Talk:Watchmen on the Walls

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To do and research launch points[edit]

  • Many articles on WotW mention their ties to Scott Lively and the book The Pink Swastika. Research these ties and cite, if valid. Save research for new article on Lively and to expand article on book.
    • The article titled Watchmen on the Walls conference begins in Lynnwood linked below describes Lively as a co-founder of WotW, a California attorney and president of Defend the Family (link.) That website links to Abiding Truth (link,) which resolves to the same website.
  • The sponsoring church in Riga is the evangelical New Generation Church under pastor Alexey Ledyaev. Supposedly, New Generation Church has more than 200 sattelite churches throughout Eastern Europe, Israel, Argentina and the United States. Find cites.
  • Ledyaev is supposed to be a close friend to Pat Robertson and was allegedly invited to attend the 2006 National Prayer Breakfast hosted by President George Bush. Find cites.
  • Are there ties between WotW and and the murder of Satender Singh in July 2007? Serveral sources make this claim; can it be supported?
  • In June, 2004, three Russian speaking immigrants savagely beat a man in Seattle, Washington during the city's gay pride celebration. The assailants were all members of an evangelical church of Russian immigrants; at their trials, they claimed a religious duty to be intolerant of gay people (info.) Was this attacked linked to WotW?
  • Seattle papers have printed that Kirkland pastor Ken Hutcherson was a promoter of WotW and has spoken at their 2007-10-20 meeting in Lynnwood. Cite, and update article on Hutcherson to reflect this tie.
  • Does the organization have an English website and if so, provide a link. Possibly found with site Abiding Truth.
  • Are there any Reconstructionist and/or Dominionist groups who think that WotW is extreme even by their own standards? If so, who and why?

TechBear 03:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restarting this page. I had wanted to work on the old page before it got fast deleted. I was going to petition for it to be undeleted but there wasn't much useful content there anyways. henrymrx (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I found a cached version of the old article on Google. It was definitely NPOV and was properly deleted. TechBear 03:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cites and references that might be of use[edit]

Spangenthal-Lee, Jonah (2007-10-17). "Weirdo Watch: Virulent Anti-Gay Group Comes to Town". The Stranger. Retrieved 2007-10-21. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

"Weirdo Watch: Virulent Anti-Gay Group Comes to Town". The Stranger. 2007-10-17. Retrieved 2007-10-21. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Potts, Andrew M. (2007-10-11). "The Curtain Rises And Out Come The Haters". Sydney Star Observer. Retrieved 2007-10-21. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Holtz, Jackson (2007-10-19). "Watchmen on the Walls conference begins in Lynnwood". The Everett Herald. Retrieved 2007-10-21. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Sanchez, Casey. "The Latvian Connection: West Coast Anti-Gay Movement on the March". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 2007-10-21. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

TechBear 03:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"No clashes between protesters, Watchmen on the Walls". The Seattle Times, Local News. The Seattle Times Company. 2007-10-21. Retrieved 2007-10-22. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Jeeny (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC[edit]

Should SPLC really be considered a neutral source for this article? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Source and POV[edit]

This article relies on one source (SPLC), which is heavily critical of Watchmen on the Walls. As such, it is inherently biased and violates WP:POV. I propose deleting the bulky quotation and the reference to the organization being a hate group. Unless a majority disagrees with these deletions, I'll remove that material in a couple days.  EJNOGARB  22:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the SPLC is one of two sources. The other is the website of the WotW itself. I think the quotation is relevant. However, the article could certainly be expanded. LadyofShalott 01:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The template is for articles with either only one source or one which is dominated by one source. Since this source is inherently biased against the organization, it violates this rule and WP:POV as well. It would be great if more material were added, but frankly, the organization is so small that the first paragraph would suffice without the SPLC content. Furthermore, it is easy to integrate criticism (should it exist) into a stub this small; it doesn't need its own section.  EJNOGARB  01:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the removal of the template. I leave those silly quote templates alone if someone else uses them, but actually think they are stupid and just blockquote myself. I've been trying to find some more sources, and was able to source SPLC's categorization of WotW as a hate group with the article that was already listed as an external link. Hoever, I'm having trouble finding much else in the way of reliable sources. I haven't been able to find a source for the co-founding of the group, even on the group's own website. LadyofShalott 02:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the criticism exists. I'm not overly concerned about a separate section or not - I was just trying to make it more organized as it hopped back and forth previously. LadyofShalott 02:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no connection to this organization, but I think that this stub doesn't deserve to be dominated by criticism from a biased source. It isn't fair. Even if you were to improve the citations, I don't think the stub itself would be improved.  EJNOGARB  02:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even if the quote is deleted, we should leave the sentence stating that SPLC has categorized it as a hate group. LadyofShalott 02:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's at least delete the quote, then. If we can qualify the SPLC and its hate group allegation, I think it'd be okay. For example, "Watchmen on the Walls is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, though it does not advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activity." This comes from the SPLC article that says being on their list "does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity." What do you think?  EJNOGARB  02:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That particular phrasing ssounds like synthesis. How about "Watchmen on the Walls is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center,(ref1) even though WotW says it does not advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activity."(ref2) LadyofShalott 02:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good, only I don't know where you'd find the second reference. The addition to the original sentence doesn't mention WotW, but rather it's a blanket statement by SPLC. Maybe: "Watchmen on the Walls is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center,(ref1) though its listing "does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity."(ref2). The second reference comes directly as a quote from SPLC main article.  EJNOGARB  03:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could go with that. I think if we could find a source for the second part of my fomulation, it would be somewhat preferable, but agree it could be problematic to find. Your most recent suggestion sounds like a workable solution. LadyofShalott 03:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to. I'll make these changes and see if anyone else will weigh in.  EJNOGARB  03:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan. LadyofShalott 03:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thought that would wrap it up, but I thought this would be a good addition from the first reference: "Leaders of the Watchmen on the Walls movement insist they do not hate gays — or anyone else." I thought it would be a good second sentence, but since we're discussing everything here in minute detail, I didn't want to unilaterally add it.  EJNOGARB  03:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I agree, but think if we use it, we need to add more about what they say they do think about gays. Doing all that would probably be a good expansion to this little stub. LadyofShalott 03:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The additions by User:Benjiboi have expanded the problem with this article relying on negative criticism from a biased source. In addition to the problems listed above (which Benjiboi reverted without using the talkpage), this portion violates wp:soapbox: "Conversion therapy is discouraged by mainstream mental health organization as not only causing harm to LGBT individuals but that the advancement of conversion therapy itself causes social harm by disseminating inaccurate views about sexual orientation and the ability of gay and bisexual people to lead happy, healthy lives." It is irrelevant to this article and needs to be deleted.  EJNOGARB  02:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I explained to you my take on the consensus but turns out that content won an independent journalism award so I doubt it should be removed at all. As for the conversion therapy content it's a bit clunky but I'd rather add more content and see if other sources don't help us rework that first. We certainly need to explain what it is and that it is controversial etc. Oops you already deleted it, no worrries, I've reworked that as well so the clunky bits are pushed into a footnote. -- Banjeboi 02:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity."[edit]

This disclaimer is quite disingenuous as SPLC quite clearly means that as a blanket disclaimer for all groups but in WOTW case they detail how violent the group is. -- Banjeboi 01:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The qualifier is appropriate because it's a direct quote from SPLC, and neither they nor any reliable source provides an example of violence or criminal activity. Furthermore, it's a fair qualifier because an accusation of being a hate group is quite serious, and in this case, coming from a biased organization.  EJNOGARB  01:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why don't we compare and contrast what the SPLC actually states about this group instead of relying on a diclaimer intended for a list of groups. This may give us a better idea of how to proceed on this. SPLC shows about 81 entries - many likely duplicates - and the words that seems to repeat are "virulently anti-gay", "an international extremist anti-gay movement", "hate group", "an international organization that is ferociously anti-gay", "multinational anti-gay organization", "an international and incredibly virulent anti-gay organization with strong ties to Latvia", "an international group of anti-gay Christian extremists", "anti-gay hate group ", "an international coalition of anti-gay militants based in Latvia that has a strong presence on the West Coast of the United States", "150 demonstrators accused Watchmen on the Walls of promoting violence and hatred toward gays and lesbians", "In Fall 2007, the magazine exposed the “Watchmen on the Walls,” a virulent anti-gay group fomenting hatred among fellow Slavic immigrants in Sacramento."

That last ones a gem, by the way as Utne gave "its award for best U.S. periodical in the “In-Depth/Investigative Reporting” category of its 2007 Utne Independent Press Awards. Publications cannot apply for the Utne Awards — Utne’s editors make the selections completely on their own initiative." and it was for ... "The Latvian Connection West Coast Anti-Gay Movement on the March". The same article you were keen to delete. -- Banjeboi 02:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources[edit]

SPLC, I've added a few but only got throught the first ten of 80 links. More to follow. -- Banjeboi 02:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

The Conversion Therapy Note is redundant. (It also may have WP:POV, WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK and single-paragraph [1] issues.) Notes are used for "explanatory notes that would be awkward in the body text." [2] The material in Notes is not explanatory, it is a repetition. Lionelt (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not redundant but an expansion on which mainstream groups share the view and what that view is. This would be undue if pushed into the main text, ergo it is put in a footnote to avoid that issue. You first tried to delete it, then dispute it and now you seem to be arguing about it. That really seems like a case of you simply not liking it rather than it being untrue or misrepresented. -- Banjeboi 01:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is now overshadowed by the notability question. However, I'll respond for the record. Notes should be used for an explanation. By your own admission, the note in question is an expansion. In any event, Notes by their very structure and placement give substantial emphasis to their point, i.e. they stand out, disproportionately. The effect is even more pronounced than a one sentence paragraph. To use a Note to explain the opposition point of view is a prime candidate for POV. This article is about the people, activities and accomplishmments of the Watchmen. If the reader wants more information about criticism of conversion therapy, they can click on the internal link. Lionelt (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed[edit]

In spite of my cleanup tags being summarily removed, the issues with this article remain.

  • The material claiming the Watchmen were "presiding over anti-gay rallies" is inaccurate. The source never states that the Watchmen "presided" over the rally. In fact it says, "the Watchmen and their supporters gathered." Gathered is not presided. The source mentions only 2 rallies in 2005 and 2006. The plural "rallies" should be singular, "rally."
Another reading of the Sanchez shows that the quote is present, as well as an apparent inconsistency regarding "preside" versus "gather" and how many rallies the Watchmen attended. Sanchez doesn't seem reliable: poor journalism. Has she been published in any reliable newspapers? Lionelt (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read "Just the Facts...," twice now, and did not read "happy and healthy lives." Considering the document is 20 pages long, it is paramount that we provide the reader adequate means to verify the source, in this case the page number. WP:V Otherwise, the inclusion might as well be WP:OR.
  • The cite for "Just the Facts..." is incorrect. The document itself suggests the correct cite on page ii:

Suggested bibliographic reference: Just the Facts Coalition. (2008). Just the facts about sexual orientation and youth: A primer for principals, educators, and school personnel.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved from www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html.

The Coalition of 12 organizations merely endorsed the document: that is hardly authorship.

I know that together we can address these issues and greatly improve the article. Lionelt (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed your unique take on editing - that deleting material you don't apparently agree trumps policies on verifiability and sourcing - suggests that this article will too improve because in defense of the content even more sourecs will have to be added, and now you're trying the delete the whole article, good luck with that. -- Banjeboi 04:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Banjeboi, normally I elect not to respond to personal insinuations about my motivations, but in the hopes of getting you refocused on improving the article, I'll share something with you. I will confess, I was driving-by when I noticed the Note in this article was obviously redundant. At that time, I was totally unaware of the other problems with the article. However, when you reverted the removal of the Note, I read the article more carefully and found errors, some technical. I will admit, I was taken aback when you reverted purely technical errors, eg authorship of the "Just the Facts..." source. It was then that I noticed the article is POV. I attempted to find sources to expand the article and make it more balanced, but there are precious few reliable sources for this group: even the group's website is broken. My research showed that this is a rather marginal group with only one minor, barely newsworthy, local event to their fame. Now: would you like to participate in improving the article, or are you content to criticize and analyze my personal editing style? BTW, thank you for wishing me luck in "trying the delete the whole article" (sic), but I won't need it. I have WP:NOTABLE. Lionelt (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable?[edit]

I stepped back and re-read the article and did not let myself get tripped up on the factual and POV problems. I found myself asking, "Why is this in WP?" (WP:NOTABLE) I went to the official webpage to see how the article could be expanded, and it generated a bunch of errors. Not a good sign. Newspaper coverage of this group is practically non-existent. The coverage, a single article, focuses on a single event in Lynnwood where 100 members of the group gathered. The only reason this made it into the newspaper is that protestors showed up. This can't possibly be the threshold for inclusion in WP. Most of the sources are from SPLC, not exactly a neutral group, not known for it's editorial review. IMO, a substantial part of this article seems to be a criticism of conversion therapy (WP:COATRACK), as evidenced by the promintly placed advisory in the Notes section. Is this really an "international Christian movement" or have we just bought into the hype? Lionelt (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding notability, they are listed as a hate-group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. I would assert that makes it plenty notable. As for other issues, let's work on the article. TechBear (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Watchmen_on_the_Walls&oldid=1208354183"