Talk:American Family Association: Difference between revisions
archiving |
|||
Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
:Try to repair it. If the correct link cannot be found, delete it. <small><span style="border:1px solid #660000;padding:1px;">[[User talk:Ejnogarb|<font style="color:#660000;"> '''EJNOGARB''' </font>]]</span></small> 14:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC) |
:Try to repair it. If the correct link cannot be found, delete it. <small><span style="border:1px solid #660000;padding:1px;">[[User talk:Ejnogarb|<font style="color:#660000;"> '''EJNOGARB''' </font>]]</span></small> 14:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Problems with Links in Criticism Section == |
|||
== Proposed Deletion == |
|||
These problems exist with the links in the criticism section: |
|||
⚫ | I |
||
:14 Washington Times is not criticizing AFA, they’re reporting that Cyber Patrol blocked them |
|||
:65 leads to homepage, not article |
|||
:66 deadlink |
|||
:67 “according to a recent report from the Southern Poverty Law Center,” not Southern Voice, needs to be removed as source |
|||
:68 makes no reference to AFA |
|||
:69 deadlink, but maybe just needs to be redirected |
|||
:70 same as 69 |
|||
:71 CNET is not criticizing AFA, they’re reporting that Cyber Patrol blocked them |
|||
:72 Edmunds doesn’t call AFA anti-gay, but ineffectual |
|||
:73 Possibly a misdirect, makes no reference to AFA |
|||
:74 deadlink |
|||
:75 deadlink |
|||
:76 deadlink |
|||
:77 ACLU never says “anti-gay” |
|||
:79 deadlink |
|||
:80 deadlink |
|||
:81 deadlink |
|||
:88 all quotes (except last) are unsourced |
|||
:101 unreliable source |
|||
:102 makes no reference to AFA, and never says, “be more negative to Islam” |
|||
:103 is AFA of PA the same as AFA of Mississippi? |
|||
Primary suggestions: (1) Remove Washington Times, Southern Voice, CNET as critics of AFA since they are only sources, not originators, of statements. Furthermore, Edmunds never calls AFA anti-gay, and should likewise be removed as a source (or changed to reflect what is actually said in article). (2) Repair the deadlinks if possible, but delete them if impossible. If a majority remains, the section should be tagged with a deadlink template. (3) There are several sources that make no reference to the AFA (links 68, 73, 102) and should be deleted. |
|||
⚫ | I may have made some mistakes in the above list, and would appreciate any helpful corrections. However, I believe that each of the above links needs attention. <small><span style="border:1px solid #660000;padding:1px;">[[User talk:Ejnogarb|<font style="color:#660000;"> '''EJNOGARB''' </font>]]</span></small> 17:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:54, 29 April 2009
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American Family Association article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Distortions
I think there should be a section documenting the AFA's beliefs in addition to the one documenting its activism. The "Criticism/controversy" section distorts the AFA's beliefs, and Conservapedia has already noted this. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okay by me. Go ahead and put in what you believe would improve the product. So long as it fits wiki policy such as supported by WP:RS, then you're golden. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Equality Mississippi
According to WP:Controversy, only independent scholarly work and mainstream media should be used as sources. The controversy section is dominated by a biased group who is neither, and should be removed. This isn't a section for an opinion free-for-all. Ejnogarb (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Self sourcing is allowed if the self-source is notable and Equality Mississippi is notable. But based on your recent wholesale deletion of content from this article, I don't think we're going to come to any kind of agreement on this issue so I'll leave it for someone else to deal with. Good day. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 18:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's not the guideline for articles like this: independent scholar of mainstream media. Ejnogarb (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Along the same lines, I deleted the sentence which says Scott Lively's group was implicated in hate crimes against gays in California, because there was no mention of California or any hate crimes perpetrated by his group in the SPLCenter source. The SPLCenter seems to be a dubious, biased source which needs to be moderated in this article. Ejnogarb (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Apparently you can't read. In the SPLCenter source, it specifically says, a 26-year-old gay Indian man who was beaten to death by Russian-speaking gay bashers in a park near Sacramento, Calif.. Last I checked, Sacramento was still in California and Calif. was sometimes used as shorthand for California. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 03:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- First of all, remember to keep things civil. Second, the article never implicates Lively, but a group of unknown Russians. It needs to be removed since the sentence is false. Last, as stated above, on an article such as this, the guideline for sources is this: independent scholar of mainstream media. SPLCenter is neither. Ejnogarb (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Which part of "Watchmen on the Walls, which has been implicated in violence against gays in California" is supported by its source? Can you specifically say how they have acted out in violence against gays in California? Ejnogarb (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- The source shows the connection between him, his organization, his discussion of the violence at a conference.. it ties it all in together. It's so painfully obvious, except I guess to someone who is hell-bent on whitewashing anything negative against the American Family Association. Additionally, you should take note of the banner at the very top of this very page that says Please discuss substantial changes here before making them. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 03:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- The connection you see is your POV, and does not belong in the article. Please provide a quotation from the source that supports that Watchmen on the Walls or Lively "has been implicated in violence against gays in California." Again, please be civil and refrain from making personal attacks per Wikipedia:PERSONAL ATTACK. Ejnogarb (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- The source shows the connection between him, his organization, his discussion of the violence at a conference.. it ties it all in together. It's so painfully obvious, except I guess to someone who is hell-bent on whitewashing anything negative against the American Family Association. Additionally, you should take note of the banner at the very top of this very page that says Please discuss substantial changes here before making them. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 03:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Which part of "Watchmen on the Walls, which has been implicated in violence against gays in California" is supported by its source? Can you specifically say how they have acted out in violence against gays in California? Ejnogarb (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- First of all, remember to keep things civil. Second, the article never implicates Lively, but a group of unknown Russians. It needs to be removed since the sentence is false. Last, as stated above, on an article such as this, the guideline for sources is this: independent scholar of mainstream media. SPLCenter is neither. Ejnogarb (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Apparently you can't read. In the SPLCenter source, it specifically says, a 26-year-old gay Indian man who was beaten to death by Russian-speaking gay bashers in a park near Sacramento, Calif.. Last I checked, Sacramento was still in California and Calif. was sometimes used as shorthand for California. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 03:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Along the same lines, I deleted the sentence which says Scott Lively's group was implicated in hate crimes against gays in California, because there was no mention of California or any hate crimes perpetrated by his group in the SPLCenter source. The SPLCenter seems to be a dubious, biased source which needs to be moderated in this article. Ejnogarb (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's not the guideline for articles like this: independent scholar of mainstream media. Ejnogarb (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I get the following tidbits from the source:
- Scott Lively co-founded the Watchmen group.
- A gay man was beaten to death in San Francisco by Russian-speaking men.
- At a Watchmen conference, Lively described the event from an anti-gay perspective.
- He opined that the goal of the investigation was to "silence everyone who speaks against homosexuality".
I've reworded the passage accordingly. Orpheus (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- While IMO, Allstar's comment about the connection (and tying it together) is obvious, it has be specifically so stated by a reliable source. We can't make the connection, otherwise it's WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Scott Lively was clearly careful to not directly support violence against gays in his taped comments, although a reasonable person could infer he approved. But that's not RS, and is therefore inadmissible. It's also interesting that the accounts of the gay beating event in SF differ so drastically. I viewed the video also and I agree with Ejnogarb and Orpheus that the "involvement" statement is not directly supported by the source, and endorse the current version by Orpheus. If another RS supporting the connection and deeper involvement can be found, then reinstate per that source. Several other points: (1) Self sourcing is allowed under conditions as described by Allstar (2) Allstar is correct as to location relative to the SPLC; it's CA (3) SPLC is acceptable as a reliable source (4) Allstar is also correct we should Please discuss substantial changes here before making them. (5) Edit warring does not help anyone; the involved editors, the article, WP, and most importantly, our readers. — Becksguy (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reading between the lines of the source (because this is the talk page, after all) it seems that the SPLC was equally careful to not directly state that the criminals were members of the Watchmen. The odds are quite high that they were, but not making that link explicit is a) a pointer to the SPLC as a reliable source, and b) a good reason to reword. Orpheus (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Scott Lively
The article on Scott Lively indicates he's a former leader of the AFA California. Is that correct? If so, this page's reference to him should be updated. Further, the lack of a source to put him as the leader is a problem, and I'd suggest removing the whole mention of him here unless a RS is cited which indicates he is/was the leader of AFA California (I assume such a source would be easy to find). Thanks, Hobit (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's mentioned here. However, I see WP:COATRACK at work - Lively was not affiliated with the AFA when he attacked the journalist or founded the WotW, so these statements do not belong in this article. —EqualRights (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Additionally, the statement that Lively was ordered to pay $20,000 for assault is such a severe accusation that it requires a more notable source that a biased LGBT group. I tried to find such a news source, but couldn't. It's not that I doubt that it occurred, but a more reliable source needs to be found by someone with more internet savvy. Ejnogarb (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Scott Lively has both newspaper & court citations —EqualRights (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Removed the Scott Lively section as I think this is just a COATRACK given the above discussion. Hobit (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Per the big banner at the top of this very page that says Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, I've restored the content as well as added a source that indiciates he is the State Director of the AFA California - that source being the AFA themselves. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 22:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- You may notice I did discuss it (suggested it above). I probably changed things too quickly however. The source looks good to me. Now if this discussion of him belongs here makes sense (was this really one of the more important contraveries the AFA has been involved in?) is another question.Hobit (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Per the big banner at the top of this very page that says Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, I've restored the content as well as added a source that indiciates he is the State Director of the AFA California - that source being the AFA themselves. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 22:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Removed the Scott Lively section as I think this is just a COATRACK given the above discussion. Hobit (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Scott Lively has both newspaper & court citations —EqualRights (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Additionally, the statement that Lively was ordered to pay $20,000 for assault is such a severe accusation that it requires a more notable source that a biased LGBT group. I tried to find such a news source, but couldn't. It's not that I doubt that it occurred, but a more reliable source needs to be found by someone with more internet savvy. Ejnogarb (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, once again: the following text appears to be WP:COATRACK because it is not directly relevant to the AFA, so unless someone has a specific policy-derived defense of this text being present, it's got to go: "As a member of the Oregon Citizens Alliance, Lively was ordered to pay $20,000 to a lesbian photojournalist he attacked in a Portland area church, and he has since co-founded an anti-gay group called Watchmen on the Walls. In August 2007, Lively described the investigation into the murder of a gay man in Sacramento, California as an attempt to "silence everyone who speaks against homosexuality"." The former event is already present in Scott Lively, and the latter can easily be moved there. —EqualRights (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree. Hobit (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Considering the subsection is titled Personnel, and he is AFA personnel, it hasn't anything to do with WP:COATRACK. It shows the controversy surrounding AFA personnel and therefore is relevant to the AFA. The additional content regarding his ties to OCA and his speech regarding the murder in Sacramento further rounds out the controversy and life of an AFA personnel member. I think it's all highly relevant. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 00:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- So on an article like the Democratic National Committee, it would be appropriate to list a bad act by the current head of California branch of that committee? It seems rather a stretch.Hobit (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- If the Democratic National Committee has a section on its Personnel, yes. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 01:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- The question is if one should have a section on personnel in a criticisms section. Hobit (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sure (see the Mary-Beth Sweetland bit). Orpheus (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that belongs there either. Hobit (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- If the Democratic National Committee has a section on its Personnel, yes. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 01:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- So on an article like the Democratic National Committee, it would be appropriate to list a bad act by the current head of California branch of that committee? It seems rather a stretch.Hobit (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Considering the subsection is titled Personnel, and he is AFA personnel, it hasn't anything to do with WP:COATRACK. It shows the controversy surrounding AFA personnel and therefore is relevant to the AFA. The additional content regarding his ties to OCA and his speech regarding the murder in Sacramento further rounds out the controversy and life of an AFA personnel member. I think it's all highly relevant. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 00:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that if he wasn't a member of AFA at the time, the material should be deleted from this article but included in his BLP. EJNOGARB 16:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Does anyone have a source for when he started as a leader (which I'd say is more important than a member in this context) of AFA? Hobit (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hearing nothing, I'm planning on removing this but will wait a few days to see if anyone can address the issue. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- [1] - first archived in 2001, still up on "live" site, although of dubious currency. Gives us a start date at least. Orpheus (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hearing nothing, I'm planning on removing this but will wait a few days to see if anyone can address the issue. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Does anyone have a source for when he started as a leader (which I'd say is more important than a member in this context) of AFA? Hobit (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Footnote 103
Footnote 103 appears to be broken. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 17:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Tea Tax Parties
I noticed there is yet no mention of the AFA's role in organizing the tea tax parties. I am new here, so I wouldn't want to do it myself. This website is sponsored by the AFA, and the AFA's website refers to it as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesuithitsquad (talk • contribs) 02:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Controversy Section
This is in response to the editor who removed the criticism template. According to WP:CRITICISM, this section should be integrated into the main body of the article. Furthermore, the criticism section should be balanced with positive and negative criticism, which is not the case in this article. Also, the criticism section is is far to large in comparison to the overall length of the article. EJNOGARB 22:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- WP:CRITICISM is an essay, but even that says "There is currently no consensus on what is best". Even disregarding that, with an article such as this one, I'd say it's actually quite difficult to avoid having such a section, because the very nature of the organisation means that criticism and controversy go hand-in-hand with what they do. Black Kite 22:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- I know that wp:otherstuffexists, but potentially controversial articles such as Glenn Beck and Barack Obama manage to exist without controversy sections. It's a symptom of bad writing to include such sections in any article. At the very least, the controversy section should be trimmed down to the most salient details from NPOV sources (that is, not SPLC or Equality Mississippi). EJNOGARB 00:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Is there any such thing as "positive" criticism in this context? And is there any relating to the AFA? Exploding Boy (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- I know that wp:otherstuffexists, but potentially controversial articles such as Glenn Beck and Barack Obama manage to exist without controversy sections. It's a symptom of bad writing to include such sections in any article. At the very least, the controversy section should be trimmed down to the most salient details from NPOV sources (that is, not SPLC or Equality Mississippi). EJNOGARB 00:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Footnote 64
Footnote 64 is a broken link. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 19:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Try to repair it. If the correct link cannot be found, delete it. EJNOGARB 14:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Problems with Links in Criticism Section
These problems exist with the links in the criticism section:
- 14 Washington Times is not criticizing AFA, they’re reporting that Cyber Patrol blocked them
- 65 leads to homepage, not article
- 66 deadlink
- 67 “according to a recent report from the Southern Poverty Law Center,” not Southern Voice, needs to be removed as source
- 68 makes no reference to AFA
- 69 deadlink, but maybe just needs to be redirected
- 70 same as 69
- 71 CNET is not criticizing AFA, they’re reporting that Cyber Patrol blocked them
- 72 Edmunds doesn’t call AFA anti-gay, but ineffectual
- 73 Possibly a misdirect, makes no reference to AFA
- 74 deadlink
- 75 deadlink
- 76 deadlink
- 77 ACLU never says “anti-gay”
- 79 deadlink
- 80 deadlink
- 81 deadlink
- 88 all quotes (except last) are unsourced
- 101 unreliable source
- 102 makes no reference to AFA, and never says, “be more negative to Islam”
- 103 is AFA of PA the same as AFA of Mississippi?
Primary suggestions: (1) Remove Washington Times, Southern Voice, CNET as critics of AFA since they are only sources, not originators, of statements. Furthermore, Edmunds never calls AFA anti-gay, and should likewise be removed as a source (or changed to reflect what is actually said in article). (2) Repair the deadlinks if possible, but delete them if impossible. If a majority remains, the section should be tagged with a deadlink template. (3) There are several sources that make no reference to the AFA (links 68, 73, 102) and should be deleted.
I may have made some mistakes in the above list, and would appreciate any helpful corrections. However, I believe that each of the above links needs attention. EJNOGARB 17:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Unassessed United States articles
- Unknown-importance United States articles
- Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed Mississippi articles
- Unknown-importance Mississippi articles
- WikiProject Mississippi articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class Christianity articles
- Low-importance Christianity articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- B-Class organization articles
- Unknown-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- B-Class LGBT articles
- WikiProject LGBT studies articles
- Wikipedia controversial topics