Talk:Americans United for Separation of Church and State

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Continued POV presentation[edit]

I've done some POV revisions, but the article is still heavily laden with promotional language. Sections lack citations and must have been C&P'd from AU documents. Alas, my tag is a drive-by, because I've got other irons in the fire. But I hope other editors will work to improve this article. (BTW, I fully support the goals of AU.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

"...must have been C&P'd from AU documents." On what basis do you make this assertion? Your belief...oops that's POV. Tapered (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

One thing I've noted on this and other similar pages is some long-time Wikipedia editors appear to wish to maintain the marketing brochure style of these organizational information pages. I find nothing wrong with denoting controversies etc., surrounding organizations as long as the information is truthful, supported by citations, and gives, as much as possible, both sides of the controversies. Unfortunately, I've had editors delete entire paragraphs because they essentially didn't like the content. If that continues the page will NEVER be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

My comments on your talk page are: "You need to read the actual policy pages. WP:UNDUE is the bit that covers this. You also need to read WP:NOR. As I said, sources need to cover the entire statement you are making. Look at the section on synthesis, eg "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." And the examples." You've used material about the Kentucky program targeting... where there are no sources that discuss the Kentucky program, AUSCS and the ARK. In addition, you've left out the fact that AU is backing two Baptist ministers in their complaint about the tax free status, which seems extremely relevant. You've used a pdf hosted at Answers in Genesis's website, which may or may not represent an actual filed legal document. This hasn't hit the news which is why I mention WP:UNDUE - material needs to be newsworthy to be covered - we do need some criteria as to what we include and what we don't. And all that 'allegedly' stuff is just that and doesn't belong. Dougweller (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Dougweller illustrates my point. The ENTIRE history segment has no citations, however, Doug prefers to stalk my edits on Wikipedia as he does with others instead of improving the content. Secondly he is using personal opinion to edit by using an excuse of "reliable sources" when I cited the actual state of kentucky program's website that states it targets particular types of tourism exhibits. This is why these type pages will never achieve neutrality because editors will eliminate posts they don't agree with because they don't meet their personal opinion of the organization. (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the Kentucky program says that. But our basic policy says that you can't use that to make an argument, you need a source that discusses the Kentucky program and AU and ARK. What I see is someone ignoring our policy in favor of their point of view, while making personal attacks. And WP:NPOV is probably not what you mean by neutrality. It's obviously untrue that the ENTIRE history section has no citations. I've removed the bit that isn't cited and will copy it here. Bits can be restored as we find independent sources that meet WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
As this IP has ignored my explanation of the problems, I've taken the issue to WP:FTN (FTN because the edits are mainly about Ark Encounter, which I think is fringe, not AU.). Findng problems with an editor's edits and then looking at edits to other articles is not WP:Hounding. My advice is meant to help the IP, my deletions to ensure the article follows our policy and guidelines. Note we don't use court documents normally, see WP:RS. And the Courier-Journal article doesn't mention AU. Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


The quote from the City Councilman in Fort Thomas is really an out of place irrelevant insertion. The topic of this article is the organization, Americans United, not Answers in Genesis, not the Ark project, etc. That quote should go on a page about the Ark controversy. This page is not that page.--Shibbolethink ( ) 06:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Voices United[edit]

I can find [1] (Algemeiner Journal), [2] and [3], If it's replaced, we'd want to mention Russell Brand, Sarah Silverman, Mary Gauthier, Catie Curtis, Kelley Hunt, etc. Their participation may be enough to add it back to the article. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Current "edit war" if it can be called that[edit]

@, I'm not sure it makes sense to call this an edit war, first of all. This is clearly a disagreement about what belongs in this article. The article is about a partisan organization, and therefore should include links and crosslinks to criticisms and praises from other people as per consensus in WP:RSes. Things like the link to the Freedom from Religion Foundation make sense, as AUSCS and FFRF often collaborate. Also, links to the Christian Right and Left articles make sense because this organization is widely seen as the Christian Left rebuking the Christian Right. it's staffed by prominent Christian religious individuals who protest the lack of separation of Church and State in the Religious Right. It's not NPOV to include both article links...--Shibbolethink ( ) 18:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


I have reverted the edits of,[4] whole part of the edit is a copyvio, check these URLs[5][6][7]. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 06:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)