Talk:Human Rights Campaign

trans-jacking?

what is "trans-jacking" ?

Should Love Rocks and related CDs not be moved out to their own article, in accordance with Wikiproject: Albums? The Hooded Man 02:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Controversy section filled with POV and weasel words

• however sparking charges of "trans-jacking" from the far right. What does this mean?
• Sometimes referred to as "Headed by Rich Caucasians" or the "Human Rights Champagne Fund", the HRC has often been the target of critics who claim that the HRC and HRCF do not produce any significant policy advocacy, and only serve the interests of a select minority of wealthy, white gay men. In the same vein, it is heavily criticized for its national, top-down structure instead of a local, grassroots focus. This whole paragraph is filled with POV and weasel words. Heavily criticized by who? Who are these critics?

• The HRC is considered by some to be too cozy with the Democratic Party establishment. More weasel words.
• Given that Kerry was a supporter of such state ballot initiatives [2], many questioned why he had received a "free ride" from HRC, and why more effort wasn't made to defeat the marriage initiatives.. And more weasel words

• It is now clear that, with its change of heart with the ENDA bill, the HRC is now embracing the LGBT community's diversity while still keeping the community's public image mainstream. It doesn't get much more POV than this final sentence.

Ameltzer 22:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If the question is one of who has criticized HRC, one could include Andrew Sullivan, who has recently published a number of critical items of The Daily Dish. OPen2737 03:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree

There is no backing to this section and just talks of a certain group of people who are not named. If citations were given, it would be ok, but it probably needs to be removed until then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.185.174.165 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC).

Building purchase

If there is something notable about HRC's purchase and renovation of its headquarters, that is not apparent from this article. If there is something notable, that should be indicated. If not, it may not belong here. --Dfeuer 01:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember the event being in the media speaking to the event being a moment of transition from renter to a more permanent presence. Benjiboi 01:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What a dishonest name

This organisation's name is a cynical attempt to mislead people that it is a generalist human rights organisation, when it is actually a narrowly focused interest group. Surely this has been commented on before, and there could be something about it in the article. Greg Grahame (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems awfully POV but perhaps you could present reliable sources so others can see what might be added. -- Banjeboi 01:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And please Greg, stay on topic. This is not a discussion to state your opinons about the organization. Before making accusations, do research to futher your belief. Azcolvin429 (talk) 08:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

While Greg's statements are too far-going and speculative, he does make one good point: A name like "Human Rights Campaign" is misleading (whether deliberately or accidentally) for a gay-rights movement, and depending on the exact circumstances it may well be worth commenting on.

(Consider instead, for instance, "Human Rights for Gays Campaign" and note the different associations.) 88.77.152.227 (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have anything to offer, but leaving aside the tone of this topic's initiator, I have had similar concerns about the title. In this present moment, attempting to find answers to the origin of the name is what has brought me to this today. I may be a small sample size, but consider me as submitting my own case as testament to the notability of the question of HRC's name. 152.23.53.187 (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources are not verifiable, article is POV

Blogs are not verifiable references. You have to use the data and cite that source that the blogger got it from and present it without drawing a conclusion.

If Andrew Sullivan's column is an acceptable source, then I will use it for articles regarding National Organization for Marriage.

obviously the article states more criticism than content and is POV, so it shouldn't come as a surprise when it is edited.--DCX (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with the propagandistic nature of the name of the Human Rights Campaign. Would be interested to know the roots of the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.88.217 (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Trans criticism section misleading over HRC's lack of support

The paragraph in the criticism section says that HRC did not support the 2007 ENDA bill. However:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/3543/

HRC has said it doesn't support the bill, but they have also said they support the bill. There wasn't a mountain of controversy over HRC's seemingly balanced "don't support - don't oppose" stance. People were criticizing their support of the bill. The article doesn't reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volfy (talk • contribs) 17:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add to this call for clarification. The section currently says that they didn't support it but one link says they did. The latter would explain criticism. Someone needs to work on the language or make the facts less confusing [to me, please].Czrisher (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Impact of the NOM

Before this organization gets people in trouble by accepting contributions that are SUPER pac size please consider and/or post in article something to effect..How the HRC makes sure a big donor doesn't get in trouble when HRC funds are spent in accordance with campaign specific specialty interest election laws for individual states.

Talk to GLAD for clarifications they were involved in winning this ruling.

As demonstrated in the US First Circuit Court of Appeals January 31, 2012 ruling against the National Organization for Marriage, issue specific PACs are subject to the reasonable person test. .

Recent changes

• "protecting and caring for families through marriage equality and relationship recognition" - This is blatant POV.
• "An extensive archive of HRC and HRC Foundation publications is available on HRC’s website." - Unnecessary.
• "According to the terms of the repeal law, the policy will remain in effect until the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that repeal will not harm military readiness, followed by a 60-day waiting period. HRC called on the Pentagon to expeditiously carry out the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal implementation plan." - Outdated.
• "Through research, educational efforts and outreach, the HRC Foundation continues to encourage LGBT people to live openly and to support their ability to do so." - POV, unsourced.

NYyankees51 (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Article is hopelessly biased. Only option is to start over from scratch and rewrite. Who wants to join me on a subpage?– Lionel ^(talk) 08:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems I didn't finish that list, so again, point by point:

1. Removed mission statement in lead per WP:MISSION.
2. Removed last sentence of first paragraph of structure as POV.
3. Reworded first paragraph of programs to remove POV.
4. Removed "An extensive archive of HRC and HRC Foundation publications is available on HRC’s website" as promotional.
5. Removed third paragraph of Programs as redundant.
6. Removed unnecessary list of coming out publications.
7. Reduced weight on hate crimes paragraph; links are dead.
8. Discrimination is a legal term; added alleged, which is an appropriate legal term.
9. Removed unsourced statement about work abroad.
10. Removed outdated material about DADT repeal.
11. Removed redundant ENDA paragraph.
12. Removed POV unsourced last sentence in first paragraph of history; not pertinent to history.
13. Removed unsourced statement on Americans with Disabilities Act.
14. Removed unsourced DNC statement.
15. Removed "recognizable" logo.
16. Removed redundant headquarters sentence and unnecessary details about building.
17. Reword unsourced statement about role of clergy in DC.
18. Removed unsourced statement about pension bill.
19. Removed unsourced hearing statement.
20. Reworded paragraph on travel ban.
21. Removed unsourced HHS memo statement.
22. Removed years of speakers at fundraiser
23. Reduce unnecessary detail to logo.
24. Removed POV descriptions of Perkins and Dobson.
25. Neutralize sentence on D'Amato
26. Add $1 sentence per source.
27. Cleanup of transgender criticism section.
28. Removed unsourced and redundant criticism of presidential forum.
29. Remove list of leaders already covered in prose.
30. Remove unsourced section on music.

If you want to revert one or more, please respond below and justify your reverts point by point by using the numbers I have used. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Logo color

I've recently seen the logo showing up as a pink equal sign on a red background, rather than the longstanding yellow on blue. (Screenshot of their web site, taken just a moment ago: [1])Have they changed their logo color? cmadler (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)