Talk:First Liberty Institute

Question about removed information

Hello, I noticed that a case (the one about cheerleaders) was recently removed from this article with a note that First Liberty Institute only had a footnote about it in the source articles. Here are the sources I have on the topic. Could someone let me know if these are enough to add information about the case to this article? If not, what sort of information would a source need to include about a lawyer or organization that would qualify as significant for Wikipedia?2601:280:4980:A60:D4E5:7C3B:CFE9:EDDD (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/kountze-cheerleaders-free-speech-religion-banners-football/476892/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobcook/2016/02/08/christians-fight-back-in-school-sports-prayer-battles/#1f68b510150d https://www.dallasnews.com/news/news/2016/01/29/court-southeast-texas-cheerleaders-bible-signs-not-threatened

I could read the first and third of those and did not find any mention of First Liberty Institute. Unless the press coverage mentions the lawyer or organization by name, it is not support for introducing that case here in this article. The case looks like it's notable, but the role that the organization played has not reached the required level of coverage.

If you are connected with First Liberty Institute, you should read Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy and be sure you are in compliance with it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Not to drop the ball too badly, I see that the Institute is referred to by its name at the time of the lawsuit. So it's not "no mention". We now have to determine whether the mention is sufficient to support adding the case to the article. It's something that could be debated. The Institute is mentioned as having a role and as the organizational affiliation of one of the people quoted. I would say you could go with this source (I was re-reading the Atlantic article). If other editors continue to disagree, you should continue to discuss this here on the talk page rather than edit war on the article itself. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems sufficient. Doug Weller talk 11:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your quick response and assistance with adding this case to the First Liberty wiki. I am a new editor, and want to be sure that I am following all of wiki’s regulations. I have a few more cases that I would like to add to this wiki. Since my first edits were deleted I would like to have another editor's feedback on the the additional edits before I add them to the article. Can I post the cases (and citations here) first, for your review?

Thank you in advance for all of your help.2601:280:4980:A60:FC20:3D6C:E12B:5F40 (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's a perfectly acceptable procedure. When editing anonymously, the question sometimes arises of whether you are closely connected with the topic you are editing, but there's no good place to declare who you are and whether you have a conflict of interest. Bringing the suggested edits to the talk page gets around this problem: reliable sources are reliable sources, no matter who brings them to our attention. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all of your help!! I really appreciate your expertise! I will work on gathering all of the necessary sources, and will post them here this week. Thanks again! 50.253.124.59 (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Additional edits

Can you please take a look at these additional entries, and let me know if they are okay to add to this wiki?

I would advise against adding every case for which we can find some source mentioning the Institute. Usually First Liberty Institute is only mentioned in passing, and there is very little information about the Institute in any of those sources I checked. At least parts of the proposed additions misrepresent the given source, too. Huon (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your quick response!! I do have some additional sources. If I can provide more sources, do you think that any of these cases would be eligible to add to the wiki? Thanks again for all of your help! 2601:280:4980:A60:FC20:3D6C:E12B:5F40 (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

2012 Texas Cheerleader Bible verse banners In 2012, they represented the cheerleaders of a Texas high school who sued the school district after school officials banned them from displaying banners with Bible verses written on them. A county district judge ruled in their favor. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/18/nation/la-na-nn-texas-cheerleaders-bible-banners

Navy Chaplain restored to service In 2015, the organization assisted in the case of Navy chaplain Wesley J. Modder, who was relieved of his duties from the Navy after complaints regarding his behavior towards unwed pregnant and homosexual personnel. On September 3, 2015, the commander of Navy Personnel Command restored Modder to service. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/4/wes-modder-navy-chaplain-resumes-ministry-after-fi/ The Washington Times. Nov. 4, 2015 Church congregations vs. eminent domain Also in 2015, the organization represented two congregations in Houston’s Fifth Ward in a suit against the city’s housing agency, which wanted to purchase or seize through eminent domain several vacant lots owned by the churches in order to build low-incoming housing and a library. The housing authority withdrew its eminent domain statement three months into the lawsuit.

Denyse O'Leary, By Design or By Chance? The Growing Controversy on the Origins of Life in the Universe, Augsburg Books, 2004, p. 136 [6] Mike S. Adams, Welcome to the Ivory Tower of Babel: Confessions of a Conservative College Professor, Harbor House, 2004 [7]

Invocation before court In 2016, the organization represented a Texas Justice of the Peace at a judicial commission hearing after a federal lawsuit was filed against him for holding an invocation before court. The Texas Judicial Conduct Commission ruled in favor of the judge, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a legal opinion in support of courtroom invocations.

 http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/AG-opinion-OKs-courtroom-prayer-chaplaincy-9146673.php
 Banks, Gabrielle. “Courtroom prayer draws federal lawsuit against Montgomery Co. JP.” The Houston Chronicle. Mar. 23, 2017. http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Courtroom-prayers-draw-federal-lawsuit-against-11023994.php

Mt. Soledad Cross case First Liberty was unsuccessful in defending the Mt. Soledad Cross near San Diego, California when the Supreme Court refused to hear the case in 2012, allowing a prior U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court ruling to stand.[20] In 2015, the U.S. government sold the land under the cross to Mt. Soledad Memorial Association, allowing the cross to stand. First Liberty Institute filed an Amicus curiae in the case of the Mojave Desert Memorial Cross in California which was settled to the satisfaction of First Liberty Institute in April 2012.[21]

Oregon bakers vs. same-sex couple The organization is representing Oregon bakers who were ordered by the state to pay damage fees to a same-sex couple after refusing to make a cake for their wedding. Harkness, Kelsey. “Oregon Bakers Get New Legal Representation From Former H.W. Bush White House Counsel.” The Daily Signal. Feb. 23, 2016. http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/23/oregon-bakers-get-new-legal-representation-from-former-h-w-bush-white-house-counsel/

 Hennessy-Fiske, Molly. “Texas cheerleaders win on Bible banners—for now.” LA Times. Oct. 18, 2012. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/18/nation/la-na-nn-texas-cheerleaders-bible-banners-
 Wetzstein, Cheryl. “Navy chaplain resumes ministry after fight over beliefs.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/4/wes-modder-navy-chaplain-resumes-ministry-after-fi/ The Washington Times. Nov. 4, 2015
 Nazerian, Tina. “Fifth Ward churches file suit with housing agency over property.” http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Fifth-Ward-churches-file-suit-with-housing-agency-6425269.php Houston Chronicle. Aug. 4, 2015
 Flynn, Meagan. “HHA Withdraws Eminent Domain Threat Against Fifth Ward Church.” http://www.houstonpress.com/news/hha-withdraws-eminent-domain-threat-against-fifth-ward-church-7897440 Houston Press. Nov. 3, 2015
 http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/AG-opinion-OKs-courtroom-prayer-chaplaincy-9146673.php
 Banks, Gabrielle. “Courtroom prayer draws federal lawsuit against Montgomery Co. JP.” The Houston Chronicle. Mar. 23, 2017. http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Courtroom-prayers-draw-federal-lawsuit-against-11023994.php
 
 Harkness, Kelsey. “Oregon Bakers Get New Legal Representation From Former H.W. Bush White House Counsel.” The Daily Signal. Feb. 23, 2016. http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/23/oregon-bakers-get-new-legal-representation-from-former-h-w-bush-white-house-counsel/ 2601:280:4980:A60:FC20:3D6C:E12B:5F40 (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Additional edits

I asked this question previously, but I think that it got missed... I do have some additional sources for the entries I would like to add. If I can provide more sources, do you think that any of these cases would be eligible to add to the wiki? Thanks again for all of your help!2601:280:4980:A60:FC20:3D6C:E12B:5F40 (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

That would depend on what those additional sources say about First Liberty Institute. Do they cover the organization itself in some detail, or do they just mention it in passing while discussing the case? What could we write about the organization, based on those sources? Huon (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Mt. Soledad article cited above only mentions Liberty Institute as an identification for one of the people who commented on the case. So this article, all by itself, is insufficient to support bringing that case into the First Liberty Institute page. Cases in which the First Liberty Institute is "interested" or even filed an amicus brief would not generally be suitable for adding, in the absence of in-depth media coverage about First Liberty Institute's involvement (in contradistinction with in-depth coverage of the case and its issues). — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to Address Primary Source Issues

Dear contributors,

I wanted to propose a couple of changes to the page. In full disclosure, I want to let you know that I am an employee of First Liberty Institute, but I intend to abide by Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality.

I'd like to note that I am not the individual who was making requests or edits before; that person had been hired by First Liberty Institute previously but we realized this was not the correct way to approach things. From now on, I'll be the only person here making requests for the firm and will endeavor to abide by all applicable rules.

Proposed Change #1

One issue with the article is that it relies too much on primary sourcing.

I want to offer some clarification about the organization’s history and provide a secondary source confirming the information. This would replace reference #9 (which is a primary source), with two secondary sources.

I propose that it be changed to read like this:

Kelly Shackelford originally founded the organization in 1997 under the name Liberty Legal Institute (LLI). At that time, LLI was the legal arm of the Free Market Foundation. The organization changed its name to Liberty Institute in 2009 and was then finally renamed First Liberty Institute in 2016.

Proposed Change #2

On this change, Reference #11 is a primary source. I offered a couple more sources confirming the details on the case of Dr. Eric Walsh.

I propose that it be changed to read:

First Liberty Institute represented Dr. Eric Walsh in a lawsuit against the Georgia Department of Health (DPH). DPH hired Dr. Walsh in 2014 as a district health director. Dr. Walsh was also a lay minister at a Seventh-Day Adventist church, where he frequently gave sermons and religious speeches. One week after his hiring, DPH officials reviewed Dr. Walsh's sermons and subsequently fired Dr. Walsh from his position. In April of 2016, First Liberty filed a lawsuit, claiming that Dr. Walsh had been terminated from his job due to his religious beliefs. In February of 2017, the state of Georgia agreed to settle the suit for $225,000.

--

I believe that these changes reflect the information more accurately, based on the available sourcing. Happy to collaborate and edit as needed. Thank you!!

TheLibertyWriter (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I think your proposals sound good and you are following Wikipedia's policies which is good. I like the fact you have also disclosed your connection - though that does not debar you from editing, I like your honestly and the fact you are trying to do thinks the right way. Kindest regards Lin4671again (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Lin4671again. Thanks for your prompt reply. Would you like to make those edits to the article? I want to be as neutral as possible and refrain from editing directly. Let me know if you'd be willing to do that. Thanks! TheLibertyWriter (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that The Stream meets our requirements at WP:RS. That's beside the point that the author of the article works for First Liberty. Doug Weller talk 19:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

To Doug Weller's point, here's another source confirming details on Dr. Walsh's case: https://world.wng.org/2017/02/georgia_settles_with_doctor_in_religious_freedom_case. This could replace the source from The Stream. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and for the changes made to the article. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Fixing content that reads like an advertisement

Dear editors,

I hope you're all doing well. Again, I'm disclosing my connection to First Liberty as an employee, but will abide by Wiki standards.

One of the issues with the article is that it contains content that is written like an advertisement. I would like to address that issue and offer some changes. Which section(s) or text in the article do you all think read like an ad? Just want to make sure I target the right parts.

Thanks in advance for your input!

TheLibertyWriter (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Changing first line of article and removing primary source

Dear editors,

I wanted to propose a change to the first line of the article. It currently reads:

First Liberty Institute is a Texas based religious firm which litigates religious liberty issues.

I found a few sources that altogether describe what the organization does. Based on that, I think this would be a clearer statement:

First Liberty Institute is a nonprofit legal organization based in Plano, Texas, near the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area. The organization is focused on religious freedom and the First Amendment, representing and providing legal assistance to individuals and groups of various faiths on those issues. Because First Liberty handles court litigation and other similar legal matters, it is often referred to as a law firm.

I tried to be as neutral as possible on this. If you notice, I've pulled a variety of sources that span a broad spectrum of what is out there in the media regarding First Liberty. This change also takes out the need for Citation #1, which is a primary source. It would be great if one of you would be willing to make this change.

Happy to collaborate further and as needed. Thanks!!

TheLibertyWriter (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution.Lin4671again (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

References

NPOV - removal of any indication that FLI is on the right & its LGBT stance

Is there any disagreement that it's on the right? Rolling Stone calls it Christian Right[1], People for the American Way call in religious right[2]. The SPLC calls it right wing.[3] The Texas Observer notes its anti-LGBQT stand[4]. There's no mention in the text of Jeff Mateer who played an important role, right?[5] But the article mentions Ho, who was only a volunteer, why in the world is that worthy of mention, let alone in the lead, while Mateer[6] and Matthew J. Kacsmaryk (less controversial than Mateer but still with the same prejudices[7][8]) aren't? How it's described needs to be in the article. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doug. I added the details about Ho in the text as he was appointed to a Circuit Court which is just below the Supreme Court and hence significant. The fact that it was added to the 'lead' was merely because it was more appropriate there than adding into the 'prominent cases' subsection or starting a new subsection. I added links to Jeff Mateer and Matthew Kacsmaryk in the 'see also' section as they were just nominated to District Courts as opposed to a Circuit Court like Ho. I have no problem with it being added that it has been described on the 'right' / 'Christian right' etc if that is sourced from neutral, reliable sources (unlike SPLC or PFAW). As for their views on LGBT issues, that should also be added. Absolutely. Lin4671again (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doug Weller talk. I've made changes to the article in light of your comments. Are you happy for the NPOV tag to now be removed or, if not, what else needs to be changed? Lin4671again (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

For myself, I think your additions are inadequate, Lin4671again. You're picking out only People For the American Way, as if that's the only source for calling FLI 'something-right', and you're creating a separate criticism ghetto section, which should preferably be avoided, compare WP:NOCRIT. IMO, there needs to be something in the lead section before the POV tag is removed. I'll see if I can craft something. (Your Criticism sentence is grammatically incoherent, btw, Lin4671again.) Bishonen | talk 15:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC).

The SPLC is a reliable source for its opinion, which should be attributed. We use it in probably hundreds of articles. I have no idea what you mean by "neutral" - someone who doesn't care if an organisation hates gays or loves them? With an organisation that is clearly political such as this one, no one is likely to be neutral. We use non-neutral sources all the time. Doug Weller talk 17:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

'Neutral' means a source that is not commenting about a group it opposes. Regards Lin4671again (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You think 'neutral' means that? I can't believe you mean to say a source that is commenting about a group it supports is neutral, but it sounds a bit like it. Please clarify. Bishonen | talk 19:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC).

Funding

There's nothing in the article about its funding. It relies on donations and fees, clearly, and received about $8 million from Contributions, Gifts & Grants in I think 2015.[9] Here's an earlier IRS report[10] which I'm not suggesting we use, just to back up the other link.There's also this Trump administration payment[11] but that's less than $300,000. Doug Weller talk 17:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe it provides pro bono services so I doubt that fees would amount to much, if anything. Lin4671again (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It also charges. The example I gave was a case where it kept the money while others didn't. But I suspect it has large donations, but haven't been able to find a source. Doug Weller talk 20:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Free Market Foundation

I've removed the bit about the Free Market Foundation in the lead section because it's quite confusing. Wikipedia's article Free Market Foundation is about a different organization, a classical liberal think tank in Johannesburg, South Africa, founded in 1975. What I can find on Google looks like the American, right-wing, Free Market Foundation, founded in 1972, was merged with the Liberty Legal Institute around 2009.[12] If the American Free Market Foundation needs to appear in the lead (I don't quite see why, though), it has to be described more, and distinguished from the South African Free Market Foundation that we have an article about. Bishonen | talk 15:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC).

Neutral descriptions of First Liberty Institute

Dear editors,

I noticed that a lot of changes and discussion resulted from my suggested changes to the opening line. I want to clarify that it was not my intent to omit any critical details from the introduction, as I specifically only suggested the first line to be edited. It was not my goal to delve into the more controversial depictions of the organization.

Nevertheless, since that discussion seems to have been opened, I have some thoughts to contribute to make sure the article offers an equitable description of First Liberty Institute.

Below, I have listed a variety of sources where First Liberty is mentioned. These sources are from a broad spectrum and differing points of view, including The Atlantic, The Hill, The Free Beacon, Fox News, CNN, and Newsweek, as well as a few others. I did not “cherry-pick” the sources that would be most favorable to us.

In fact, the last two sources from CNN and Newsweek offer a very critical and controversial analysis on one of First Liberty’s former attorneys. But even those sources give a neutral description of what First Liberty does.

Here is my core argument:

Based on other organization articles on Wikipedia and my understanding of relevant guidelines, the initial description of an organization should be purely objective and informational, based on what most sources say. See the article on Alliance Defending Freedom, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Defending_Freedom.

A grand majority of credible news outlets (see evidence below) describe First Liberty something like this: a conservative, nonprofit legal organization that advocates for the First Amendment and litigates religious liberty cases.

I am not trying to omit criticisms of the organization, as that is clearly part of the public discussion. If editors want to put information and sources about what certain groups (both supporting and oppositional) say about First Liberty, that seems fine. I think, however, that it needs to be clearly labeled as such. I think there is a difference between reporting the overview of what an organization does (objective / descriptive) and the opinions of other organizations (subjective).

My recommendation for edits.

My suggestion would be that both types of information should be included, but I think merging it all into the introductory portion creates a muddy representation. A distinction should be drawn.

The proposed edit would be to separate the descriptive material in one paragraph, and “criticisms” or “opinions” of First Liberty into another paragraph. For instance:

First Liberty Institute is a nonprofit legal organization based in Plano, Texas, near the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area.[1][2] It is a conservative, nonprofit legal organization that advocates for the First Amendment and litigates religious liberty cases. [cite example sources]

Supporters describe the organization as focused on religious freedom and the First Amendment[3][4] and on providing assistance to individuals and organizations "in legal battles over religious freedom and first-amendment issues".[5] Opponents generally describe it as a Christian-right or religious-right advocacy organization with a strong anti-LGBT agenda.[6][7][8]

I think separating the information will help the internet surfer / Wikipedia reader who wants to know more about the organization.

Thanks for your attention and input! Happy to collaborate as needed.

Example sources

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/the-religious-liberty-showdowns-coming-in-2017/511400/ “a Texas firm that litigates religious-liberty issues” https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/religious-freedom-executive-order/525354/ “a Texas law firm that focuses on First Amendment issues” https://www.buzzfeed.com/zoetillman/the-trump-administration-agreed-to-pay-more-than-3-million?utm_term=.wgy16LpwD#.hto8R7rWG “a conservative legal advocacy group” http://freebeacon.com/issues/religious-liberty-crosshairs/ “a nonprofit group that provides pro-bono legal aid to victims of religious discrimination” http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/369425-grassley-under-fire-for-planning-vote-on-17-judicial-nominees “a legal group dedicated to fighting for religious liberty” http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/26/attacks-on-religious-freedom-in-us-more-than-double-since-2011-report-finds.html “a conservative organization that advocates for the First Amendment and provides legal services” http://www.newyorkupstate.com/news/2017/11/cny_firefighter_files_amended_civil_complaint_gets_new_lawyers_in_religious_disc.html “a Texas-based legal firm specializing in religious rights." https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/18/politics/kfile-mateer-nazi-comparisons/index.html “a nonprofit religious liberty advocacy group” http://www.newsweek.com/trump-nominee-jeff-mateer-texas-first-liberty-satan-nazis-692130 “a nonprofit legal organization that focuses on cases involving religious issues.”

TheLibertyWriter (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

As there's been no reply and the article has been quiet, I wanted to nudge editors directly for their thoughts. User:Lin4671again, User:Bishonen, and User:Doug Weller, what do you think about my notes and suggestion? TheLibertyWriter (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear editors, it's been a couple of weeks since I posted this comment. Again, I just want to see if you all could provide some input on the suggestion I made. Thanks again for colalborating on this article! User:Lin4671again, User:Bishonen, User:Doug Weller. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't really understand the problem. I can point to many organisations with similar leads. And what you want to do is repeat " advocates for the First Amendment and litigates religious liberty cases. twice but with slightly different wording. You also are asking that the article state that as fact. The problem there is that the wording ignores the fact that it's described as having an agenda that is not simply litigating religious liberty. Doug Weller talk 09:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Doug, thanks for your input. This is my point: A great majority of sources make a brief description of First Liberty in a very neutral way. Thus, I think the article should reflect that language in the leading line, i.e. "It is a conservative, nonprofit legal organization that advocates for the First Amendment and litigates religious liberty cases." I'm not assuming this is a statement of fact - as you claim - and I do not suggest that we omit criticism from opponents. But this statement is concurrent and consistent with the way that sources describe the organization, when taken into consideration as a whole. And I've supplied those sources.

I see your point about the information being repetitive. What if it were worded and structured like this:

First Liberty Institute is a nonprofit legal organization based in Plano, Texas, near the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area.[1][2] It is a conservative organization that advocates for the First Amendment and litigates religious liberty cases. [cite example sources]

Supporters describe the organization as focused on providing assistance to individuals and organizations "in legal battles over religious freedom and first-amendment issues".[5] Opponents generally describe it as a Christian-right or religious-right advocacy organization with a strong anti-LGBT agenda.[6][7][8] TheLibertyWriter (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller I'm reaching out to you again to get your thoughts on my most recent recommendation, shown above. Thanks! TheLibertyWriter (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

In general we try to avoid separate criticism sections in the body of the article and I think that should be the case for leads also. I don't think examples belong in the lead. Describing it as conservative is fine, but it seems clear that not everyone views all the cases it considers to be religious liberty cases are simply or even that. Doug Weller talk 20:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller Thanks for responding. I can live with the supporters vs. critics comparison in the lead section. Before that, can you add this one line: "It is a conservative organization that advocates for the First Amendment and litigates religious liberty cases. [cite example sources]."? That's the line I think is missing becuase the sourcing from all sides describes it in those terms. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

No, sourcing also describes it as a "Christian-right or religious-right advocacy organization." "litigates religious liberty" assumes that its view of what is religious liberty is correct, and that's disputed. Doug Weller talk 17:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The request for a Third Opinion on this matter has been removed (i.e. declined) because like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, 3O requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

Adding New Entry to Prominent Cases

Dear editors,

It's been a few weeks since there's been any activity on the article. I wanted to propose a brief insertion. I have summarized one of First Liberty's renown cases, that of high school football coach Joseph Kennedy. This case has received considerable media attention and I've found some sourcing that describes the case neutrally and concisely.

Would one of you be willing to add this to the "Prominent Cases" section? See text below. Thank you!!

User:Lin4671again, User:Bishonen, User:Doug Weller, User:Drmies

-- -- --

First Liberty Institute represents high school football coach Joseph A. Kennedy in a lawsuit against the Bremerton School District (BSD) in Washington State. For several years, Kennedy kneeled for a brief prayer on the field after games. In 2015, BSD officials suspended and later dismissed Kennedy from his coaching position, claiming that his public prayer violated school policy.

In 2017, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Kennedy "spoke as a public employee, not as a private citizen, and his speech therefore was constitutionally unprotected." First Liberty filed an appeal for a rehearing by the full panel of the Ninth Circuit. Early in 2018, the Ninth Circuit rejected that request. First Liberty attorneys intend on appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

TheLibertyWriter (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that, with minor alterations. I'll remove the "brief" as POV: brief compared to what, and according to whom? Not the sources. "Claiming" -> "stating", per WP:CLAIM. And I won't have any truck with the intentions in the last sentence, per WP:UNDUE. And, just stylistically, I don't see much need to introduce the abbreviation BSD for a body that's only mentioned twice, and I'm not happy with the very short paragraphs. So, like this, I thought:

First Liberty Institute represents high school football coach Joseph A. Kennedy in a lawsuit against the Bremerton School District in Washington State.[1] For several years, Kennedy kneeled for prayer on the field after games. In 2015, school district officials suspended and later dismissed Kennedy from his coaching position, stating that his public prayer violated school policy.[2][3] In 2017, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Kennedy "spoke as a public employee, not as a private citizen, and his speech therefore was constitutionally unprotected."[4] First Liberty filed an appeal for a rehearing by the full panel of the Ninth Circuit, which was rejected early in 2018.[5]

Would that be OK for you, TheLibertyWriter? Of course I'd put in your footnotes properly, I just don't want to create doubled versions of them here on talk. Bishonen | talk 15:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC).

Bishonen, thanks for your input. I see where you're coming from. I'm fine with your edits, as the paragraph still conveys the main points and facts of the case. Thanks! TheLibertyWriter (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Done. Bishonen | talk 11:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC).

Thanks! TheLibertyWriter (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding Bladensburg WWI Veterans Memorial Case to Prominent Cases section

Hello editors,

I wanted to reach out and propose another case to be included in the Prominent Cases section. This one is the Bladensburg WWI Veterans Memorial, which has also received solid media attention.

Below is a paragraph that captures the case briefly and neutrally. Let me know if one of you would be open to adding this into the article.

Thanks!

-- -- --

First Liberty Institute represents the American Legion in a lawsuit brought by the American Humanist Association, who argues that the cross-shaped veterans memorial in Bladesnburg, MD violates the U.S. Constitution. In 2017, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit declared the memorial unconstitutional. First Liberty appealed the panel's decision. In March 2018, the Fourth Circuit decided it would not rehear the case before a full panel of judges, upholding the panel's prior ruling requiring the memorial to be removed or altered.

TheLibertyWriter (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. I frankly think the section is in danger of becoming overly detailed, which isn't exactly making it more interesting (IMO), or making the article more balanced. The section is supposed to contain the most prominent cases, not everything as it happens. "The veterans memorial cross cases" are already mentioned, generally and in the plural. All the references for that are pretty old. How about just adding a clause about the Bladensburg memorial to the mention of the memorial cross cases, with one of the new references? (I'd suggest referring to the neutral Washington Post report, rather than the opinion piece from the Washington Examiner, tellingly entitled "Wide-reaching lawsuit aims to strip our religious heritage".) The whole sentence would have to be reshaped, obviously. Perhaps you'd like to try to craft an edit on those lines, TheLibertyWriter? Bishonen | talk 21:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC).

Bishonen, thanks for your input. Would something like this work?: "...the veterans memorial cross cases, including the Bladensburg WWI Veterans Memorial and several other cross-shaped memorials that have been challenged by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the ACLU, and the American Humanist Association;" TheLibertyWriter (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Bishonen, just wanted to touch base with you on the above recommendation I made to insert the one-liner on the Bladensburg WWI Vet. Memorial case. Let me know your thoughts. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Drmies or Lin4671again, would you be able to add the one liner statement on the Bladensburg WWI Veterans Memorial case? The line would be the following: ...the veterans memorial cross cases, including the Bladensburg WWI Veterans Memorial and several other cross-shaped memorials that have been challenged by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the ACLU, and the American Humanist Association; Thanks!! TheLibertyWriter (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, thanks for the insertion. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

References

First Liberty Logo

Dear Editors,

As always, thanks for your input and helping to improve the article. I wanted to propose inserting the First Liberty Institute logo into the article, potentially on the right-side within the organization's infobox. The following organizations, who operate in the same sphere as First Liberty, have their respective logos displayed in the article in that fashion: Alliance Defending Freedom, Liberty Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. You can find the First Liberty logo here: https://firstliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/First-Liberty-Logo.jpg . Would one of you be willing to make this insertion? Thanks in advance. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• TheLibertyWriter, I see no one got to this yet. Why don't you go ahead and upload the logo? I'll stick it in there if you like. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, would you be kind enough to upload the logo? I appreciate it. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

TheLibertyWriter, no, you upload it. I don't have it... I said I'll stick it in there after you upload--that I can do for you. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, sorry about the confusion there on the logo. I've uploaded it to the Wikipedia Commons. Here is the URL: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:First_Liberty_Institute.jpg , Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLibertyWriter (talk • contribs) 14:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, just wanted to follow up with you on the logo and see if you will have a chance to add it to the article. Let me know if you need a different file or size. Thank you. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Changing one paragraph on Prominent Cases section

Dear Editors,

Looks like it's been a little while since some changes were made to the article.

I wanted to propose an update to the content, especially now that the firm is set to go before the U.S. Supreme Court to present oral arguments on the Bladensburg WWI Veterans Memorial case. In my opinion, I think that right now the article slightly obscures the Bladensburg WWI Veterans Memorial case, which is indeed a matter of national attention as it is set to be argued before the Supreme Court.

That being said, here's what I propose:

In the second paragraph under "Prominent Cases," you will find the last sentence that currently reads:

The veterans memorial cross cases, including the Bladensburg WWI Veterans Memorial, have been challenged by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the ACLU, and the American Humanist Association.[19]

I propose that it be separated from the 2nd paragraph, and have a new paragraph immediately thereafter rewritten to read something like this:

First Liberty Institute is also known to litigate veterans memorial cross cases. Among these cases is the Bladensburg WWI Veterans Memorial case, which has been litigation since 2014 after the American Humanist Association sued to remove the memorial claiming it was in violation of the U.S. Constitution. In November 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and oral arguments are set for February 27, 2019. In previous years, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the ACLU, and the American Humanist Association have challenged other similar veterans memorial cross cases.

Just want to run this suggestion openly before any formal changes are made. Thoughts? Birtig ; Drmies ; Bishonen ; Lin4671again

Major news outlets have given extensive coverage to this case, which is why I think that it is helpful to have it stand out more in the article. Here are some sources that support the above information. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• TheLibertyWriter, I hope you don't mind that I noted, on this talk page, the COI you disclosed on your userpage. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Content-wise, I don't really mind your proposed text. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Per the comment above, the edits have been made on the article. Thank you. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding two lines to update paragraph on Coach Kennedy Case

Hello editors, I would like to update this paragraph.

"First Liberty Institute represents high school football coach Joseph A. Kennedy in a lawsuit against the Bremerton School District in Washington State.[29] For several years, Kennedy kneeled for prayer on the field after games. In 2015, school district officials suspended and later dismissed Kennedy from his coaching position, stating that his public prayer violated school policy.[30][31] In 2017, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Kennedy "spoke as a public employee, not as a private citizen, and his speech therefore was constitutionally unprotected."[32] First Liberty filed an appeal for a rehearing by the full panel of the Ninth Circuit, which was rejected early in 2018.[33]"

Birtig ; Drmies ; Bishonen ; Lin4671again Please advise on the addition of the following two sentences at the end of the paragraph: "First Liberty subsequently filed a petition at the U.S. Supreme Court. In January 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case and issued a statement with instructions for further proceedings in the lower courts."

Here's some sources to cite this:

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/attorneys-for-ex-bremerton-football-coach-who-prayed-after-games-petition-supreme-court/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/22/supreme-court-wont-hear-praying-football-coach-case/1943694002/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-won-t-hear-case-hs-football-coach-fired-n961216

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/football-coachs-on-field-prayer-wont-get-high-court-review-1

TheLibertyWriter (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm a little dubious about this, TheLibertyWriter, for the same reason as above; it's so detailed. The case is interesting, as such, certainly and of course it would have been very much worth mentioning if the Supreme Court had heard it, but as for the fact that they agreed with the lower courts, and won't hear it.. well, I'm just not sure it's worth the ink. The school's decision was appealed, once, twice — we list those — and then all the way to the Supreme court. Predictable, rather than interesting. But I don't feel strongly about it. What do you say, Drmies? Also, TheLibertyWriter, three of your four references make a fuss about my adblocker, or my lack of a subscription, or whatever, and cover up part of the page — in a couple of cases I was able to get past that, in the third not. That may be the reason I don't see anything about the "statement with instructions for further proceedings in the lower courts" that you mention. Bishonen | talk 21:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC).

What Bishonen says. It's like we're logging every action. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok Bishonen and Drmies, I can see what you are saying. Can we shorten the paragraph to be a more concise overview, eliminating some of the details but indicating its current status? The way it currently reads conveys that the matter ended in early 2018, but it is still ongoing. Also, please note our proposition in a new section to help prevent minute editing like this in the future.TheLibertyWriter (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by a new section — do you mean here on talk? I agree the new discussion would be easier to find in a new section at the end of the page. It's rather up to you to create one, as Drmies and I are merely replying to you. But I think it's a good idea to summarize the paragraph and indicate current status. Please make a suggestion here on talk for how you think the whole paragraph should read. Bishonen | talk 21:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC).

Bishonen, the new section I refer to is added on the talk page entitled "Page Maintenance Proposition."

Bishonen, here is my suggestion for how the paragraph on Kennedy could read: "First Liberty Institute represents high school football coach Joseph A. Kennedy in a lawsuit against the Bremerton School District in Washington State. The dispute centers around the dismissal of the coach after a school policy conflict pertaining to his practice of a brief, private prayer after each game. The Supreme Court denied cert in January 2019." TheLibertyWriter (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I recognize that "brief", here we go again. I complained about it a year ago, and I still think it's POV and unacceptable. So is "private". The Ninth Circuit court of appeals rejected the appeal precisely because the prayer wasn't private, if you remember: .."ruled that Kennedy 'spoke as a public employee, not as a private citizen'"". TheLibertyWriter, please recollect that we're volunteers, Drmies and I, and don't return to biased wording as soon as you propose a change. We may get tired of assisting you. That said, I like the conciseness of your proposal. Please get rid of brief and private and clarify cert, and we're good IMO. Bishonen | talk 19:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC).

Page Maintenance Proposition

Hi editors Birtig ; Drmies ; Bishonen ; Lin4671again. I have a proposition for keeping the First Liberty Institute article reasonably up to date yet concise. If I am understanding some of the previous conversations correctly, I have the impression that you prefer to avoid small changes here and there. I respect that and understand that with the nature of our work, that could get overly detailed. I also understand that Wikipedia is not meant to be an exhaustive resource. But, I think that to give the reader an accurate overview of the organization’s work, this should include new developments. Otherwise, without some maintenance, the article will become outdated. As our organization has ongoing cases in the courts, there will continue to be updates to make as the cases progress and as First Liberty grows. But I think that this can be done in a simplified manner.

So, I have a twofold proposal.

Part 1: Going forward, the content on the article (especially in Prominent Cases) should describe the cases more concisely. I’d suggest starting by cleaning up the section, likely with a list of some of the high-profile cases the organization has been a part of.

Part 2: For simplicity for us and you, I am proposing that every 3 months, I’ll thoroughly review the article and suggest any highly publicized updates that have unfolded, especially on the Supreme Court cases we litigate.

In looking over the Wikipedia pages of organizations similar to our own, I think these are substantiated suggestions. An organization similar to First Liberty Institute is Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Each of our organizations provides pro bono legal counsel for First Amendment infractions for all religions and both were founded within a few years of each other. Becket’s article has a cleaner format and they list the title of the Supreme Court cases they have been involved with, the court ruling and a clause giving an overview of the case. Formatting our content this way would help alleviate your concern about too many details and excessive updating.

Please let me know what you think and if any of you have a different proposition. I want to work smoothly with you and am open to discussion. Thank you! TheLibertyWriter (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Hmm. I wish we didn't have COI editors working on this page, that's what I really wish. I'm not sure that that article is so much better in its organization; it's certainly not more neutral or better verified... Drmies (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

civil liberties advocacy group

An editor has removed the category from this group - I reverted and have been reverted back. My point is that even if you don't like the consequences of them advocating for religious liberty - such as it means they take positions that contradict those who advocate in favour of LGBT rights - there is no doubt that religious liberty is a civil liberty and, therefore, First Liberty Institute is a civil liberty advocacy group. Birtig (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Nobody's disputing that religious liberty is a civil liberty. What's under dispute is whether they advocate for "religious liberty" or just use that as an excuse to push an agenda. Do reliable sources generally describe them as a "civil rights advocacy group" or is that a self designation? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

So you accept that First Liberty is an advocacy group, and you also accept that religious liberty is a civil right, but you don't think that First Liberty is a civil rights advocacy group because you believe that their advocacy of religious liberty issues is just a front for its true agenda? Birtig (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I play games. Monopoly is a game. I do not play monopoly. They are an advocacy group. Religious liberty is a civil right. They are not a religious liberty advocacy group.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Not exactly deductive logic, but this is: First Liberty Institute is an advocacy group - Every single case that First Liberty takes up concerns religious liberty - ergo, First Liberty Institute is a religious liberty advocacy group. Birtig (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Shortening the copy on the Prominent Cases section

Hi editors Birtig ; MB ; 1990'sguy ; Volunteer Marek,

I wanted to help shorten the copy on the Prominent Cases section by doing the following:

The paragraph regarding Eric Walsh's case would be amended to read like this:

First Liberty Institute represented Dr. Eric Walsh in a lawsuit against the Georgia Department of Public Health (DPH) which had hired Dr. Walsh in 2014 as a District Health Director. Dr. Walsh also served as an associate pastor for his church. One week after his hiring, DPH officials reviewed Dr. Walsh's sermons and subsequently fired Dr. Walsh from his position. In April 2016, First Liberty filed a lawsuit claiming that Dr. Walsh had been terminated from his job due to his religious beliefs. In February 2017, the state of Georgia agreed to settle the suit for $225,000.

The paragraph regarding the Candy Cane Case would be amended to read like this:

The "Candy Cane Case" began in 2004 after a student in Plano, Texas was prohibited by school officials from distributing candy canes with a religious story attached at his school's Christmas party. In 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that First Amendment rights were violated, however two school principals were granted immunity. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.

The paragraph regarding the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs would be amended to read like this:

In 2011, First Liberty Institute filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs alleging that the department had censored a pastor’s prayer at a Memorial Day ceremony. The case was settled after mediation by former Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas R. Phillips. Under the settlement, the VA agreed not to interfere with prayers, recitations, or words of religious expression.

I hope that these edits help to make the article more concise and to the point. Would one of you be willing to please make these edits? Or you can just let me know and I can make the edits directly. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLibertyWriter (talk • contribs) 20:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Update to Prominent Section - Bladensburg Memorial Case

Dear article editors, Birtig ; Drmies ; Bishonen ; Lin4671again ; MB ; 1990'sguy ; Volunteer Marek

I wanted to reach out and add a line about a recent update. Last year in June, our firm brought a close to one of our cases at the United States Supreme Court. In the Prominent Cases section, we think that it would be worth rewriting these sentences: “In February 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on this case. In previous years, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the ACLU, and the American Humanist Association have challenged other similar veterans memorial cross cases.”

Proposed new sentence would read as follows: “In June 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in The American Legion v The American Humanist Association upholding the cross memorial, citing that it did not violate the Establishment Clause.”

We think this would help make this paragraph more succinct.

Here are a few sources that confirm this update:

Example sources

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/20/politics/supreme-court-maryland-world-war-i-memorial-cross/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/us/politics/maryland-peace-cross-supreme-court.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-says-maryland-peace-cross-honoring-military-dead-does-not-constitute-government-endorsement-of-religion/2019/06/20/a63c4c24-9365-11e9-b570-6416efdc0803_story.html https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-1717

TheLibertyWriter (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@TheLibertyWriter: Thank you for letting us know about this! I updated it as requested. I agree that the second sentence is unrelated to First Liberty Institute (as least directly) and probably violates WP:COATRACK, but I won't immediately delete it out of caution. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks 1990'sguy for making that update. We appreciate it and really helps keep the page up to date. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Update to Prominent Section - Coach Joe Kennedy Case

Hello article editors, Birtig ; Drmies ; Bishonen ; Lin4671again ; MB ; 1990'sguy ; Volunteer Marek

I just wanted to ask if we could make a further update to the paragraph about the Coach Kennedy case listed in the ‘Prominent Cases’ section of the page. The proposed change is just the latest update in this case. This change would add a sentence after this one: “The Supreme Court declined to hear the case in January 2019.”

Proposed sentence to follow would read: “As of March 2020, First Liberty will appeal the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals after a federal district court ruled against Coach Kennedy.”

Here are a few sources that confirm this update:

Example sources
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/praying-coach-joe-kennedys-lawsuit-against-bremerton-school-district-thrown-out/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/6/joe-kennedy-washington-football-coach-loses-again-/

TheLibertyWriter (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• Wow. I can't read the Seattle Times article, but it's interesting to note the tone of the Washington Times article; if even that publication sounds like it has run out of patience, then how much support is there for this ongoing series of lawsuits that appear increasingly frivolous. Sure, that proposed edit is fine and I'll stick it in for you. I'll have to cite the WT, though I prefer not doing that; if another editor can read the ST and maybe add that (or replace the WT article), that would be great. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• TheLibertyWriter, the WT article didn't say the institute was going to appeal, so I did not include that information. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies for making the change! We really appreciate it. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources

I looked at the sources and although a few are also conservative orgs they appear to be used for noncontroversial information. Most sources aren't from the FLI itself at current time, so I wondered if others agreed that the tag is now outdated. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 03:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, thanks for the suggestion. I also agree that very few primary sources from First Liberty are being used right now. I think it would be proper to remove the tag. I'm tagging a few other editors here who've made changes before, to get their input. If there isn't a reply in a few days, I'd say you can go ahead and remove it. Thanks.

What do you all think? Birtig ; Drmies ; Bishonen ; Lin4671again ; MB ; 1990'sguy ; Volunteer Marek Let me know, thank you. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with removing the tag (and I see that it's already been removed). --1990'sguy (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Change to: The group has taken stances against LGBT rights.

Hello all,

I wanted to suggest an edit to the opening section. There's a line that reads: "The group has taken stances against LGBT rights." I propose deleting this line altogether.

One of the sources for this line is the Southern Poverty Law Center, which isn't a secondary news source. The SPLC offers their opinion and viewpoint about First Liberty. But that's not unbiased reporting and it should not be the basis of designating FLI as an anti-LGBT organization. The other source is an article from the Austin Chronicle, titled "Paxton Stacks AG’s Office With Anti-LGBT Culture Warriors." This source is also skewed and slanted toward one side of the ideological spectrum. It reads more like an op-ed opinion piece than straightforward journalism or reporting. Again, I don't think this is a credible source to warrant putting that controversial line in the opening section.

I strongly suggest removing that line.

Input? Birtig ; Drmies ; Bishonen ; Lin4671again ; MB ; 1990'sguy ; Volunteer Marek; PaleoNeonate

Thank you. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• "At least four other organizations that received Paycheck Protection Program funding — Concerned Women for America, Dr. James Dobson Family Institute, Family Leader and First Liberty Institute — have a demonstrated track record of anti-LGBTQ advocacy or espousing an anti-LGBTQ ideology, though they have not been designated “hate groups” by the SPLC", says NBC. The SPLC's opinion is widely cited across Wikipedia; that FLI has taken stances against LGBT rights is not controversial. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I understand where you're coming from. But when I look that that NBC article, it's co-written by one of their LGBTQ correspondents. Of course they would interpret First Liberty's work this way, in accordance with their views and their issue. The designation is controversial because those are opinions, not really facts. You admitted that the SPLC's opinion is widely cited. It's still opinion nonetheless. Because if the SPLC's opinion is held in high regard, then the opinion and descriptions of organizations like Heritage Foundation must be equally weighed. For example, in this article: https://www.heritage.org/religious-liberty/commentary/oral-arguments-supreme-court-offer-glimmer-hope-praying-coach-first it describes First Liberty as a public interest law firm whose work is to defend religious liberty, nothing less, nothing more.
  • I would still dispute that this is line inserted in there to malign First Liberty. It's not factual or informative and I don't think it adds to the credibility or substance of the article.
  • What if we change the line to say: "Certain groups allege that First Liberty has taken stances against LGBT rights." Maybe that's a middle point that we can agree on. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    • And I see where you are coming from--but if you are going to treat articles published by reliable news sources as if they were op-ed pieces without editorial oversight, and if you are going to play the man (the writers) and not the ball (the article, as published by a reliable source), then I really have no interest in spending more time on this. And I didn't "admit" that the SPLC has just opinions: we cite it here because they are worth citing. Whether the Heritage club is deemed to be just a citable, I doubt that. And I understand you want to get rid of that information because you are paid by an organization which, some say, isn't interested in protecting anyone's rights but rather in taking away the fundamental freedoms of people they don't like, but I'm afraid I'm not going to let you play promotional games with this article. I'm sorry, but I thought we had gotten a bit beyond the rather hollow arguments of "but that one author doesn't like us". Drmies (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

      @Drmies well said. Suggesting that the Heritage Foundation is as good a source as the SPLC leaves me gobsmacked. We definitely should not delete the sentence. Doug Weller talk 13:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• I would suggest moving it to the body since there's no current in-body coverage and that a single sentence would not necessarily need to be summarized in the lead (WP:LEAD). I think the sources are fine for the statement. —PaleoNeonate – 00:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with moving the sentence to the article body as a reasonable WP:CONS solution. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think moving the sentence to the body is a good solution. I went ahead and moved it down to the first paragraph of the Prominent Cases section. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)