Talk:Freedom From Religion Foundation

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

Changing References and Adequate 3rd Party References[edit]

An IP editor (71.139.156.133) made substantial changes to the references section. I don't think it is appropriate to change a reference unless one actually reads the reference and is citing what one read. If it is a website for a newspaper that is different from reading the newspaper itself. Examples:

  • Aubele's peice did not appear in The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review it appeared in the Valley News Dispatch and was also published online at TribLive.com (a website from the Tribune-Review Publishing Co that includes multiple sources). If the editor making the change actually read the story in the physical newspaper that is different. The OCLC number assists those interested in reading the newspaper as published from a library. Similarly issn's assist in finding phsyical copies of published sources.
  • Did the editor who changed the reference for Erickson's article read it in The Wisconsin State Journal? I read it at Madison.com.
  • Elbow's article in The Capital Times or at CapTimes.com? It was part of a continuing series of articles on Crime and Courts.
  • Gilgo's peice on CNN or at CNN.com?
  • The Associated Press does not publish (it is a news agency, a parameter of the template), individual members do such as The Plain Dealer at it's website Cleveland.com or The Knoxville News Sentinel at it's website Knoxnews.com.
  • Were TV news stories viewed on the stations that the references were changed to or at the websites for those stations? etc. etc.

Why change the date format? The format in use was acceptable per WP:DATEFORMAT.

Changes reverted.

Third Party References

The same IP editor placed the third party ref tag. The article currently has 28 references which are news items, cites 14 court cases including a Supreme Court case and a book from a university press as well as several journal articles (some in a journal published by FFRF). The majority of self pub citations are to provide details of convention dates, locations, speakers and awardees and fall within WP:selfpub guidelines. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your citation style is curious, to say the least. 1. When the city is in the name of the newspaper, it's not necessary to provide the name of the city again. 2. OCLC numbers and ISSN numbers are not needed or helpful for newspapers (or for other references). 3. The general rule about dates is that articles about American subjects use American dating. See: WP:STRONGNAT. 4. Publishers are generally not included in citations to newspapers or journals. 5. Website versions of newspapers are cited just as the newspapers themselves, with links. Citation style is obviously challenging for you. Perhaps it would be helpful to review the style used in some featured articles.
As to the tag, about 1/3 of the citations in this article come from the FFRF website. Replacing those with citations to neutral, reliable sources would improve the credibility of the article.
Finally, it might be helpful to read WP:OWN, WP:HUMAN, and WP:NEIPIAV. I was only trying to improve the article, but if you're intent on messing it up, don't let me stop you. 71.139.148.214 (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. After looking over several featured articles, I generally concur with your edits so I have redone them for the most part. Thank you for your work on the article. If you would look at how the references look now I would appreciate any further input you may have.
Regarding the high number of citations from the FFRF website. As they mainly supply cities, dates and speakers for conventions aren't they within the WP:selfpub guidelines?.
In closing I hope my response and restoration of your edits has made clear I appreciate your work on the article. I have no feeling of WP:OWN as my contributions have been just checking the links and updating the references. I appreciate you steering me in better direction for citation style. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your continued work on this. The citations look much better, with extraneous info pared down. I don't have time to look at them in depth now, but I did notice that some had the news service listed, in addition to the newspaper. That's usually not necessary. If the purposes of citations are to attribute and locate the source of the info, the names of the journalist and newspaper should be sufficient. Thanks again for your help. 69.183.116.131 (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm the one who has been expanding the convention section. I guess I don't understand how that got the article tagged. I thought I was following the WP:SELFPUB guidelines. Cap020570 (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I had been looking overall at the number of cites to the FFRF website, not to the specific instances it was cited. While the citations may pass WP:SELFPUB scrutiny, a better strategy would be to locate the same info in neutral third-party sources. That would better demonstrate the notability of the information and squelch any concerns about the self-serving nature of the information included in the article. 69.183.116.131 (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The article no longer seems to "rely excessively" on associated sources. Pending discussion here I will be removing the tag. MrBill3 (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

In the next week or so I'm going to remove the 'convention table' that got this page tagged for sources. If anyone else finds outside sources for conventions, speakers, awardees, etc.. feel free to leave it here or on the page in the appropriate spot. Cap020570 (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The Clergy Project[edit]

I've been doing research on The Clergy Project which redirects to this page. I think there are enough sources and information to merit a new page entirely for the Clergy Project. So I'm going to alter the redirect page. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Reversion by Harizotoh9[edit]

Hey @Harizotoh9: why did you revert the edits including the charity stats, etc? Those seem like useful information to me.--Shibbolethink ( ) 01:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I mean the "opinion of morality" section can probably go for WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV reasons, but the charity stats and the bus campaign seem good to me.--Shibbolethink ( ) 01:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Bus signs[edit]

User:Harizotoh9 How about using [1] [2] [3] [4] and this book published by the University of Chicago press.[5] Dougweller (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't object to the section, just the using of self-sourcing. Self-sourcing should be used as little as possible. Otherwize pages run the risk of being filled with non-notable fluff, and the POV of the organization. If it has third party sources, then fine. I don't know if Christian Post is a reliable source, but Madison newspaper and the Uni of Chicago book look fine. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)