Talk:American Family Association

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / Mississippi (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Christianity (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Organizations (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Pornography (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Totally unbalanced[edit]

In reading the entry on the American Family Association, it was evident quite early on that the entry is totally unbalanced and looks more like a hit piece on the organization...that somehow speaking up for a given viewpoint is somehow to be crushed because it is unpopular in the eyes of some. I thought Wiki was a source of balanced information from many angles, not just one. Sad, very sad that credibility is tossed out for the sake of a certain agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryhonda4me (talkcontribs) 13:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There are a large number of editors that actively patrol this page. It does, in fact, pass WP:NPOV. If you should feel that a section or particular is not neutral, you should tag it with "{{npov-section}}" and allow other editors to look at it. Until then, the article will be considered neutral as it does not cater to any single "given viewpoint." Antoshi 14:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


"Sad, very sad," he said to himself, in a corner, hoping someone would notice his fake lament that he was doing gesturally purely for the purposes of demonstrating his political views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.47.220.204 (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"One million" "moms/dads"[edit]

I would be surprised if they had "one million" supporters of either description in either of these campaigns. This article suggests that they have about 50,000 Facebook followers; this suggests that their supporters might be of the same order of magnitude, give or take. But I suspect Facebook following isn't the same as commitment to action. Have there been any attempts to assess how many people they can actually mobilize for these campaigns? Thousands? Hundreds? -- Impsswoon (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Classification as "fundamentalist" vs "traditional"[edit]

I would like to ask to User:NatGertler what exactly she means by "Star-news source", and why its assessment of "fundamentalist" is particularly relevant. Also, what are in her opinion the difference between the two - other than the perceived negative bias of the first. Immanuel797979 (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The "Star-News source" is this article which is used as a reference for that sentence, and which describes the group as "fundamentalist". Sourced descriptions from reliable third-party sources are what we lean on in these situations, and I can find a number of news sources using that descriptor for the group. And no matter what your assumptions are about my beliefs (or my gender, for that matter), I don't assume that "fundamentalist" as a "perceived negative bias". As for the phrase "traditional Christian", that's a tricky phrase in any circumstances, as Christianity covers a diverse range of sects with diverse traditions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, thank you for your reply. That clears things up. Immanuel797979 (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you think it would make sense then to change the link to Christian_fundamentalism rather than Christian_right? Immanuel797979 (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Improve sourcing or remove content[edit]

@Aronzak: Please make sure that what you're adding has reliable secondary sources - that's how we ensure due weight for purposes of neutrality, even if the person verifiably did say these things. A section on Fischer's bigoted statements can't be sourced primarily to his own writings - please consider rewriting the section using reliable secondary sources and see which statements they mention. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Firstly @Roscelese: thank you for your politeness. Fischer's 2010 AFA blog is almost entirely copied from the 2008 Renewarmerica blog - 2010 has been reported on widely (it's linked from recent Haaretz article) but 2008 appears only to be mentioned by one activist at the time. The New Yorker mentions that Fischer and Lively promoted the book in 2007. I believe it's WP:DUE to point out that his views on Nazism haven't changed from 2007/08 to being "rejected" by AFA in 2015. I'll re-write the 2008 section to reference the Newyorker article about Lively in 07.
Were there other issues about self published sources? -- Aronzak (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, I removed some quotes from 2010 not used in thrid party outlets (only neo nazi websites). I copied and pasted from my work on Bryan Fischer, will reduce down to RS and DUE then merge back -- Aronzak (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your willingness to edit your contribution. Some good changes, although I think it would probably be sufficient to sum up his position in a sentence or two rather than quoting - once you know his thesis is that Nazism was totally gay, a lot of the details are pretty immaterial, IMO. Also, I've noticed that your wording appears to be copied directly from the source in at least one case. If it's decided not to reduce the weight of this section further, or if the discussion about it carries on any significant length of time - let's see what other editors have to say too about weight and sourcing - it will be necessary to reword in order to avoid copyright infringement. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 05:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe the phrase "gay bar" is WP:DUE because it's used in article titles from 2013. The article in the Lede is used in Haaretz, RWW, SPLC, New Yorker, as well as HRC and pinknews. The quote "Nazi Germany became the horror that it was because it rejected both Christianity and its clear teaching about human sexuality" can be dropped to condense. -- Aronzak (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)