Talk:Exodus Cry

This page is being monitored and vandalized to attack the organization Exodus Cry: The biased and defamatory edits to the page constitute vandalism

This page is being vandalized and cannot be confirmed or used as a reliable source of information about Exodus Cry, its founder, its employees, its history, its activities or its views.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FactChecker4Truth (talk • contribs) 18:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@FactChecker4Truth: Not sure if you're connected with Exodus Cry, but if you are, Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects might be of interest. Trivialist (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@FactChecker4Truth: Exodus Cry vandalism has resulted in a request for page protections. Not liking the negative national coverage of an organization is not a reason to hide it from the public. Violetta2019 (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

New edits erase Vice article documents incitement of violence by Laila Mickelwait of Exodus Cry. Editor @GBRV: claimed "Revert unencyclopedic [sic] addition", but this is not a Wikipedia standard. The section "criticism" is appropriate for the Vice article, which is clearly critical. EffortMoose (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I've updated this section to better reflect WP:NPOV and believe it will stay in the article in some form. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 04:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The new wording of the Vice article information still doesn't provide much balance, and ignores the fact that the article's allegations violate Wikipedia's rule against including unsubstantiated claims since the article doesn't establish any link between these Neo-Nazis and Exodus Cry or Laila Michelwait. We would need an article that provides proof of such a link, otherwise it's unacceptable. And as I pointed out in my other comment on the same information in a related article, we're really not supposed to be citing blow-by-blow media coverage of each day's newest claims anyway, since that's not what an encyclopedia does (we're not a news outlet, much less a gossip sheet). GBRV (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCK comments stricken

This appears to be a second source, substantiated. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/us/hate-groups-porn-conspiracy.html EffortMoose (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

An information which made it to mainstream press and wasn't retracted does not amount to defamatory or libelous in the meaning of WP:BLP. So, suck it up and be a man. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Perez Hilton ban?

I am not sure this is worth adding to the page, but celebrity Perez Hilton posted and linked to a critique of Exodus Cry on his own website (https://perezhilton.com/pornhub-removes-videos-unverified-content/) and was suspended from Facebook (for 24 hours) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gSA3MNXPeE&feature=youtu.be. Since Exodus Cry editors were trying to rapidly remove all the critiques of Exodus Cry on wikipedia, this seems like an additional data point supporting the idea that they are trying to hide all critiques of them? On the other hand...it is Perez Hilton. Violetta2019 (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

International House of Prayer

Exodus Cry has publicly denied connections with the International House of Prayer, likely due to its vitrioloically anti-LGBT stance. It turns out Exodus Cry's listed "Secretary, Treasurer and Director" is "Lenny Laguardia" (see page 7 https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/262317116_201812_990_2019120616930514.pdf). He is senior vice president of International House of Prayer (https://www.ihopkc.org/resources/biography/lenny-laguardia/). They are openly anti-gay https://www.ihopkc.org/about/affirmations-and-denials/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tp89j9c4t98 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Noting that this has now been clarified in both this article and IHOPKC's article, with reference to secondary sources. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 19:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Nonprofit Status

@EffortMoose: I checked the California AG's website and confirmed that, like you said, they're listed as "Delinquint" on their renewal. However, it would be best if we didn't list this source in the article because it's a primary source (WP:PRIMARY). Primary sources are okay sometimes, but in this case using the primary source to make an allegation would probably be considered an "exceptional claim," which we need to back up with a secondary source. Another reason it shouldn't be added is that it is still listed as a 501(c)3 on the IRS' search tool 1, where it displays as now being registered in Grandview, MO - Not California. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 21:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@ThadeusOfNazereth:Thank you for checking. I did follow up and feel confident they are in violation. The website accepting donations is listed as in Sacramento, CA and the CA website specifically says they are "Not allowed to operate in California". https://oag.ca.gov/charities/reports#crr The second list names them. What are the standards for use of primary sources? And could a "secondary source" be from the same government website? They are listed as inactive also on the same site https://rct.doj.ca.gov/Verification/Web/Details.aspx?result=6ad03258-5eac-4289-8167-c43c34e2d44b EffortMoose (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, it's not something I'm totally familiar with - Normally I'm on the anti-vandalism side of things, not directly contributing to articles. I'm definitely interested in this rabbit hole, and later today I'll put together a post at WP:HELPDESK asking for other people's thoughts. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 23:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

If the group is now based in Missouri then EffortMoose is looking at entirely the wrong state - still checking California websites - which underscores the reason why Wikipedia doesn't allow personal research using primary sources like this. We need to cite expert opinion contained in an RS, rather than going by amateur research. Wikipedia also sets an extremely high standard for allegations against living people, which is why the Vice article is also a problem: partly because it's only one source rather than the multiple independent sources that are usually required for this type of accusation, and partly because it doesn't present any evidence linking these white supremacist posts to the activists which the article is blaming for them. This clearly violates Wikipedia's rules as well. GBRV (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCK comments stricken

The group's website, including the donations and "Financials" page claims they are based in California, which puts them in violation of the government list that states they are "Not allowed to operate" in California. I would be happy for someone else to verify, perhaps some government investigation will clarify, but that may leave many donating under false pretenses. Maybe there is simply no way to stop the apparent grift until there is some follow-up by proper investigations. EffortMoose (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place for investigative journalism. If a reliable source reports what you're suggesting, then it can be included in the article. Otherwise it's speculation and original research. Trivialist (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The latest additions suggests it is a validly registered Missouri company. Their own website says they are in California. I am going to remove the non-profit information until someone can verify it. As it is, people are likely to be misled to a possibly illegally operating charity. EffortMoose (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

EffortMoose: To quote ThadeusOfNazereth, the group is "still listed as a 501(c)3 on the IRS' search tool, where it displays as now being registered in Grandview, MO - Not California". Even if their website hasn't been updated to reflect the change to Missouri, the IRS' website does reflect this change and also lists them officially as a 501(c)3 organization; and in any event it isn't up to you to decide whether the IRS is wrong about this or not. Wikipedia has a rule against using personal research because it usually results in amateur mistakes, which is why we require the citation of experts, as Trivialist (and others) already told you. Nor is Wikipedia the place to keep filling up these articles with unproven claims against groups you personally dislike. Since no one has responded to my points about the Vice article being problematic (for several reasons), I'm removing it in keeping with standard Wikipedia practice against including allegations against living people unless the allegations are cited in multiple RSs and backed up with evidence. GBRV (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCK comments stricken

GBRV was indeffed as WP:SOCK. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Laila Mickelwait

I read Nicholas Kristof‘s column today and saw he mentioned Laila Mickelwait. I made a quick stub article for her. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Thriley: WP:PROUD. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Abortion

Roughly, half of US citizens oppose abortion. So comparing abortion to the Holocaust is by no means a politically fringe claim, like that wherein some famous evangelists claimed that 9/11 is punishment for US tolerating homosexuality. So, Nolot's homophobia is not done, but his views upon abortion are shared by a large part of the American population. While a clear-cut consensus exists upon homophobia among good faith people, no such consensus exists upon abortion. The article seems to imply that there is something objectively wrong with his views upon abortion. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

It's closer to 40% now, according to Pew. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/06/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases/) Opposing abortion and comparing abortion to the Holocaust aren't the same thing, although some people who oppose abortion may hold that view. I don't see where the article suggests that there is something objectively wrong with Nolot's views of abortion, merely that he has expressed such views in the past, and that this has caused potential sponsors of the organization he founded to reconsider their support. 2A00:23C7:99A4:5000:2016:254D:47FA:EA82 (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)