM applies here. PackMecEng (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

supports literally criminalizing and imprisoning LGBTQ people...The ADF is just defending fundamentalist Christians' freedom to take other people's freedom away because their book of myths said so...the ADF believes that LGBTQ people are fundamentally lesser than other human beings... Among other quotes, this is neither WP:CIVIL dialogue nor an accurate summary. I ask for NBSB to retract these comments; if it has a source, it would be in the article. Buffs (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course they're accurate and supported by the sources cited, so no, I'm not going to retract them. From the cited SPLC source, you have an ADF official celebrating India maintaining a criminal prohibition against homosexuals, an ADF lawyer writing an amicus brief to SCOTUS defending Texas' criminalization of homosexuals, and an ADF lawyer declaring that gay and lesbian people "desensitize and corrupt young minds ... for recruitment." That you don't like the truth about the ADF and its ilk is not relevant here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Freedom is not the same as legally mandating acceptance.
2. Your unnecessary and inflammatory remark about "book of myths" (regarding the Bible I would assume?) being the source of their alleged push to take other people's freedoms away is not cited in the given reference. Likewise, your assertion that they believe anyone to be a "lesser person" is also completely uncited.

Per WP:CIVIL, please retract. Buffs (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Please explain how supporting putting LGBT people in prison is "freedom." The "freedom" to take other people's freedom away because you don't like who and how they love?
2. That you don't think imprisoning LGBT people or accusing them of "desensitiz[ing] and corrupt[ing] young minds" is dehumanizing them (e.g. a "lesser person") speaks volumes.
3. The Bible is, indeed, a book of mythology - a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

Be best. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Show me one citation on that page that says the Bible is their rationale for taking away the rights of others. The Bible isn't even mentioned. Buffs (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

So you're saying that an explicitly-Christian organization isn't justifying their bigotry upon the Bible, and are just admitting that they are homophobic out of pure backwards ignorance or blind unadulterated hatred of that which is different? That's a heck of a self-own if you ask me. But we're getting off-topic into WP:NOTFORUM territory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's keep the comments WP:CIVIL, shall we? My objection is YOUR choice of words. You are accusing them of using the Bible to justify their position, but the sources do not back that up. It's really that simple and the other inflammatory verbiage just plain isn't necessary. Buffs (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The notes about Jeff Sessions belong on his article page, not shoe-horned into every other article happening to mention him. Actually I just checked his page and such descriptions aren't really noted at all. This is a big deal, and the ONUS is on those who want such an inclusion to gain consensus here on the talk page. Per this discussion, no such consensus exists, so I will remove the text until a proposed wording gains approval. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Then the ONUS is also on Ihaveadreamagain to gain consensus for their proposed addition to the lede, which they made on May 5. I have returned the article to the last stable version from March 15, which subsequently was unchanged for nearly two months. Any additions and changes should be discussed and gain consensus here first. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes I (mostly, see below) agree with this. Good edit. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Notwithstanding what Beyond My Ken stated about SPLC, their posts must be treated with special care - see the Reliable_Sources/Perennial Sources "As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy." The current post is not "due weight" -- it is "undue weight" --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

Any additions and changes should be discussed and gain consensus here first. For someone who rails against bureaucracy, you sure seem to be advocating it when it's convenient. Saying that "The Southern Poverty Law Center designates the ADF as an anti-LGBTQ hate group." without also noting that there are a LOT of people who take exception to the SPLC's assessments or placing it within context (the group is politically opposed to many of the SPLC's activities) is undue weight. Buffs (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

the organization has always been found to be reliable no, they haven't. They have a LONG history of criticism on the topic: Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Controversies_regarding_hate_group_and_extremist_designations. Buffs (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

What long-lived, active organization does not have a long history of criticism? Every time we mention the presidency of the US, the Catholic Church, any political party, do we add that it has been criticized in "major online media sources"? O3000 (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

--- O3000, the same idea applies to putting the "hate group" designation in a group description. What long-standing organization that has been around over 20 years has not had much criticism from those who disagree with them. Doesn't Alliance Defending Freedom deserve the same treatment you are demanding for the SPLC? Regardless of the length of time an organization has been around, their critics should be in sub-paragraphs, not in a top description. --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

The SPLC is a respected organization in identifying hate groups. Here is their report on the ADF.[1] Beware, it's scary. It's also considered a reliable source for WP, after numerous discussions. O3000 (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

-- I really don't care to read their report and we shouldn't be doing independent research. We are not here to debate the topic of hate groups. This is not an advocacy exercise. This sentence belongs in the "Positions" section and not in the intro section: "The Southern Poverty Law Center designates the ADF as an anti-LGBTQ hate group.[9]" --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

OK, don't read it. The SPLC is a respected organization in identifying hate groups. This is WP:DUE in the body and important to include in the summary (i.e. lead). O3000 (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. I guess I missed WP:RESPECTED as a criteria for inclusion. Plenty of people find fault with the SPLC's analysis. Their justification of the ADF is based on their position in a 2003 court case...17 years ago... Buffs (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don't bring fringe you-tubers to article talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 13:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

John Stossel is hardly a "fringe you-tuber". He's a respected journalist. Buffs (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

1. 1. I agree we don't have to listen to what anyone says on YouTube -- but there are respected sources that say SPLC has changed and should no longer be taken at their word. Things have changed, wiki-friends!
2. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-morris-dees-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center
3. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/28/morris-dees-splc-trump-southern-poverty-law-center-215312

−

1. 2. WP:Manual of Style/Lead Section states: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or 'lede' paragraph." The most important item about an organization that has been around for as many years as ADF has been, cannot be an opinion of another nonprofit organization, no matter how "respected" they are. Most people will read or scan the entry and will pick up that information from the article. The lead does not have a summary of the contents and you can see by looking at the headings that the lead is "misleading:" History; Positions; Finances; Blackstone Legal Fellowship; Day of Dialogue; Pulpit Freedom Sunday; Notable Cases; People; See also. The lead is poorly constructed, as it contains two paragraphs and one dangling misplaced sentence at the end.

If you are going to weigh in, please at least address #2. Thank you. --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

Hidden edit notice

I am not sure this edit notice is valid - "Please do not remove "designated anti-LGBTQ hate group" from the lead without first getting consensus to do so on the Talk page." There is no policy based rationale for such a notice, and it seems to actually go directly against policy. Please review WP:ONUS, which states "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." Note that I am not seeking to remove that wording, but I think that editors who have concerns about it should be free to remove it pending a consensus. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove it Buffs (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Considering that the issue has been discussed a number of times in the past (see the archives), I don't think that's good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC about hidden comment in the lede

The lede section of this article contains the hidden comment "<!--Please do not remove "designated anti-LGBTQ hate group" from the lead without first getting consensus to do so on the Talk page.-->", Should this comment be kept, or removed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note: as a result of the ongoing discussion below, the hidden comment now reads "<!--Please do not remove "SPLC designated it an anti-LGBTQ hate group" from the lead without first getting consensus to do so on the Talk page. Please see the Archives for previous discussions.-->-->".

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - The purpose of the comment appears to be to enforce the results of previous discussions on the LGBTQ subject, which are available in the archives, here and here. A new discussion on the talk page about removing the "hate group" sentence is justified considering that results of the old discussions. Removal of the warning comment is not warranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove - I am not disputing that the SPLC designates the ADF as a hate group. I am in favor of removing a hidden edit that goes against WP:ONUS and WP:CCC. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove per Mr Ernie Idealigic (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Keep we want as much as possible to avoid edit-warring over this. I don't see it as having anything to do with ONUS and as helping maintain WP:CCC. If anyone wants to change it, they should try to get a new consensus. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC) Strike, there's a better suggestion. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per Doug Weller. StAnselm (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC) Remove. I originally !voted "keep" because I thought there had been an RfC on the matter, but now that I follow the links to the discussions, I see there wasn't. (Unlike, for example, Talk:Illinois Family Institute#RfC Should SPLC "hate group" designation be in the lead?) So the comment gives the wrong impression - that is exactly the sort of comment we would include if the matter had been resolves via extensive discussion and/or RfC. There was (and still is) consensus to include the sentence, but we reserve comments for special cases. StAnselm (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove the word "designated" suggests some kind of authority, and the passive voice "has been" hides who is doing the "designating"′. This runs contrary to WP:LABEL and WP:WikiVoice. It would be appropriate to say that "according to the SPLC, the Alliance Defending Freedom is a hate group" or the like, in its own section. Whether or not this is lead-worthy would then be determined according to the usual criteria by WP:LEAD. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  We are only talking about the hidden edit notice, not the designation by the SPLC. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  Well the two are inextricably linked, and I think we should remove both. In particular, the word "designated" runs contrary to multiple Wikipedia policies. More on the SPLC's bias here; it even happens to relate to the ADF specifically. [2] Adoring nanny (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - These comments are not unusual. They just warn editors who may be unaware of previous discussion that any change will need to be discussed on talk. The alternative is an uninformed edit, a quick revert by an editor who's aware of prior consensus, followed by the same talk page discussion. What's the problem? The Donald Trump article has these hidden comments and even has a list of many similar standing consensus items on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 13:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  Arguably the special case is that we have editors on many articles falsely deprecating SPLC and using that to hide acknowledged facts about various people and organizations. SPECIFICO talk 14:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  Perhaps because they have a history of such controversy: Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Controversies_regarding_hate_group_and_extremist_designations Buffs (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  It's attributed. Not in Wiki-voice. SPECIFICO talk 16:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  No...it isn't. The statement even in this RfC is "Please do not remove 'designated anti-LGBTQ hate group' from the lead without first getting consensus to do so on the Talk page" It mentions nothing about the SPLC. Instead of saying "That the SPLC views this group as _____" is a contentious issue that has been discussed in depth. Consensus is to keep that description and delete any mention of opposition" all it says is that, conclusively and without attribution that this is a hate group. That's just plain wrong. Buffs (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  Last line of the lead. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  The hidden text states "Please do not remove 'designated anti-LGBTQ hate group' from the lead..." It mentions nothing of the SPLC. Consensus does not reflect that everyone (or even a majority) feel that way. Buffs (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  Fixed it. The article content is what matters. SPECIFICO talk 19:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  If the article's content is what matters, why oppose the removal of this note? Buffs (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Remove (*EDIT* and replace with RexxxS's suggestions below) This is absurd that we even have to have this discussion. Buffs (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - Hidden text like this is not uncommon and saves a lot of editor time. It can be removed if consensus changes. That doesn't require an RfC. O3000 (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - it reflects long-standing consensus on this article, and should not be changed without a change in the consensus. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  Could you be so kind as to link to said consensus? I don't even see any discussion on the matter. Buffs (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• The previous consensus discussions regarding the SLPC statement are already linked above, in my first comment. I believe that Orangemike is saying that the hidden comment reflects those consensus discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• How about you let OrangeMike respond instead of assuming what he means? Likewise, that there's been discussion about the SPLC is not in debate. That such a discussion a)requires a statement, b) mandates the inclusion of the phrase 'designated anti-LGBTQ hate group' WITHOUT any noted attribution, and c) that it cannot be removed without a demonstrated change of consensus based on the discussion of 3-4 people is absurd. Buffs (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• And how about you let me express my views -- including my views of what Orangemike said -- and not attempt to suppress them because you got the answer you needed, but you didn't like where it came from. Your second point is just silly. No one has claimed that the previous discussions "mandated" the hidden comment. What has been said, here -- by multiple editors -- is that the hidden comment serves to give notice that the issue of the SPLC/LGBTQ information has been discussed before, so the best course of action is to discuss it on the talk page to get a consensus and not simply to remove the information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Your opinion has been noted ad nauseum. I didn't ask for your opinion. I'd like to hear OrangeMike's rather than your assumptions/opinions on his opinion. I've not attempted to "suppress" anything; (clearly) you can post where ever you want. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Buffs, looking at this talk page, it looks like you have left almost three times the amount of comments in these discussions compared to Beyond My Ken. I think you may want to be more careful with making accusations about other editors' conduct. I don't think WP:BLUDGEON applies here yet, and certainly not to Beyond My Ken. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

In this (RfC prior to this comment), I've made 11 remarks, BMK: 7. If we're talking about ALL the discussions, then BMK easily outshines me (check the archives). Buffs (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Request People here have demanded no one alter the current verbiage without their permission, but then change the statement in question in the RfC with no consensus either. I would request that these people undo such edits until such discussion has concluded. You're muddying the waters and making it FAR more difficult to reach consensus as you've changed the discussion. The fact that it needed to be changed at all should be some indication that it wasn't a good idea. Buffs (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Those additions have been in response to requests and comments here, and they are reasonable. That the comment needed to be tweaked simply means that it needed to be tweaked (just as almost every Wikipedia article needs a tweak now and then), it has no bearing on whether the comment was a "good idea" or not. My feeling is that the folks voting to delete the hidden comment are doing so in order that there be less of an impediment to removing the SPLC/LBGTQ information -- but I guarantee you if the information was removed without a consensus to do so, it would be immediately restored, and a consensus discussion would be started here, so what's the big deal? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per previous consensus. The hidden comment serves a useful purpose. It reminds editors that they should start a discussion if they think there is reason to seek a new consensus. - MrX 🖋 02:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Note This is explicitly prohibited: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Hidden_text#Inappropriate_uses_for_hidden_text

  "Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing guideline or policy against that edit...When it is a mere local consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit. Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to try to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would conflict with an existing consensus."

Buffs (talk) 05:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note: The Manual of Style is not policy, and it is not mandatory. In fact every single page of the MoS says on it:

• It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

Those exceptions are generally determined by WP:CONSENSUS, and this RfC is just that, a consensus discussion, so, yes, to answer the question in your edit summary, we are going to do this, because consensus is at the center of the Wikipedia ethos. So you'd best settle down and allow editors to come to a consensus and stop trying to de-rail this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to note that the page Buffs refers to doesn't conform to MOS:COMMENT in the main MOS which is the "central page". That says much the same thing but not quite:"Invisible comments are useful for alerting other editors to issues such as common mistakes that regularly occur in the article, a section title being the target of an incoming link, or pointing to a discussion that established a consensus relating to the article. They should not be used to instruct other editors not to perform certain edits, although where existing consensus is against making such an edit, they may usefully draw the editor's attention to that." Doug Weller talk 09:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

1. "They should not be used to instruct other editors not to perform certain edits" Kinda my point.
2. You can't claim that "I don't have to follow the MoS because 'occasional exceptions may apply'" and at the same time claim "These comments are not unusual". Buffs (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• There is no conflict between those statements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• "occasional exceptions" ≠ common. Buffs (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - The point is not to stifle discussion, but to stifle edit-warring over well-sourced material supported by consensus. Consensus can change, but that requires discussion and not reversion. There is no policy which supports unilateral removal (the ADF is a political/legal advocacy group, not a living person, and the material is well-sourced anyway), so the text is a helpful reminder to new editors which hopefully will lead to less disruptive editing behavior by educating them before they have a chance to act. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  You only get 1 !vote, not two. Buffs (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Where did NorthBySouthBaranof vote more than once? I see a vote immediately above your comment, please provide a diff of the second vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, and I only !voted once. I suggest that you check yourself before you wreck yourself. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Made a mistake. Struck...perhaps others should as well... Buffs (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Remove - Even though there seems to be enough reliably cited text about the two groups's conflict, I don't see consensus for the designation to be in the lead established in the second link per SunCrow in that discussion so hidden instructions on not to do so is inappropriate. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Either keep the note or start an RfC on the actual visible content. This content has repeatedly been an issue, and prior discussions have resulted in its inclusion. The only point of removing the hidden note would be to then remove the actual content. If someone opposes keeping the content in the lead and thinks a community discussion would result in its removal, then I would suggest they boldly close this RfC and start an appropriate one. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I would be fine with the compromise suggested below by RexxS. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Compromise: our guidance says that we shouldn't be using local consensus to write hidden text prohibiting an edit. That goes against the grain of CON and CCC. It is perfectly reasonable to draw an editors attention to previous local consensus though, so I suggest you replace the current text:

  Please do not remove "SPLC designated it an anti-LGBTQ hate group" from the lead without first getting consensus to do so on the Talk page. Please see the Archives for previous discussions.

  with:

  Before considering the removal of "SPLC designated it an anti-LGBTQ hate group" from the lead, please review the discussions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alliance_Defending_Freedom/Archive_2#Designation_as_a_hate_group and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alliance_Defending_Freedom/Archive_3#Sentence_in_lead_section.

  I deliberately use full urls because internal links don't work inside an html comment. The purpose of the hidden comment should only be to make editors aware of previous discussions and consensus. It's a misuse of hidden text to attempt to completely prohibit editing that doesn't conflict with our policies and guidelines. --RexxS (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Much better, but not without problems. This aligns better with WP:HIDDEN § Inappropriate uses for hidden text, but the links are still not linking to established consensus. Politrukki (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support compromise suggested by RexxS. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support compromise. Good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• To be clear, I support either keeping the comments as it is, or the compromise suggested above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I like the idea of the compromise, but I can't support it in its present form: how can we ask people to look at the talk archives before considering removal? Perhaps just "before removing". StAnselm (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Keep + add FAQ to this talk Page - I don't see the wording Please do not remove ... from the lead without first getting consensus as demanding, I see it as an informative request, and I like the goal of stopping edit wars and also having a link(s) to point to previous discussions on this topic, ideally to a persistent FAQ question at the top of this talk page (if the SEPARATE issue of this info being included is sufficiently completed to support a FAQ question). ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove: Per the reasoning of Mr Ernie and Adoring nanny. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• I have placed neutral pointers to this RfC on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per Specifico, it's a common and understandable notice, and doesn't even physically prevent anything. Any editor opposing the notice would therefore go to the talk page, as we'd clearly like here. ɱ (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, support the compromise change, also that very surprising fact—that a Christian group is designated as a hate group by the leading authority of such—should briefly explain why they are considered one, and likely that ADA disputes the designation. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  It is definitely contentious that they are a "leading authority" on the subject. Buffs (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  One can find many issues to grind an axe over, but I have utmost faith in their judgement who are hate-mongers, racists and the like. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  WP:INDIVIDUALFAITHINSPLC is not a standard for inclusion. WP:N & WP:NPOV are. Buffs (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  If one can have faith in invisible sky men and axe grinding, then another can have faith in organizations dedicated to exposing bigots, hypocrites, and their sheep. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, of course. If there's active consensus against removing something then you shouldn't remove it. In this case, editors need to be told that this is the case otherwise they may not realize. Not sure what's controversial here. — Bilorv (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  Because it conflicts with Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to try to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would conflict with an existing consensus. Buffs (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep or RexxS's compromise - This is about preventing disruption and frustration, which drives away editors and doesn't improve the article. The editing notice should indicate current consensus. It should also prompt good-faith editors to review the talk page history. Both notes serve this purpose. A FAQ is also a good idea. Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to try to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would conflict with an existing consensus. Buffs (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  Here, in this situation, it's a note which tells editors that there is more to this than they might realize, and that if they make this edit without consensus, they'll get reverted. Making consensus opaque in a way that prompts disruptive editing is also inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, or RexxS's compromise These sorts of in-text comments are standard to try to keep disruptive editing down. Do they actually work? Eh I dunno, but they can't hurt, and will hopefully make people discuss the issue instead of edit war over it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Do not include per WP:CCC, WP:HIDDEN, and MOS:COMMENT. The proposal outright prohibits editing the article in certain way, which runs against these policies and guidelines. RexxS's proposal might be okay, but not in the absence of a clearly established consensus.
  As a side note, to avoid disruption, it would probably be a good idea to bolster the article content with one or two inline citations, using secondary reliable sources. Politrukki (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Making Appropriate Edits to Paragraph

In my attempt to edit per the suggests of Objective300, I evidently went against the desires of Beyond My Ken --- and need direction for us.

May 15 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alliance_Defending_Freedom&diff=prev&oldid=956862471 Added The SPLC has also referred to ADF as a "prominent Christian legal powerhouse" founded by "30 prominent Christian leaders."[3]

Objective300 reversed, suggesting “If you're going to include this, the entire sentence must be included. Otherwise, it's a highly misleading take on what the SPLC was saying”

So, I added the rest of the sentence, noting “ I added the whole sentence as requested and clarified by putting "criticized" in the sentence to show the SPLC isn't favoring ADF.”

The SPLC has also criticized ADF as a "prominent Christian legal powerhouse" founded by "30 prominent Christian leaders in response to what they saw as "growing attacks on religious freedom,' the organization has an annual budget of more than $30 million, a staff of 44 in-house lawyers and 2,200 allied lawyers."[4]

Objective300 reversed my edit and stated “No. The original sentence you are pulling apart says the organization was supporting anti-gay bigots. You are making it sound like they are criticizing it for being for freedom and having a lot of lawyers.”

I made a new revision, realizing I that Objective300 was referring to the first sentence, not the second. So, I edited, noting: “Attempting to follow requested edit to add proper context to SPLC's criticism.”

The SPLC has also criticized ADF as a "prominent Christian legal powerhouse" that provided "advice to anti-gay bigots in Belize."[5]

Beyond My Ken reversed my edit and directed me to Talk. Here is the diff page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alliance_Defending_Freedom&curid=1401587&diff=956871242&oldid=956870606 I’m trying really hard to make quality, neutral edits. Is the last edit inappropriate for any reason?? There needs to be more than one sentence per paragraph. --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

The problem is WP:SYNTHESIS. By combining information from different parts of the source, you've made it seem that the "powerhouse" comment has something to do with the Belize comment, which it doesn't. That effect of that is to water-down the criticism (that they provided "advice to anti-gay bigots") by prefacing it with "prominent Christian legal powerhouse". That's SYNTH, since the article did not do that. Further, the article never calls AFD a "prominent Christian legal powerhouse". It says it was founded by "30 prominent Christian leaders", and that the firm is "a powerhouse with an annual budget of more than $30 million." The phrase "prominent Christian legal powerhouse" never appears in the article, it is your construction alone, and distorts what the article says. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

That phrase does appear in the article on page 5 of the PDF in the context as written, in contiguous paragraphs. Please reread. You must have missed it. https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/d6_legacy_files/downloads/publication/splc-report-dangerous-liaisons.pdf

" Though Belize is tiny, the battle has attracted numerous American groups — including the prominent Christian legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) — on the pro-criminalization side, providing advice to anti-gay bigots in Belize. The ADF is a serious organization. Founded in 1994 by 30 prominent Christian leaders in response to what they saw as “growing attacks on religious freedom,”

--Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

• Sorry, my error. Thanks for pointing it out. My first point remains, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank, I appreciate that retraction. However, your first comment is this: "By combining information from different parts of the source, you've made it seem that the "powerhouse" comment has something to do with the Belize comment, which it doesn't." The Belize comment is in the same sentence as the "prominent Christian legal powerhouse" statement, so your first point is incorrect. --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

It sounds like you’re trying to find something positive to say about ADF from the SPLC. On the Nation of Islam, the SPLC says: “one of the wealthiest and best-known organizations in black America”. Sounds positive in the same manner. It then goes on to say “Its theology of innate black superiority over whites and the deeply racist, antisemitic and anti-LGBT rhetoric…”. The SPLC is not saying anything positive about either. It’s pointing out their abilities to spread hate. If you’re looking for something that talks to how powerful the ADF is without a negative context, I think you’ll need to find another source. O3000 (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, my bad. I'm restoring your edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Nope" is particularly unhelpful as an edit summary. More than one organization describes it as a "Christian legal powerhouse" (literally in the WaPo headline...no need to omit a valid source or remove valid naming conventions). I don't object to the edit of the article (reasonable people can disagree), but I do object to the manner in which it was done and the lack of a valid edit summary. Buffs (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Nope" = "Better before" = "Not an improvement", all perfectly reasonable and succinct responses to bad edits. It's fine the way it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • We should not use headlines as sources. See this current RSN discussion[6] and the Snopes discussion there. Hell, I used to write headlines for the Miami Herald and I was never a journalist. Doug Weller talk 09:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• "We don't shouldn't use headlines as sources"...really? What policy is that exactly? We are quoting that two disparate groups both describe something the same way. THe source is the Washington Post. Buffs (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If you can misrepresent what I wrote that you replied to so easily, I don't know what to say as I can't explain something I never wrote. It's worrying. Doug Weller talk 18:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

"Should not" vs "do not" is not a significant difference, IMHO, but I changed it...my point remains and is still unanswered. You're just being pedantic. Buffs (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller's point -- one that he apparently knows from real-life experience -- is that the headline is not actually a part of an article. It's not written by the journalist who wrote the article, it's written by someone else entirely, with the purpose of attracting the eye of the reader while summarizing the article, hopefully with a modicum of accuracy. The spread between the two is greatest in tabloids and less so in broadsheets, but in any circumstance, if the article says X and the headline says Y, the reliable source is the article, not the headline. If the article accurately represents the article, so much the better, but relying on headlines for information that's not in the article is just a plain bad idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Since when is WP:OR permitted? Did WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT suddenly become policy? The Washington Post chose to publish it, period. All that it was being used for is to substantiate that more than one organization called it the same thing. I'm sure if I look I can find a dozen others. That you are fighting it based solely on WP:FROMMYEXPERIENCE is exceptionally telling. We get it. You don't like the ADF. Fine. That doesn't mean that WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NPOV go out the window. I've been more than reasonable here and good faith edits are met with undo and "nope...that's a bad edit. It was fine the way it was". Your position is intractable and unreasonable. You do not WP:OWN this page. Buffs (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you're raving about, but I'm certainly not going to engage you in any more discussion to give you a chance to do any more of it.

Nobody "owns" this article, but any Wikipedia editor can revert bad edits, and I will continue to do so when I see them. If you don't want to be reverted, don't make bad edits. There, rave about that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

There, rave about that Taunting isn't appropriate. Dismissing what I view as legitimate concerns as "ranting" and "raving" are inherently uncivil replies to dissent.

I'm certainly not going to engage you in any more discussion You call this discussion? It's condescending and uncivil lecturing, something that's been brought up more than once.

If you don't want to be reverted, don't make bad edits I see, so I can just revert you because I view it as a "bad edit" (see how poor that logic is?)!

I request you retract this uncivil behavior and/or offer a compromise. "It's my way or the highway" is inherently uncivil and so are your replies. Buffs (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

We have WP:HEADLINE now. Is there anything left that supports your position? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Creating an essay (now labeled accordingly) doesn't suddenly create a policy/guideline; it doesn't mean we've decided as a community that headlines are meaningless. Likewise, this particular reference is merely to indicate that disparate groups have decided to call them a specific term. Buffs (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:HEADLINE was not created for this article. It is a result of [7]. O3000 (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I never said it was. Buffs (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

"Christian legal powerhouse" is not a contrast with the description of them as a hate group. Buffs' proposed version sets it up as one, however, with the "Even as..." phrasing, suggesting that there is something contradictory about it. There is not - the ADF can be both a hate group and a Christian legal powerhouse. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I see no contrast intended here, just a transition between paragraphs. I'm not against different phrasing, but if we're going to include the disparaging quotes of a single organization, certainly we can include a widespread, neutral description of them. Buffs (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Day of Truth

How do these figures help the article? There's no context. How many schools are there in the US? How many pupils? Were these all private schools, perhaps religious - or were many of them public schools? Did the parents of these children all belong to the same organisation and keep their children out of school? I don't think they belong here or at Day of Dialogue. Doug Weller talk 11:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If included at all, it would seem to me that the vastly higher Day of Silence stats would also need to be included to put the numbers in context. But, both sets of stats are self-reported and unreliable. O3000 (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

When this first came up, I went looking for content from independent sources which would properly contextualize the Days of Truth. What I found was that everything was ultimately sourced from information released by the ADF, there was no truly independent information. The best articles, while using ADF info for Days of Truth, at least noted it as having been created as a counter to the (apparently much more widespread) Days of Silence. I also found that the Days of Truth was a problematic project which has moved from the ADF to other organizations and then back again when it proved to be too controversial and confrontational. Absent real data about the Days of Truth, doing anything more then simply noting its existence and something of its history would violate NPOV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course it's self-sourced. It was their event. Enough clarity that it's their claimed figures is there. Now, if we're assessing notability, perhaps that's a valid point here (reasonable people can disagree), but I'm not seeing anyone making that argument in this thread. Buffs (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't report as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, what organizations say about themselves. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

And we didn't do so here:

"According to ADF, over 1,100 students in 350 schools participated in the first Day of Truth."

Buffs (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Nor do you provide any context for that statement. In fact, that's a pitifully small number of students in a tiny, tiny number of schools, considering that the US has something like 89,000 elementary schools and 24,000 high schools, with about 56.5 millions students in them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

What context is needed? The claims and figures stand on their own. GLSEN makes WAY more outrageous, vague claims, but no one is calling their results "pitifully small". To be blunt, you have an atrocious double standard here. I'm an advocate for inclusion of both. It isn't a surprise that you're only for the exclusion of one. Lastly, this isn't a post-college football game fan-rush from the stands. The issue brought up was that it shouldn't be in WP-voice as a statement of fact when it's the organization's claim. The fact is: it wasn't, so, you decided to ignore that and toss out "psh, it's pathetic, is what it is". More WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Not helpful...again... Buffs (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but you didn't include GLSEN numbers here. If you have a problem with another article, take it there. And false claims of WP:IDONTLIKEIT are WP:PAs. O3000 (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The reason most POV editors eventually get into trouble is that they don't edit from a desire to improve the encyclopedia, they edit from a desire to promote their ideology and the people and organizations connected to it. They then find themselves up against the general corpus of editors, who are concerned about improving Wikipedia, and who work to see that it's not pushed out of neutrality. From this comes multiple disputes across many articles, as the POV editors find themselves going head-to-head with numerous general editors. If the Wikipedia community was a little more proactive about sidelining these POV editors as soon as they show their true colors, there would be fewer problems and disputes, and the process of editing would be less onerous, time-consuming and enervating. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)