Talk:Mission: America

Christianity is Skewer Used to Brand Mission America

I just read this page through for the first time. Besides numerous spelling and grammar issues, the impression I get is that this article is written by people opposed to Mission America. Particularly thick is the religious angle. Mind you, this is just my opinion on reading this article for the first time. For example, it's possible Mission America makes great points, but the article is written to cast these great points in a religious light as if to denigrate the points merely because they are based on a religious point of view. Does one really have to be Christian to oppose what Mission America is reporting? The author of the article writes as if people who are not devout Christians should immediately discard Mission America's assertions precisely because Mission America is a Christian organization. I do not think this kind of writing complies with wiki policy.

I would like to see this article rewritten in a fair fashion. Now I'm no expert. Perhaps there could be a "Critical Response" section for those opposing Mission America.

I'm not against informing people of the pros and cons of an organization. But when the article is entirely written from one single point of view, that's not good. This article is clearly written from one point of view -- one opposing Mission America specifically and Christianity generally. I say this article needs to be seriously revised. --SafeLibraries 03:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words avoiding stating MA's opposition to homosexuality, paganism and feminism

I assume this is a statement of opposition but avoids being explicit about it.

The organization's major area of focus is homosexuality from a conservative Christian viewpoint, particularly as it relates to American youth. The group is Christian in its worldview, and discusses paganism and feminist spirituality in relation to traditional Christianity.

-- Paul foord (talk) 10:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It is nothing of the sort. It is a hate group. It is Christian in name only. It would be more fair to characterize it as American Taliban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.128.195 (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

wow, thats quite a claim. are there any sources that claim this as such??Millertime246 (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Rv. whitewashing and removal of sourced material

I worked very hard to improve this article, correct misquotes, fix grammar, and organize it like others are organized, and, most notably, I did no "whitewashing", neither did I "remove sourced material", unless it was duplicative of existing material. Actually, I added something scary about how America is being dismembered. Yechh. I sense the editor who reverted everything is using Wikipedia to promote his view, given his history comment, and is not interested in producing an accurate and readable page.

Now I'm not going to revert his change now and start any problems. Rather, I'm here to point out his reverting of my work was wrong and to ask people to consider assisting me in making this article encyclopedic. I did not remove SPLC but it was indeed plastered all over the story, so I put it in a Criticism section, then added a response. That may be the "whitewashing" he's talking about, but as SPLC remains there in the Criticism section and also in the See also section, no whitewashing occurred. And I removed one RightWingWatch ref, but there are at least four others remaining. Oh, I added one Mission America ref that had been previously removed, rightly, as it had been added by an interested party. But it does belong as a response in the Criticism section I had before he wholesale deleted that.

If, after a time, no one sees this comment of mine and nothing is done, then I'll revert his soapbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mission%3A_America&diff=549760895&oldid=549759616

I would like to see this edit reverted, and if he has legitimate concerns, he should bring them to Talk as I have, instead of a massive revert with an ideological edit history comment.

Thank you. Lawfare (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Removing the references to the SPLC from the lede and the history sections and burying them deep down in the article sure looks like whitewashing to me. Sorry, but I don't buy your explanation. You lost credibility when you said the SPLC material was "plastered all over the story". Gross exageration does not help your case. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dominus Vobisdu, and would add that one of the main reasons Mission: America is notable is because of their vocal viewpoints about homosexuality, so much so that the SPLC has taken notice. To remove this from the lead and bury in a criticism section is non-neutral because it portrays this organization in an overly favorable light. WP:DUE requires that we represent the subject in both its positive and negative aspects, with the same proportional weight given in reliable sources.

It's also worth mentioning that the article was edited earlier today by an editor who likely has a close connection with Mission: America and another editor who is probably a contributor to far-right-leaning political blogs. Unsurprisingly, both of those editors also removed content critical of Mission: America. - MrX 01:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

MrX, he did a wholesale removal of every single change I made, no matter how minor or major. Second, I did not realize today was the day other editors were here working on it. I can see now why that may have raised an eyebrow, but its just coincidence. Besides, I added in a creepy quote about dismembering America, and I am certain those interested parties would not have added such a quote.

Further, I added the quote about dismembering America to replace another quote that simply was not present in the cited text. If I were "whitewashing," I would have removed the nonexistent text AND the ref. Instead, it did the right thing, left the ref as it was, and added a quote that actually existed in the ref. The reversion of my work means a reversion back to something that simply does not exist. If anything, the revert evidences a whitewash, not the proper work done of checking a reference, seeing a quote not there, and selecting another equally ominous quote just to avoid changing the character of the paragraph. So, I did not remove content critical of M:A as you claim, rather I changed it to equally ominous wording that actually existed. Any fair-minded editor has to see this.

As to SPLC being "plastered all over the story," as it stands now, it is in the lead comprising an entire paragraph out of the 2 paragraphs, section 1 History, section 3 See also, section 4 References with 2 links, and the Categories has "Organizations that oppose LGBT rights" that is substantially what SPLC is saying. I would call that plastered all over the story as only Section 2 and External Links did not have SPLC

As I had changed it, it was removed from the lead and from HIstory, left elsewhere, and added to a new section Criticism. The History section is for the History of the organization, not for the history of the various groups who oppose and organization. Such groups get placed into a Criticism section. This is the way it is on many, many pages here on Wikipedia. Being "non neutral" has nothing to do with that.

Further, similar articles that are also the subject of SPLC's claims do not have SPLC plastered all over. Instead, they have it in a Criticism section, a See Also Section, and so on, just like I did here. Right now, the article looks like it was written by a member of the SPLC to advertise the SPLC's domination of M:A. Honestly, that's what it looks like. As I had it, the SPLC and all refs remained, only it was organized in a way that was encyclopedic and did not look like it was SPLC centric. If you want to say that is "non-neutral", I can't stop you, but SPLC plastered all over and mass reverts with restoring nonexistent texts is what really is non neutral here.

MrX, I'm disappointed you said what you did. I thought you were reasonable in that you had raised the SPLC issue elsewhere for others to discuss. I am hoping what I just said shows I did not edit as you characterized my edits. I am hoping you will look again at how I edited it to see that it is vastly improved yet retains all the SPLC and RightWingWatch websites. Compare the versions side by side and you'll see mine is best by far.

RightWingWatch? Is that even a reliable source? That's a separate issue above my head we need not address as I did not remove them, except one excessive link out of at least four other existing links to RightWingWatch.

So, Mr.X, will you please reconsider the edits I have made?

Thank you. Lawfare (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for associating your edits with the content removal edits that occurred 16 minutes earlier.

I don't have an issue with some of your less controversial edits that were reverted because they were mixed with your bolder edits. I also don't object to removing the EL to right wing watch. As to the quote about "decline of morality", I suspect that Mission: America changed their web site since that content was added last September. This isn't my article though, and other edits may hold different views.

As to your assertion that the SPLC is "plastered all over the story", I believe that is an exaggeration. The SPLC is mentioned in one sentence in the body, summarized in one sentence in the lead and a related article is linked in the see also section. This is a very standard structure, based on the prominence of the subject in our sources. If you read WP:CSECTION you will better understand why we try to avoid creating criticism sections in articles such as these. - MrX 03:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

16 minutes!! Wow! Anyway, I am very encouraged by your response. How do we go about restoring the edits then discussing the others here? Um, may I ask you to do that? Lawfare (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I've restored your grammar edits and removed the Right Wing Watch link. - MrX 13:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Big improvement. More to go, but great so far. Among other things, how about adding in M:A's response to being labeled by SPLC? I haven't read more than the first sentence or two of it -- frankly because I didn't want to -- but it seems the right thing to do, even if we personally disagree with the attitude. Yes, I got the idea by looking at that edit by that person (and did not notice the time), but I do think its the right thing to do. I did not look at any others edits made by her/them but adding in a link having a response is proper, especially with the weight of the SPLC that remains in the article. And it really was pervasive, no exaggeration, having nothing to do with those things initially said about me by the initial mass reverter that I hope you can see now are not true. Lawfare (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly we should include their response to the hate group listing if reliable sources have taken notice. Do you know of any sources that have reported on Mission: America's reaction? - MrX 18:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No, but this page is not the love of my life, so I'm not going to do any research. If you say someone else has to take note of it, I'll assume that's right. I may go fix other minor but good changes I made and not yet restored, but not right now. It's a pleasure doing business with you. Lawfare (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Content removal

IP 98.225.252.201 (talk · contribs) has removed the SPLC hate group designation from the lede under the claim of making the article more neutral. I invite the user to explain how hiding this content makes that article more neutral.- MrX 22:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

So you are asking about how taking hate off the page makes it more neutral? Seriously? The source is not neutral. It is not contributing to a neutrally sourced page. It is actually quite simple provided one is interested in objectivity and not furthering an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Good consensus, not once but let's post it twice on the same page! Good job editing! How many years has it been like that? But like magic you appear today! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of the SPLC, but please wait until you gain WP:CONSENSUS in this discussion before you unilaterally remove properly sourced content. The SPLC is not exactly a neutral source, however I believe that leaving the paragraph and adding a properly cited rebuttal is a more neutral option. The criticism should be included, but I do believe that a rebuttal sentence or paragraph would be appropriate. —Josh3580_talk/hist 23:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no gaining any consensus here. They want the biased label not only once but twice on the same page. The SLPC is NOT A NEUTRAL source but of even greater import-their hate group list is controversial and not neutral by definition. They put the same quote on the page not once but twice and the purpose is to evoke emotion and has nada to do with any neutrality of any kind. This is as clear cut not a NPOV one would have to temporarily suspend disbelief to see otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV begins "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The fact that the SPLC has labeled the group as a hate group has been covered by various reliable sources, which indicates both the accuracy of saying that the SPLC has said it and that such opinion carries some relevance to the public discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

So Mission America's response to being labeled a hate group doesn't stay either? They should have a warning on each page, temporarily suspend disbelief before reading.

The hate list is controversial and not a fact. It is not neutral by definition. Just so silly I have to explain the same thing 6 different times to folks that are supposed to be operating in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@98.225.252.201: Yes, seriously. You did not "take hate off the page". Mission:America has been classified as a hate group by one of the leading civil rights organization the US. Long standing consensus has held that the SPLC is a reliable source. This is one of the most notable aspects of this organization. What are your policy-based objections to this information being presented to our readers?- MrX 23:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Beyond it NOT being one of the group's most notable aspects. Long standing since last April when you agreed to reduce the SPLC references from about 12 to only 2? Reliable source? Their hate list is highly controversial and anything but NPOV. Maybe someone can answer why it is that one editor can so vociferously control the content of a page? MrX has been engaged in edit warring over this citation for going on a year. I'm supposed to assume good faith? good one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Part of the editor's complaint is that the SPLC information is referred to in the article twice. However, that's to be expected; as WP:LEDE notes, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." When summarizing material, yes, it does mean repeating some of the material you're summarizing. If you're not, well, you're summarizing something else! --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yea it is just being informative! After the lead, the reader needs further explanation and summary of the exact same thing again. I'm just curious, can either one of you take a minute to explain how anyone with a functioning brain is supposed to assume good faith when it is as obvious as the sun rising that is not taking place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)