Talk:MassResistance/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Edit proposition

" the group gained prominence" is far from accurate. Their orriginal term "notoriety" is a better reflection. MassResistance is a fringe hate-group that is ridiculed and spurned by even the most conservative "pro-family" group in Massachusetts, the Mass Family Institute.

It is also important to document that the lawsuits that they encouraged and supported - have been rejected by the courts.

Furthermore, it is necessary to point out that this group introduces bills to for Legislature consideration on an annual basis, and on an annual basis the bills are rejected.

I would propose the following edit:

MassResistance is a a socially conservative Massachusetts group associated with the Parents' Rights Coalition that opposes same-sex marriage and other elements of what they call the homosexual agenda. According to the organization, it helps parents and citizens deal with, and occasionally confront, public officials and legislators. The group has gained notoriety for helping conservative parents fight what MassResistance terms the homosexual agenda in public schools. The group objects to teaching children about alternative families, especially those headed by homosexual couples, without previously alerting the parents.. The group is also active in lobbying the state legislature on issues regarding homosexuality. The bills that have been submitted on behalf of MassResistance in the past several years have been consistently rejected by the the Joint Judiciary Committee.The organization has supported parents who have filed unsuccessful lawsuits against schools in Massachusetts.

MassResistance's website often targets the transgender community and they have been criticized for promoting anti-gay studies that lack scientific merit.

The group is opposed to same-sex marriage and has criticized former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney for not opposing same-sex marriage while in office.

In March 2008, the Southern Poverty Law Center listed MassResistance as one of 888 active hate groups operating in the U.S during 2007.< ref>http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/type.jsp?DT=26</ref>

Ok, enough edit warring

Frankly, both versions look hopelessly POV. I'm going to try to make a combined version that actually has a chance of being WP:NPOV and post it here. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaced the edits made by Josh on April 3. MassResistance is also the latest name of severalf organizations started by Brian Camenker (Parents Rights Coalition & Article 8 Alliance were the earlier names of the same organization)--MassWatch (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible NPOV version?

Ok, what do people think about this version? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

MassResistance is a a socially conservative Massachusetts group associated with the Parents' Rights Coalition that opposes same-sex marriage and other elements of what they call the homosexual agenda. According to the organization, it helps parents and citizens deal with, and occasionally confront, public officials and legislators. The group has gained prominence in Massachusetts for helping parents fight in public schools what MassResistance terms the homosexual agenda which includes such activities as teaching about homosexuality to children without previously alerting the parents.. MassResistance's website often targets the transgender community and they have been criticized for promoting anti-gay studies that lack scientific merit.

The group is opposed to same-sex marriage and has criticized former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney for not opposing same-sex marriage while in office.

In March 2008, the Southern Poverty Law Center listed MassResistance as one of 888 active hate groups operating in the U.S during 2007.< ref>http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/type.jsp?DT=26</ref>

==References==

==External Links==

• MassResistance
• MassResistance Blog

"Homosexual agenda"

Mr. Camenker and his supporters keep inserting loaded terminology such as "homosexual lobby", "homosexual agenda" and "vicious". Such terms have no place in an NPOV article. Corvus cornix_talk 02:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I posted another edit that removed the term "homosexual agenda. Apparently the group and it's supporters object to the truth about their organization being exposed. I think it should be there because it lends credence to their link with other hate-groups, and the term is their own words from their own web site. Also, the term is identified by an internal link within wiki.--Wmdoti (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This page isn't meant to make them look like a hate group. It's meant to describe them in an unbiased, neutral manner. --Alexc3 ^(talk) 02:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits are supposed to make progress

When you make edits to the article, you're supposed to improve it. The newer edits after mine all appear to be less NPOV, as Corvus cornix noted in his edit summary here back on March 16. This goes for both people who dislike MassResistance and wish to push their point of view through the article and those who are members/supporters of MassResistance and wish to push their point of view. For both groups, please see WP:NPOV. If you can't edit with the NPOV policy in mind, do everyone a favor and don't edit at all. --Alexc3 ^(talk) 20:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I never heard of this organization nor its president until I read the edits to this article. I have no opinion on the subject, one way or either, and only care about the neutrality of the language used. Corvus cornix_talk 21:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not you have an opinion is irrelevant. You're allowed to have any opinion you want, as long as you don't use Wikipedia articles to push your point of view. ;) --Alexc3 ^(talk) 00:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully the only point of view I'm pushing is the neutral one. Corvus cornix_talk 16:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of anything. >_< --Alexc3 ^(talk) 21:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

• BD.Harvest's account (contributions) was created on March 25 and has only made edits to the MassResistance article.
• Wmdoti's account (contributions) was created on March 25 and has only made edits to the MassResistance article, with the exception of one edit to Brian Camenker, some edits on the MassResistance talk page, and an edit on WP:CHU.
• Stellabenna's account (contributions) was created on March 26 and has only made edits to Brian Camenker and the MassResistance article.
• MassWatch's account (contributions) was created on March 22 and has only made edits to Brian Camenker and the MassResistance article.

All of these accounts being made at around the same time and only having edits to this article or the article on the founder of MassResistance suggests that someone may have made some of them for abusive purposes. --Alexc3 ^(talk) 08:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There are also anons whose only edits have been to these pages. I've put a "coi" tag on the article because, even though the current version isn't a conflict of interest, editors with conflicts do keep frequently revert to the coi version. Corvus cornix_talk 21:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the coi tag is really necessary. We should just keep warning the anons/users who are vandalizing the article until they finally get themselves banned or decide to stop. --Alexc3 ^(talk) 00:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the accusation. Word is out about this posting;I found out from the massresistancewatch site. I think several jumped on board to contribute at the same time as a result. I don't think the purpose is at all for abuse... rather, let the truth be known about this hate-group!--Wmdoti (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't an accusation, I stated it was a possibility. Sorry to disappoint you, but we're not going to "expose" MassResistance here. We're going to describe them with as little bias as possible. --Alexc3 ^(talk) 02:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, looks like Brian Camenker was banned for sockpuppetry before I even wrote this... --Alexc3 ^(talk) 01:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

MassResistance promotes anti-gay studies

Can the one who added this text, "MassResistance's website often targets the transgender community and they have been criticized for promoting anti-gay studies that lack scientific merit," provide a quotation from the article they referenced that says this? --Alexc3 ^(talk) 19:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Referencing The website MassResistance

Added reference from today's monitoring of MassResistance. This is a reference from the posting on their website today, and accurately reflects, in their own words, what the group represents and and how they interact with public officials. The change "and has fought against students being taught diversity which include stories that show same gender parents.", is an indirect quote from a correspondence of a public official in Massachusetts, which MassResistance posted on its website April 4, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmdoti (talk • contribs) 23:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Hate group"

I agree with LegitimateAndEvenCompelling that "hate group" is a very strong pair of words, but I'd like to know why you think it shouldn't be used in this article. Southern Poverty Law Center did call MassResistance a hate group -- their use of that label isn't just an inference, it's what they actually did write, ref here.

I think it's important to reference their choice of that phrase in this Wikipedia article, as this is the wording of the criticism that the SPLCenter set forth. Yes, it's inflammatory, but it's an important part of the criticism itself.

I'd be fine with letting go of this if a consensus comes out that it's not necessary, but I figured I'd drop it here to see what other editors have to say. —Switchercat ^talk_cont 13:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreement - the main point of the SPLC listing isn't that MR is anti-gay (duh :-) but rather that they consider MR a hate group. It's a notable group's POV and it should be reinstated. —EqualRights (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay folks, let me be specific exactly why I removed it, and why it should stay removed.

I went to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and asked about the SPLC here. I specifically asked:

is the Southern Poverty Law Center a reliable source for labeling groups as "hate" groups? Yes, the definition of "hate" is an issue, but set that aside for now. For example, some wiki pages about certain organizations say the groups are "hate" groups and cite to the SPLC for a reliable source. Is this concordant with Wikipedia policy? As to the definition of a "hate" group, is that defined by the SPLC? Is the SPLC's definition actually used on Wikipedia?

I asked this precisely because of how this page used to be worded. I asked this because it seemed POV to me, an issue having to do with Wiki policy. But I did not really know at the time. So I asked. The answer was:

With watchdog groups, it's often best to do the cite as an opinion, i.e. "the SPLC says that group X is a hate group". If it's something like the KKK that's pretty much famous for being a hate group, you could probably write it as "Group X is widely considered a hate group", with footnotes to, say, five different sources. I'd also like to add that "hate group" is an inflammatory term, and it's better to work in understatement and use precise terms like "white separatist", "black nationalist", "anti-gay", "far-right", etc. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on that, I learned something new. Then I applied what I learned to this page. It's simply a matter of wiki policy.

I totally understand how people can really hate MassResistance and want to make them look as bad as possible. They've been a real thorn in the side of their opposition. But Wikipedia is not to be a battleground to do that. Wikipedia policy rules here. I was unclear about the policy, asked about it in the appropriate forum, then got an answer that totally makes sense.

So now you know why I removed the "hate" language and why it should stay out.

Oh, let me add the language on Wiki's own hate groups page:

"Hate group" as a label

The classification of other groups as a hate group is controversial and little or no consensus has developed as to whether political, religious or anti-religious movements deserve the label hate group. The term "hate group" as a pejorative characterization slung against one's opponents has come to be used by a wide variety of people and groups:

• Scientologist Bob Lippman called the old Cult Awareness Network a "hate group";
• Gay rights activists and some progressive Christians label Christian conservative groups such as the American Family Association, Family Research Council, NARTH, and Concerned Women for America as hate groups.
• The Westboro Baptist Church is also considered a hate group by gay rights activists and many others, since this particular hate group is publicly against the Irish, Americans, Swedes, Canadians, Mexicans and many others, although their main platform calls for the demise of gay people.

That language only confirmed my actions. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I realize that it's inappropriate to say "MassResistance is a hate group" and then have a footnote to the SPLCenter, citing it as a reliable source. That statement would be unwarranted, as the encyclopedia's job is not to give us the writers' opinions but rather to provide us with the facts.

But what's wrong with "MassResistance has been described as an 'anti-gay hate group' by the Southern Poverty Law Center"? This is a hard fact. To put the statement up there doesn't show any Wikipedian agenda to vilify MassR. Instead, it correctly represents the opinion of a third party -- an opinion that happens to rely on inflammatory language. It may be harsh, but it's sourced, verifiable, and notable. —Switchercat ^talk_cont 19:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, I'm not an expert on this. My only guidance is what I presented above.

Here's what I think. The article currently contains quite a bit of information about the controversial nature of the group. There is very little about the good things the group does, and there must be some good things, I'm sure. Like didn't their support for some families take them all the way to the US Supreme Court? That's good, isn't it, standing up for some families attempts to protect their rights? So adding in that extra term, especially in light of my above quoted sources, seems to me to be overkill. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, okay -- how about we (or you, I guess) put in the things that you state are "good," while also putting back that hate-group thing? Does that seem like a viable compromise? That way a larger quantity of information, whether favorable to MassR or not, will make up the text of the article. —Switchercat ^talk_cont 23:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It depends. Further, I am not a subject matter expert on MassR. I am just someone who sees an imbalance and tries to fix it. This article caught my attention due to the category issue. So I really don't know what to add. Switchercat, I'm just another editor like you. We are equal in the eyes of Wikipedia, and no one owns a page. Feel free to do as you wish. Just bear in mind Wikipedia has rules to make Wikipedia encyclopedic. Bias or POV is okay for blogs and web sites and newspaper editorials or letters to the editors but not for Wikipedia. Feel free to call MassR a hate group elsewhere, but Wikipedia has higher standards. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If I thought that saying "SPLCenter calls them a hate group" was POV, I wouldn't added it to the page in the first place. Saying "[Notable organization X] considers [notable organization Y] a hate group" is quite different from saying flat-out "[Y] is a hate group." One is pure fact, the other biased opinion. And I've never said that I consider MassR a hate group. (In fact, I don't. I think the term should only be used for violent organizations.)

I'll take "do as you wish" as encouragement, however, and add the text back in. —Switchercat ^talk_cont 01:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I edited the section a while back so that it was alleged by the SPLC, but it was vandalized without comment. After all, just because SPLC calls something a hate group does not make it canon. The SPLC has been widely criticized itself as a hate group for some of its labels, and its use of them as partisan attacks against certain entities. This needs to be mentioned about the SPLC if the section on hate group appellations is put in the article.HoundofBaskersville (talk) 05:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Switchercat just added hate group back in -- twice! But it looks okay to me. However, "do as you wish." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me add that I lean toward what HoundofBaskerville said. SPLC calls all kinds of conservative groups "hate groups," but not any liberal groups. Like 171, or thereabouts. They are not an authority by any means, and should not merit that status. Especially here on Wikipedia. If they labeled liberal groups as "hate groups" too, then maybe they might be considered balanced. As it is, it's just one-sided, and it's just not encyclopedic for that reason, among others. I recommend removal of the hate group language. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

SPLC has only 11 anti-gay groups listed among their list of hate groups. These are groups that could not be fairly categorized as 'conservative;' most conservatives find hate groups repugnant. The majority of the hate groups on their list are racist groups; is racism conservative, or liberal? I'd argue that, again, those categories don't really apply in this case. Would you count the black separatist groups as 'left' and the white supremacist groups as 'right?' I don't agree with you that 'conservative' and 'liberal' are categories that are relevant to any of the groups on the SPLC list- both liberals and conservatives view such groups negatively. There's a big difference between a conservative group like Focus on the Family and hate groups like the Westboro Baptist Church, Watchmen on the Walls, and MassResistance. I think that it's important to leave 'hate group' here, since SPLC is widely considered to be an authority on hate groups, since it's accurate information, and since it tells readers something relevant about MassResistance. I think the only reason for removing it would be to express a point of view- that SPLC is wrong and that MassResistance is not a hate group. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this thread is so old I don't know what to say. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Events

I reinstated two removed sections - the taping event was one of the most newsworthy, and the initiative petition was their major effort this year (it's purely coincidental that the failure occurred last week.) —EqualRights (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"self-described pro-family"

Regarding LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's reversion ("rv POV - IP addy says in history, "They are not 'pro family' since they are not for gay and lesbian families." That is clearly a political point of view not compatible with Wikipedia"):

The Wikipedia article Family describes families inclusively: "Family denotes a group of people affiliated by consanguinity, affinity, or co-residence."

Wikipedia does not have an article on the term "pro-family", but redirects to Family values which is in turn described as follows: "vague, and means different things to different people, "family values" has been described as a political buzzword, power word, or code word predominantly used by right-wing or conservative political parties and media providers."

Therefore it is actually the use of the unmodified term "pro-family" that is not compatible with Wikipedia's NPOV attribution policy.

Eagle Forum contains another example of proper use of the term. —EqualRights (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

EqualRights. I know you are reasonable. Let's look at this.

1. Two people have tried to add that phrase. One is named "MassWatch" as if s/he is watching only this MassResistance page. Further, MassWatch's 15 edits over the past half year pertain solely to MassResistance or its founder. Talk about soapbox, that is bright line soap box. Then you got the IP addy adding the same thing. That IP addy's first and only 2 edits have been to restore MassWatch's soapbox. Neither of these people strike me as having any knowledge of wiki policy. On the other hand, they strike me as having a political point of view to promote and that they have found Wikipedia to be the soapbox they use to promote that view. Indeed, both editors may be one and the same person, a wiki violation in and of itself.
2. Think. All "pro-family" groups are self-proclaimed or self-described. Nobody describes themselves as anti-family. The pro-family wiki page linked in the first sentence clearly explains that "pro-family" groups are self-described as such. Think. Shall we go into every single wiki page that uses the term "pro-family" and insert before that "self-described" when that is how Wikipedia defines pro-family if one would only click on the wikilink? Really, what could be clearer as to the self-described nature of the concept than "Because the term is vague, and means different things to different people, 'family values' has been described as a political buzzword, power word, or code word predominantly used by right-wing or conservative political parties and media providers." That sure sounds self-described or self-proclaimed to me. And since that is the case, adding such words to this page is duplicative at a minimum and likely POV.
3. The activities of MassResistance and its public profile make it a perfect candidate as a "pro-family" group as defined on the pro-family wiki page. Whether or not MassR describes itself that way is irrelevant, and it is definitely not encyclopedic. If I describe my own group as the leading opponent of so-and-so, would that be encyclopedic? I doubt it. The fact is MassR's activities and public profile make it "pro-family."
4. Yes, saying a group is "pro-family" when it is opposed to homosexual families (and I don't know if MassR is or is not) really means it's "pro-certain families," but that is not an issue to be battled out on the MassR page. That is appropriate on the pro-family wiki talk page or elsewhere, not here.

Based on all that, I'm going to remove the "self-described" moniker as well. I am certain you will see the logic in what I have said. I do not oppose anyone taking on this issue in the appropriate forum, and this MassR page is not the appropriate forum for that. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming reasonableness, but your certainty that I'd see your logic is misplaced; alas, I was hopeful that you'd see my logic, grin.

1. I'm dismissing this point as irrelevant; I'm not defending any other editors or edits here (and I'll explicitly state that I've had no communication with them and they're not my sock puppets.)
2. Yes, in fact we should; there aren't very many. Meanwhile, the perfect is the enemy of the good.
3. To the contrary, Wikipedia suggests solving POV issues with attribution: "One way to make [a biased statement] suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is".
4. For now I don't see the point in moving the discussion - again, there is no "pro-family" article, only a redirection to Family values where the term isn't even mentioned.

I don't want to belabor this, so rather than reverting for the Nth time I've invited third-party assistance from Spinningspark (talk) to try to move forward quickly. —EqualRights (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Thank you for asking me to comment on this issue. This is an entirely informal process and is not binding in any way on any of the participants. First of all, I would like to summarise the disagreement as I understand it to ensure that we are all talking about the same thing.

• One side maintains that "pro-family" is implied POV because, by implication, opponents are not pro-family
• The other side maintains that "self-described pro-family" is POV because it detracts from the credibility of the subject
• Both sides agree the relevant policy is WP:NPOV

Would everyone involved please indicate below whether or not they agree this a fair summary. SpinningSpark 16:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This seems accurate. —Switchercat ^talk_cont 17:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The first bullet is a reasonable summary of my position, and we are indeed trying to determine WP:NPOV wording. —EqualRights (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Without wishing to take a position on this myself, I would like to point out to you that the NPOV policy specifically holds up the abortion article as an example of a bad article which was cleaned of POV through careful editing. I would urge you to look at the policy and the article especially in regard to the use of the term pro-life which has overtones in a similar way, but is even more emotive in this case than pro-family. Is there any chance that you can adapt the handling of this term in abortion and apply it your article? SpinningSpark 23:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of that section of the NPOV policy but don't find its vague advice useful, particularly since there are distinct articles with extensive discussion of the terms pro-life and pro-choice along with abortion and abortion debate articles to provide further context. In this case, there is one undiscussed biased term, "pro-family".

Note that the abortion article is clear that such terms are POV descriptors used by their respective proponents: "Abortion debates, especially pertaining to abortion laws, are often spearheaded by advocacy groups belonging to one of two camps. In the United States, most often those in favor of greater legal restrictions on, or even complete prohibition of abortion, describe themselves as pro-life while those against legal restrictions on abortion describe themselves as pro-choice." —EqualRights (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Spinningspark, point #2 is basically what I am saying, only worded better. Also, besides NPOV, other policies may come into play. Weasle words, perhaps? Nonencyclopedic, perhaps? Other policies, perhaps?

Let me say the conversation EqualRights and I are having has been completely refreshing to me as it has always been centered on wiki policy and it has never veered into personal invective, even with such a politically changed issue. What a relief.

Let me also say this page looked like a hit piece on MassR until EqualRights and I worked together to improve its quality, others as well. We had polite conversation and sometimes things went one way and sometimes another. To me, the new participants, whose only wiki contributions ever were on this page or on the page of MassR's founder, only injected POV into this article. One user even named himself as if he was the one watching the subject of this page. Much more experienced EqualRights had the good sense to basically agree the wording was inappropriate. But s/he choose only to modify the wording slightly, still leaving the POV in place, only not so outright anymore--and the other issues I raised were not resolved either. Be that as it may, it looked like the page was again being used as another means to besmirch MassR. Now maybe MassR deserves besmirching (I'm not saying it does or doesn't), but Wikipedia is not the forum for doing that. This page having been a hit piece on MassR in the past is one more factor in my thought process for removing the language I removed--because it appears it was again being used for that purpose, and that purpose does not comport with wiki policy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, a technical point, WP:WEASEL is not a policy, it is a guideline. It could apply here but the phrase "self-described" is self-attributing is it not? By unencyclopedic is usually meant WP:NOT in terms of policy. You would need to point out which part of that yu think applies here.

Sorry, I did not wait for your response, I had simply overloooked that a main participant had not responded. Nevertheless, my comment on the issue remains a recommendation to follow the example of the abortion article.

Note that I am generally not on line Monday to Thursday, so I will not be able to take further part here. SpinningSpark 07:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding EqualRights statement, "In this case, there is one undiscussed biased term, 'pro-family'," I disagree. "Pro-gay," "pro-equality rights," or "equal rights advocates" are the opposite of "pro-family." Everyone knows pro-family includes the view that families are best for children when they are not homosexual in nature. Everyone knows pro-equality rights includes the view that homosexuals are denied equal rights such as the right to marry and have children, adopted, of course. In both cases they are views having built in biases. If saying "self-described pro-family" is acceptable under wiki policy, then all articles must be changed to say "self-described pro-equality rights advocates." How dreary wikipedia would become if this obvious language was added to every use of pro-family and pro-equality.

So if I'm getting Spinningspark's drift, "self-described" as proposed to be used here is POV. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(Note: LaEC added the previous comment while I was re-editing the article) I don't think that's what SpinningSpark was getting after at all, but we won't know until later this week.

Meanwhile, I rewrote the sentence to use terms that have Wikipedia articles. The opening sentence is a blend of a phrase from the American Family Association article's lede and a phrase taken from the MassResistance site. —EqualRights (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well done! And good job getting help from Spinningspark. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

To me, MassR's main focus is school children not having homosexual lifestyle exposure forced on them (from MassR's point of view), not same-sex marriage as currently worded. Would you agree, at least generally? Should a change be made? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

MassR's blog page states that they want to "end judicial tyranny, homosexual 'marriage', and homosexual activist recruitment of our children in the public schools! Preserve our Judeo-Christian heritage, the Culture of Life, and free speech!" Perhaps it would be helpful to cite those sentences on the page in the beginning, as this is their own summary of their ideology and goals.

So you should totally go ahead and add the bit about children, but maybe not delete the thing about marriage, as the statement on the blog puts the two issues sort of parallel. Both would presumably be quite important to them, although this little snippet doesn't mention other things they oppose, like transgenderism and kink. Does that make sense? —Switchercat ^talk_cont 17:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense. But I think their own statements are poorly worded. For example, they list the first thing they are against as "judicial tyranny." That's what Judicial Watch does, among others, not MassR. MassR just sees judicial tyranny from the standpoint of what it perceives to be the homosexual agenda being forced on children in public schools and how the courts have allowed this. MassR obviously calls this judicial tyranny, and lists it first as the things it does, but that is not MassR's main complaint. I say even if MassR does not articulate its own goals well, that does not mean we have to infect this wiki article with the same problem. My opinion, of course. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Their focus seems to be more same-sex marriage and transgender oriented lately - I skimmed their blog and the last time they mentioned kids' education was March...

Anyway, I also want to thank LaEC for the kind words and likewise the civil discussion. —EqualRights (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No prob. If you want my help on other pages, let me know. And vice versa. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

MassResistance does not represent "conservative families" as they claim. Even the most strigent conservative groups, including the Catholic Church, amd the Mass Family Institute, refuse to be associated with MassResistance. Their blog, http://massresistance.blogspot.com/, identifies their true passion, which is to vilify the LGBT comunity. State legislators and government officials refuse to meet with representitives of this hate-organization. Their claims should be identified as such, rather than a factual statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmdoti (talk • contribs) 12:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the solution to these competing POVs was the consensus language that uses Wikipedia-defined terms. "Family values" it itself a POV term and its article is clear about that, so the "claims to" is redundant.

(Also, they recently worked with the Catholic Action League.) —EqualRights (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The Catholic Action League is simply a conservative think tank with Catholic leanings; the Catholic bishops in Massachusetts specifically noted and refused to be associated with MassResistance, due to their Hate-group status, and they would not allow participation in their petition signature gathering. One only needs to visit their own blog to see the evidence to the fact. When ther Bishops direct their clergy to have nothing to do with a given group, then it must be assumed that the group does not have the backing of that church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmdoti (talk • contribs) 17:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wmdoti, your latest edits continue to violate WP NPOV policies. And all you did in the Criticism section was add a duplicate reference to the same SPLC web page that only lists them as a hate group without providing any of the "vilifies" text you added. You've already been warned about 3RR; please stop and discuss. —EqualRights (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I read on the SPLC site, vilify is pretty much a direct quote::"Anti-gay groups are organizations that go beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification." Also, it's not as if the Southern Poverty Law Center is some random organization - it is a respected civil rights organization, which even the FBI utilizes for it's own investigations of hatecrimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.68.134.174 (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

SPLC

Monitoring the Southern Poverty Law Center, by Pastor Scott Lively, J.D., Th.D., HatewatchWatch, 27 March 2009. Quote: "You can’t stop hate by being hateful. But if your actual goal is to make money from an increase in hate, it’s a very profitable strategy. Welcome to the world of the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose hypocrisy and anti-Christian extremism we will expose herein."

I know we discussed the SPLC above, but perhaps this sheds new light. Would Wikipedia use an anti-[name your race] organization to makes factual claims about the named race? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As you know, some guy's blog isn't a reliable source (and he himself is an unreliable source) —EqualRights (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. But sometimes where there's smoke.... --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Scott Lively is definitely not a good authority on this subject. He's a rather nasty example of anti-gay leadership; he was one of the key Americans behind the pending law which would put gay Ugandans to death. Has the Southern Poverty Law Center been criticized by anyone who is a bit more neutral? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

On a different point, what is the "pending law which would put gay Ugandans to death" and if it is a Ugandan law, in what way at all does it matter how much any person of any other nationality supports the law? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This should answer your questions. I'm surprised you missed this; Scott Lively is one of several Americans who may end up being responsible for the deaths of many Ugandans. Scott Lively is certainly not neutral on the subject of MassResistance, or on the subject of hate groups. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll read that NYT article. But it appears POV to me to say Lively "is one of several Americans who may end up being responsible for the deaths of many Ugandans" while environmental groups who stopped distribution of DDT in Africa are responsible for millions of deaths, yet none of them get the Scott Lively treatment. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see this is a hot political potatoe and it might be better if I did not get involved further, except to say it appears POV is heavily involved here by people using Wikipedia to promote a certain political agenda. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are some articles that name the NYT article and specifically point out its faults:

• http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=121743
• http://www.grasstopsusa.com/df011210.html

This is Wikipedia. Is it supposed to become New York Timesopedia? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You are seriously suggesting that the New York Times is not a reliable source... but WorldNetDaily is? I think we're finished here. The Southern Poverty Law Center is the most widely respected organization working in the field of hate groups. Scott Lively runs an organization which hasn't yet been named as a hate group but is very similar to MassResistance. Even if Scott Lively criticizes SPLC in his blog, they remain the best source of information regarding hate groups, and are widely cited as such a source. Your "article's" (sic) are from sources that are so profoundly biased that even most conservatives wouldn't rely on them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No. I am not saying that. I am saying reference only to NYT may be one sided. Further, the articles I added contain information that may be independently examined for the truth of the matter asserted. They are valuable in providing us editors with an alternate point of view,

For example, Feder says the law does not call for the death penalty, but it does seek to criminalize activity that is already criminalized in the USA. It is reasonable for us to look at Feder's work and determine if it leads us to find additional sources that will produce a more accurate Wiki page. That's what we are here for.

FisherQueen, I see you made fun of my spelling. Look, I have no quarrel with you. Let's not pick on each other. Let's just stick to the facts. The NYT is one point of view. The WND is another. The facts contained therein are independently verifiable by us. We might then be able to use those sources as primary sources in the first place, instead of either the NYT or WND.

Reasonable, no? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Your example- that WND is publishing false information about the proposed law in Uganda- is a good example of why we don't use WND as a source. The difference between 'correct' and 'incorrect' is not a difference of point of view. It's the reason that the New York Times is regarded as a reliable source and widely cited, while WND is not cited by anyone but other fringe publications- because NYT reports accurate information, while WND only reports information favorable to its point of view, and routinely twists, misrepresents, and falsifies information. Your example is an argument against using WND as a source. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. But what I am really saying, if I said it succinctly, would be this: Why take the word of the NYT or WND when we can link directly to the proposed legislation itself and make statements supported by that legislation? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

...because the proposed law in Uganda has nothing to do with the subject of this article, and such a link would add nothing useful to the article? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You got me! Oops, I admit you are correct! That said, the general point I was making is still valid. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

In this edit, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling writes, "I see the point of the person who added this. However, in this case, the SPLC is a politically motivated organization some call 'left-wing race-baiting' whose views really do not deserve top billing". However, at Southern Poverty Law Center I don't see anything that would merit being so dismissive of that organization's conclusions. If the objection is to even mentioning the SPLC in the intro, then I have no problem with "and is considered by some to be an anti-gay hate group," especially since the SPLC is not alone in its criticism of MassResistance. But the intro needs at least a mention of the criticism for the sake of WP:WEIGHT. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 11:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That "SPLC considers MassResistance a hate group" appears in the article twice is WP:UNDUE. Lionel (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's part of the problem. People are clearly using Wikipedia to echo SPLC POV. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not assume bad faith, which itself can be interpreted as POV pushing. The intro of the article should be a brief summary of the entire article, including notable criticism. I originally proposed a more general clause, but Lionel made it more specific. (Am I wrong that now he objects to the precise phraseology that he himself insisted upon?) I am open to other phraseology, short of deleting all criticism from the intro. Thanks. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 22:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify. I said what I said based on long experience in this article and not any recent edits by Arthur Smart. To the extent I may have left the wrong impression I hope I have now cleared it up. I welcome the input of Arthur Smart and hope to continue to work with him cooperative, and I hope vice versa applies as well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That said, SPLC is a clearly biased organization and its characterization of any organization as a hate group should not be in the lead section. I think the American Library Association is racist for a variety of reasons but evidence of that racism, it if appeared in the text of the wiki (it does not), should not be placed into the lead paragraph. Same goes here. There is no reason why Wikipedia should be turned into SPLC's bullhorn. The mention in the criticism section is adequate to get the point across. It does not need to be added to the lead paragraph. A general sentence in the lead paragraph about MassR being controversial would be acceptable for the purposes you raise, but repeating the SPLC calumny is not appropriate and not Wiki compliant. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You write, "SPLC is a clearly biased organization." Upon what in Southern Poverty Law Center do you base that conclusion? The article states, "The SPLC is internationally known for its tolerance education programs, its legal victories against white supremacists, and its tracking of hate groups, militias, and extremist organizations." Does that mean it is unqualified to comment on MassResistance? I would conclude the contrary, that it is eminently qualified, based upon the content of the Wikipedia article Southern Poverty Law Center, not based upon any personal opinions. Garnering notable legal victories in neutral courts of law strongly indicates that the SPLC knows what it's talking about, and is not just some wingnut organization spouting off.

As for criticism within the opening paragraph of MassResistance, I am open to any specific suggestions you wish to offer. I never favored specifically mentioning SPLC (Lionel did). Instead, I would prefer merely a very brief mention of the controversy/criticism. Thanks. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 00:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I base it on the facts. SPLC names a number of pro-family groups as hate groups. Being pro-family should not get you labeled as a hate group. I see MassR's outspoken opposition to the political interests of certain groups, but I do not see hate. "Gd hates fags"-that's a hate group (not MassR). "The Bible says a man should not lie with another man like he does with a women"-that's not a hate group. But the SPLC labels them so. It's a bunch of hooey. Sure, it's politically correct to label people promoting family values as hate groups, but that does not make it true, and Wikipedia is here to report the truth, not the politically correct.

I challenge anyone here to find actual hate from MassR. SPLC saying there is hate is not what I am looking for. We need to see actual hate before we can report actual hate or report MassR is the hate group the SPLC says it is. Find out why the SPLC labels MassR as a hate group. Is the reason due to MassR's stated hate, or, more likely, is it due to MassR's opposition to certain political interests of certain advocacy groups that the SPLC supports? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not you or I agree or disagree with the SPLC's assessment of MassResistance as a hate group is totally irrelevant. You write, "Wikipedia is here to report the truth." Wrong. Wikipedia is here to report what's verifiable. It is very easily verifiable that the SPLC considers MassResistance to be a hate group, which Wikipedia defines as "an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hate, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society." You may disagree with SPLC's assessment that MassResistance advocates and practices hostility towards gays, and if so, that's fine for you to have a personal opinion on that matter. However, please don't push your personal POV onto Wikipedia articles. Thanks. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 06:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF. It's not POV. I asked for evidence of a hate crime and all I got was the claim that SPLC claims it is. It's not POV to say we cannot say MassR is a hate group. It's just application of Wiki policy. WP:AGF. By the way, I agree SPLC thinks MassR is a hate group, but we cannot trumpet it in the lead paragraph like it is true in reality. We are not SPLCopedia. You are pushing your POV by promoting the SPLC statement as if it were true into the lead paragraph. You really want to go down that road? You still need to show MassR is a hate group without saying SPLC says it is. There have to be more sources for such a statement. POV has nothing to do with that--rather, it's application of existing Wiki policy. I don't care one way or another about presenting MassR a certain way except to the extent it complies with Wiki policy. There have been in the past a steady stream of people here who seek to use this Wiki page to attack MassR. If that's happening again, so be it, but I'll not be bullied with false claims of POV while I'm following Wiki policy. SPLC mass labeling pro-family groups as hate groups is fine for SPLC, but not for Wikipedia. The single mention in the criticism section is fine--it should not be trumpeted in the lead paragraph. That said, it is entirely possible we are on the same page but the issue of the truth and what SPLC says is the truth is substantial similar (not the truth, just the argument) so I may be misinterpreting what you are saying and vice versa. I'm going to assume that at this moment. I think I may not be understanding your arguments. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Please take your request "for evidence of a hate crime" directly to the SPLC. I shall do no original research, and I request that you don't, either. Besides, if MassR "advocates and practices hostility towards gays," it is not necessarily committing a hate crime, but such hostility does fit Wikipedia's definition of a hate group. Requiring a "hate crime" for MassR to be considered a "hate group" is a straw man argument.

Now, please, once again, what specific suggestions do you have for verbiage in the opening paragraph, while preserving therein at least a brief mention of the notable, verifiable criticism? I'm through going around and around in circles with you on this issue. I just don't have the time to spare. Thanks for your understanding. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 12:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

SPLC is a biased source and WP:SPS and this should be taken into account when citing it. IMO just because criticism exists doesn't necessitate a mention in the lede. Because only SPLC is critical, citing SPLC in the lede and again in a section is redundant. The lede is for summary, and it's hard to summarize such a brief item. Obviously this is a case where having SPLC in the lede is creating redundancy and is WP:UNDUE. BTW I changed "some" to SPLC in the lead because only SPLC has listed Mass as a hate group. Lionel (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikiworthy?

I just removed the following from the page thinking it is not wikiworthy as it is a blip on the timeline of history. Be that as it may, here it is, you all decide for yourselves:

The Laramie Project

In December 2007, the Acton-Boxborough Regional High School's drama club, Proscenium Circus, put on the play the The Laramie Project. MassResistance sought to halt the play's production, and held a forum at the school to discuss the play and the dangers of homosexuality and STDs. The Westboro Baptist Church issued a press release announcing, "God hates The Laramie Project, Acton-Boxbourgh [sic] High School, Massachusetts, and the U.S.A..", and they picketed outside the school an hour before the play's performance. MassResistance, however, did not protest before the play. [1] The play went on, despite this opposition from the two organizations.

That's it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's verifiable (it cites the Boston Globe) and, remember, Wikipedia is not paper. If you believe it does not deserve its own sub-section, its your responsibility to find the proper place for it without removing it. 98.229.133.111 (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You did not respond to the concern. I said, "it is not wikiworthy as it is a blip on the timeline of history." That is a different issue than "it's verifiable." Therefore I am removing it again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to a policy that says we should remove verifiable information? 98.229.133.111 (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll go find it, I hope, but until then, it stays out. You should not add it back in until you get consensus here or it will be viewed as edit warring. So I am again removing the section. Leave it out until consensus is reached. Meantime, I'll go try to find that obvious policy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Notability is not temporary

"Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage from news sources. However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability - particularly for individuals known for one event (WP:BLP1E). For example, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage.

"Notability is not predictable: although a topic that does not meet this guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive substantial coverage in the future."

That may be it. It may be verifiable, but it is not notable. I am thinking there are other policies or guidelines also related. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I just found another instance of the group criticizing the choice of a school play, "Falsettos", so this seems to be a recurring event, not a one-time thing.   Will Beback  talk  20:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Newly created/added cat is POV/OR

Adding new cat Category:LGBT rights opposition is not appropriate here for reasons stated on the cat's Talk page section entitled, "Cat violates Wiki policy?"

Further, as illustrated on Concerned Women for America, the cat may be controversial, and cats are not used for controversial material. The existence of controversy evidences the cat is inappropriate for the page. In particular, WP:CAT says:

Particular considerations for categorizing articles:

• It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the {{Category unsourced}} template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate, or the {{Category relevant?}} template if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category.

Obviously, it is not "clear from verifiable information in the article" if the wiki community keeps removing it.

I urge and support removal of the cat, else I urge the addition of either or both cat templates shown above from WP:CAT.

I am repeating this on all pages in which this new cat was added so communities there can discuss. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Employee arrest

Could only find the sole 2008 Eagle Trib article on this incident. There is no follow-up story. What happened? Were the charges dropped? Was there a trial? Two years later the paucity of coverage makes me wonder why this is in the article... Lionel (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's in the article because it's notable. This was mighty weird behavior by a direct employee of MassResistance, not just a volunteer. Did I read correctly that he stripped down until he was almost naked? --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 10:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability in WP is based upon significant coverage in multiple sources, not on noteworthiness of content. The syandard for BLP is even higher: it requires robust sourcing. This content appears to fail WP:BLP due to sourcing. Lionel (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

On Wikiepdia, the notability of an article topic is determined largely by the existence of multiple sources. However the assertions within an article do not necessarily require multiple sources. The source in this case is a mainstream local paper, which would seem adequate for reporting on a local incident. The treatment of the matter is incomplete - we should say that the photography was done on behalf of his employer.   Will Beback  talk  00:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring of MassR ref

Westbender has repeatedly removed a ref by MassR in possible violation of WP:BRD. Will people please look at the situation and do what you think is best? Thanks.

There is the chance that despite the edit warring, Westbender was correct to remove the ref, and he cites WP:V#SELF. I think the next paragraph at WP:SELFPUB makes the MassR ref acceptable. It is possible past consensus has already approved the ref as well and may contain reasoning why.

Will people please look into the issue of whether or not the MassR ref should be restored to the article? At a minimum, in light of the edit warring, I think the ref should restored to the article until this discussion has concluded, and I ask someone to do so--myself I already reverted once and I choose not to edit war. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The sentence it references is the designation by the SPLC as a hate group. It is unlogical to have their response reference that. It would be logical for a sentence about their rebuttal, which is not in the article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps I'll draft one. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kim's comment above, and disagree with Westbender's comment in his edit summary: "no, the subject's opinion is irrelevant unless someone else says otherwise".

If

(1)organization A criticizes organization B, and

(2)organization B responds to the criticism, and

(3)B's response is published on a web page that B controls,

B's response is relevant in an article about B

and the web page is a reliable source for B's response.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, it would be helpful if LAEC could post a comment that isn't filled with multiple "edit warring" references attacking me. Just address the content on the article's talk page please. Second, there already are 3 sources that verify that MR was labeled a hate group. If the MR's reply is notable, then create a sentence that summarizes and sources their reply. That, in the end, would be much easier to do, rather than posting a vitriolic "edit warring" comment on the talk page. Westbender (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Please comply with WP:BRD next time. Bring your concern to Talk instead of edit warring it. You often have legitimate and even compelling concerns, but you still need to address them in a Wiki compliant manner.

And I think your removal of the MassR ref shows clear POV where you say, "Second, there already are 3 sources that verify that MR was labeled a hate group." If your problem was merely the four references, Wiki compliance would have led one to remove one of the other refs, like the dead one, but not the MassR one. The 4 refs were the SPLC, the pro-SPLC Bay Windows, a dead MSM source, and MassR. You alleged there were 4 refs and 3 is enough. You chose to remove the MassR ref. You edit warred to remove it. You did not remove the MSM ref that is a dead link. Together, I see that as pushing an agenda, even setting aside your pattern of reverting only my edits. The problem is not my comments on a Talk page--the problem is your agenda-driven edit and your edit warring to push it.

Per Kim van der Linde and Kevinkor2, I or someone will add additional information and cite to the MassR blog. Maybe you'll do it. That way it'll meet your concerns.

In the meantime, given the MSM source is a dead link and the criteria seems to be that 3 links is adequate, I'll now restore the MassR ref and remove the dead link. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, there is obviously no consensus to add the ref to the current sentence. So, could you please respect the consensus and remove the ref yourself? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"You edit warred to remove it." Dude, give it up already. Westbender (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the majority thinks the ref can be used to describe their response, so what st would be your suggestion we add to the article with regard to their response? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The majority of whom? The 3 people who happened to visit this page in the last 48 hours? Westbender (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Not even close to NPOV

This page isn't even close to NPOV.

If NPOV is the target, then the list of "Successes" should either be removed totally or there should be a balanced list of failures. Until then, this article is little more than propaganda advertising for MR.

Also, the leading part of the article is biased, and criticisms are relegated to a very tiny line or two at the bottom. Also not NPOV. Other versions have been proposed that are far more neutral, but some few seem to want to pick nits about anything critical.Super 7 - Everything else is just transport (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Your objections are interesting. The article lists 3 successes (Fistgate, Macys, Romney), 1 failure (1913) and 1 neutral event (ToBGLAD). The MassRes website lists 23 successes. This is far more that are represented in the article. It could be argued that there is insufficient treatment of their activities and that the section should be expanded. The lede is not intended to reflect an editor's personal opinion, but is required to summarize the content that is in the article: nothing more, nothing less. Looking at the article, and taking into account it's length, the lede is fine. Do you have any other issues? Lionel (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Restoration of Eagle Trib increases "failures" to 2. Lionel (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone just made a note: "the MassRes website lists 23 successes: let's incorporate them into the article".[2] We might say that they list 23 successes on their website, but we shouldn't include them unless they're found in secondary sources. Even then, a large number of items like that could swamp the article and we need to maintain balance for NPOV. It'd be best just to include the most notable issues, from either side, not every single battle on or lost.   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Who could've done a thing like that? I'm sure he, or she, assumed that only the notable "successes" were candidates for inclusion and that they would be reliably sourced. He, or she, could've also been making a boomerang point. But, I think I'll let the editor speak for themself.Lionel (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I took the statement "let's incorporate them into the article" at face value. If that is not the editor's intent then I don't know why he said that.   Will Beback  talk  23:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Brian Camenker

I've proposed merging Brian Camenker into this article. That subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines, and what notability he has is solely connected to this group. There's only a little content that doesn't duplicate what's already here. Any objections?   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ironic of the 3 MassRes articles, his may be the best sourced, with 4 solid sources. I think his article stands on it's own and I lean against merging. With the likely merge of the Fistgate article here, and subsequent addition of sourcing found at AfD, I think this article will be better sourced. Lionel (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem isn't with this article but with the fact that the Camenker article is short and mostly refers to his leadership of this organization. If you can improve that article enough to make the lack of independent notability less of an issue then I'll withdraw the proposal.   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with merge of BC to MR for reasons given by proposer. Any unique reliable BC sources would be helpful to MR article. AV3000 (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems very sensible nothing to indicate independent notability The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done since no objections were raised The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3