Talk:PFLAG/Archive 1

Archive 1

Intersex

Resolved

I removed "intersex" from the article as PFLAG's Vision and Mission does not mention intersex at all. However, they do support intersex people and their families: [1]. Hyacinth 21:24, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reworded and readded. Benjiboi 12:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

pronunciation?

Resolved

how do most pronounce this?

like "pee-flag"? or like "pee-eff-el-ey-gee"?

thanks – ishwar  (speak) 23:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It's pronounced like "pee flag". - Haunti (give'r) 18:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

But don't pee on the flag... that would be flag desecration, and not so nice. :-) *Dan T.* 21:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of weasel words box

Resolved

In regards to the weasel words box placed on the article by User:Chooserr.

While not claiming to be an expert and admittedly being a novice and only occasional Wikipedia users, I have carefully reviewed the main PFLAG Site [2] and the weasel words entry and I must respectfully suggest that it's present use by User:Chooserr/Babelto register an his/her political or theological disagreement with the subject of a given article, as was not it's intended use.

I have contacted User talk:Chooserr and seen her/his reasoning but still do feel this box should be removed. Thank you CyntWorkStuff 20:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not denying that I have personal beliefs (If I were I wouldn't put anything on my babel) however so does Cynt and so does everyone else no matter how hard they try to hide it - That is NOT the issue here. The issue is that there are certain weaselly words in this article, which should be changed. The template isn't supposed to stay up there it is more a request for help because I can't find a way to fix it myself. Chooserr 22:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please say which words you think are weasal words so they can be removed, turned into cited quotations, or otherwise fixed or discussed. Without stating your specific complaint, there is no way to discuss or fix this. -- Samuel Wantman 22:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Below please find the full text of Chooserr|Chooserr's remarks to me when I first noticed and asked about the box --

I personally felt that template was needed because of a few words which seemed to cover up the truth of the matter such as "education" on the summary of their mission. Why would that word be weaselly? Because it implies that they are enlightening people by their work. They are providing a political message not education. Hope this helps, Chooserr 01:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the PFLAG Site, I see that THEY say that is part of their mission and that is all the original writer of the article reports back. No claims of enlightenment etc. are made on the part of the article's original writer. So I believe that in this case the weasel words box has been improperly used. CyntWorkStuff 00:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the weasel tag. The word "education" is not a weasel word. I believe Chooserr is arguing that the word is POV perhaps? But I ask, is the phrase "abstience only education" POV? Look through the google results for "education" and "adovocacy" together. It is very common to use education this way. I seriously see no issue what so ever here, and especially not a single weasel word. --Andrew c 01:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Abstinence only education is a programm hosted by schools in the same manner as sex education it doesn't guarantee knowledge and the way this sounds is different. Also it isn't only the education part which I believe is weaselly but the "support" and "advocacy" bits as well. And if it is capable of being quoted from their website then it should be. Chooserr 02:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are barking up the wrong tree here. Look at Association of MultiEthnic Americans, and Association of Hispanic Arts, or any other page from the google link above. It is simply common usage when refering to NPO and such. The groups advocate and educate on their issue. There is nothing wrong with this usage. It is common and unambiguous. I don't see how it is problematic here. Please take a step back and explain it to me again from the beginning. I seriously am missing your point. Sorry for the confusion.--Andrew c 02:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I just found this article, but after looking at the second I'd suggest that they find a source for "most disadvataged" at least. Plus most of it looks like it should be quoted but isn't. Maybe I should edit there as well... Regardless though, two wrongs don't make a right so maybe we should work on this article first then we can work on the other two. Chooserr 02:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretty please explain it to me. You say that this usage is a "wrong", but as I said above, I completely do not understand your position. So once again I ask, can you slow down and explain it to me? The purpose of showing you these pages was to illustrate the common usage of these words in this context. You replied by saying you thought it was "wrong" in those contexts as well, but you never said WHY you thought it was "wrong". I still think that this is a very common phrase and the use of "education" and "support" and "advocacy" are not problematic at all. What do single-issue groups do if not advocate, educate, and support their position? You do not have to agree with a position for an organization to advocate it. Similarly, a position doesn't even have to be factual correct for it to be advocated. I could educate you on creation science. I could say the Discovery Institute advocates intellegent design, but neither statement implies the positions being advocated or educated are factually true. It's NPOV to say an advocacy group advocates for their position. It is not NPOV to doubt what an organization does just because you disagree with their position.--Andrew c 19:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I modified the opening to be a total quote of the PFLAG mission statement. -- Samuel Wantman 21:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

While that solves the conflict for the time being, article intros are not supposed to be heavy on the quotes, at least thats how I read Wikipedia:Lead section.--Andrew c 13:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Opposition

I added a short section on opposition, mentioning the Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX) group and linking to their Wiki article. I think it's relevant since they are so obviously set up as an opposite to PFLAG. But I kept it short, mainly just a link, because they are not the subject of this article. T-bonham 08:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Which Nation?

Resolved

Does "nationwide" mean "thoughout America?" Britmax 15:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

yes, I've switched it to US. Benjiboi 16:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)