User talk:Scatach

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Scatach, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!

I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! SarahStierch (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

CWFA

Hello! I see you added a sentence to Concerned Women for America with part of the group's mission statement re: prayer etc. I've removed that because it doesn't really help a reader understand what the group actually does and may give the wrong impression (they are not the ACLU and would not want to be mixed up with them!) Do you have any reliable sources (such as books from reliable publishers, or news stories) that talk about issues that CWFA has been involved in, on that theme or others? (Also, I removed abortion from the opening sentence because I'm not sure it is what they're best known for. What do you think?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I am a begginner with wikipediaScatach (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I know - definitely check out the Teahouse (linked in the section before this one), which is a resource for new members. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The distinction of CWFA being conservative ought to be removed, unless NOW should be considered liberal as well Scatach (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I think your addition of "feminist" to NOW actually handles that nicely. Is there a word that you think would be better than "conservative" as an opposite to "feminist" for CWFA? "Antifeminist" is obviously the literal opposite, but I don't think that adequately covers all the issues that CWFA is involved in. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

yes,feminist is the best way adjective for NOW. However, I think not using "liberal" "progressive" "feminist""anti-feminist"" conservative" , etc. would be the most neutral, as any political alignment could be discerned from the article content. I say "christian women" would be best since that is how CWFA self-identifies. It should be mentioned that CWFA is against discrimination of women, as it is a women's organizationScatach (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree; the opening of the article should summarize what follows (WP:LEAD). Self-identification is useful up to a point, but consider that the Evangelical and Ecumenical Women's Caucus is also an organization of Christian women, but one with quite different beliefs and activities. Wouldn't we want a reader coming in to the article to have an idea what it's about?

Re CWFA opposing discrimination against women - that does not follow from their being an organization made up of women. We must make sure that we state the facts (an organization of women) without engaging in original analysis (what they presumably believe because they are women). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe their mission statement,which was deleted,provided proof that CWFA is against women's discrimination.There needs to be more info to better flesh out the article. Their statement on non-discrimination should be added and cited. I believe it was deleted because it was showing the positive side of CWFA. That's the problem with this article, its biased and not showing the complete picture. Scatach (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Connected?

Your edits leave me with the impression that you might be connected in some way to Roscelese. Are you affiliated with her in anyway?Intermittentgardener (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC) I've messaged her about fixing the CWFA page, that's all. I only want to balance that page out a bit.Scatach (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Scatach. You have new messages at Roscelese's talk page.
Message added 16:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

SPLC

Besides the issue of the move itself, what you did, by copying from the page rather than by clicking on edit, was remove all of the references, leaving just numbers such as [102]. You also added scare quotes to the phrase hate groups, which is deprecated (see WP:BADEMPHASIS and in this case violates WP:NPOV. The sort of errors new editors often make, but I wanted you to know about them. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I, in no way meant to vandalize the article,I need to reread the style manual. That being said, I think the SPLC article has MAJOR POV issues. First and foremost being that a decent amount of the sources come from SPLC itself. As for the quotes,calling a non-violent,farily mild(as far as hate groups go) organization a hate group is a stretch.Scatach (talk) 08:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Marking edits as Minor

Looks to me as though all the edits you call minor are major edits. Please stop marking edits as minor unless they are simply formatting, grammar, typos, etc. Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)