Jump to content

Talk:Alliance Defending Freedom/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Edits on completely non-neutral Williams v. Vidmar section

For the record, the section on Williams v. Vidmar read as follows before I edited it:

In November 2004, the ADF filed a lawsuit (Williams v. Vidmar) on behalf of a Cupertino, California elementary school teacher against his school principal and school board members.[1] The ADF issued a press release regarding the lawsuit which questionable sources say was entitled "Declaration of Independence Banned from Classroom",[2] while the ADF contended that the actual title was "Oh, the horror! California teacher provides students with historical American documents," with the other title appearing only on the ADF website.[3] The ADF was successful in defending the accuracy of its press release, against claims that it contained errors.[3] In August 2005, the lawsuit was settled.[4]

A partisan organization of parents within the school district expressed unhappiness with the lawsuit and the role of the ADF in it.[5]

This isn't even pretending to be neutral; it was obviously written or edited by someone who has a great deal of sympathy with the ADF. I made the following changes:

1. Changed the confusing back-and-forth section on the press release to reflect what ADF appears to acknowledge, which is that the controversial title was used on ADF's own web page. The characterization of Media Matters as a "questionable" source is also gone. That's a matter of opinion which is better covered on the page for Media Matters itself.

2. Deleted the assertion that ADF "successfully" defended the accuracy of its press release, which cites as support for that proposition...the ADF's assertion that it had done so. We don't use the editorial voice of an article to uncritically repeat the disputed assertions of a party to a controversy.

3. Deleted the reference to the complaining parents as a "partisan" organization, which isn't supported by the reference linked. I suspect someone just wanted to downplay the criticism in question, and just tossed in that epithet without bothering to back it up.

Now, no more making this page into an ADF propaganda front, please. SS451 (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I like your edits.
I do not know if you added it originally, but that Media Matters link has to be removed. MM is not a reliable source for the purpose used here. If something MM links is newsworthy, then we should use that link, not MM. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed I just removed it. It was duplicative anyway. The ADF cite already there was all that's needed to provide a RS for the assertion made. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Fine by me. I didn't put that ref in to begin with, and my concern was not so much with sourcing as it was with the tendentious tone of the section's text. SS451 (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed following sentence The ADF defended the accuracy of its press release against claims that it contained errors. It is a red herring, and the referred document is a red herring as well. The ref did not defend the "accuracy" of its press release. It merely reiterated its tstatements. Moereover, it falsely represented the settlement; essentially lying "by omission", failing to mention the third, actuallty, decisive clause of the settlement: namely, that the school has the final say about the aprropriateness of instruction. The title of the press release is a public stunt, clearly intended to harm the opposite party by appealing to alleged desecration American glory. In fact, the title is a lie of overgeneralization: the principal was not against the Declaration of Independence; she was agains POV-pushing by means of handpicking a biased colleciton of quotations out of broader context. And the settlement clearly stated that she was in her full rights to do so. THe last part of the alleged "rebuttal" is a pearl of nonsense: Prior to Mr. Williams filing his lawsuit, there was no clear statement by the School District of this policy, and Principal Vidmar clearly acted in violation of such policy when she prohibited him from distributing the Declaration of Independence to his students. -- How the principal could have violated a policy if there was none? I would suggest against hiring such stupid lawyers. (That's why Williams failed to win :-) Last Lost (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. To clarify the accordance to wikipedia policies, the sentence was removed because it is the judgement of the reference, not facts supported by the reference. 16:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Last Lost (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ Second Amended Complaint, Williams v. Vidmar et al., Alliance Defense Fund
  2. ^ FOX peddles false report that California school 'banned Declaration of Independence because it mentions God', www.mediamatters.org
  3. ^ a b The facts regarding Williams v. Vidmar, retrieved April 11, 2007, Alliance Defense Fund
  4. ^ Settlement: Historical American documents can be taught in Cupertino schools, Alliance Defense Fund
  5. ^ We, the Parents, Press Release 4 at the Wayback Machine (archived September 28, 2007)

Bishop Case

I added info about the Bishop case noting that the Tulsa County District Court Clerk, Sally Howe Smith, had sought legal representation from the ADF and asked the U.S. district court to admit four attorneys- Brian Raum, Dale Schowengerdt, Jim Campbell, and Austin Nimocks- pro hac vice. I included as references links to a reply brief to the plaintiffs' opposition to the motion, and a link to ADF'S marriage map. (While the ADF marriage map is biased concerning its legal arguments; it is reliable concerning statements of fact, such as their statements about representing litigants in lawsuits.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.217.189 (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(i)The scribd document cited is neither a WP:RS, nor makes any direct mention of ADF involvement. (ii) The 'Marriage Map' lists it as only one (and only a 'pending' case besides) out of dozens of cases asserting ADF involvement. Therefore there is really no good reason to mention this case at all, let alone mention it prominently in the lead. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

quotes for Human Events citation

1: "Whether the case involves displays of crosses on public property, the rights of hospital workers to decline participation in abortions, or parents' desires for their children to opt out of sex education classes in public schools, ADF is on the job in the courtroom. "

2: "Earlier this month, the ADF joined with the Family Foundation of Virginia to send a letter to Chesapeake, Va., Mayor Alan Krasnoff offering to provide pro bono legal assistance if the city adopts a policy for invitations to public forums that subsequently is challenged in court. Already, the Freedom Forum Religion Foundation, a secular humanist group, has threatened to sue Chesapeake over its policy of opening city meetings with a prayer."

---some jerk on the Internet (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

New Name

I added a line at the end of the of the introductory paragraph reflecting ADF's recent rebranding. THe organization's name and logo have changed, but I am not a skillful Wikipediaer, so maybe another volunteer can make the appropriate changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.81.2 (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Article issues

I can't believe this article is rated "C-class" by any WikiProject. It relies highly on primary sources, or those made by the group itself. How is this organization even notable? Bearian (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

They have been and are at the forefront of representing religious litigants in the courts on numerous and widely publicized issues. Suggesting that they are somehow not notable belies a heavy bias you have against them - rather than the singular goal of improving an Wikipedia articles. I'm removing the "notability" message at the beginning of the article because of this fact. Nodekeeper (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Bearian is a sound editor here, I see no reason not to assume good faith. That said: the keeper is right about ADF. These folks are well-funded and very prominent in pushing (aggressively) the Christian Right position in all lawsuits, and are as notable in certain areas of the law as Americans United, if not quite at the ACLU level, on the other side. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

re: Lisa Biron

This 'Lisa Biron' topic does not belong on the ADF wikipedia page.

ADF didn’t “distance itself” from this person, the distance exists as a point of fact. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/11/21/adf-attorney-caught-with-child-porn-not-really/ "Point to it as yet another example of an anti-gay, “pro-family” Christian covering up their sexual predation? Absolutely. But the “association” with the ADF is pretty weak here. It appears that she was the local attorney who worked with them on a single case. She didn’t work for them, she was involved in a single case. The ADF works just like the ACLU does in this regard, contracting with a local “cooperating attorney” to handle such cases. If an attorney in Keokuk, Iowa who once worked with the ACLU on a single case was caught doing something terrible, we would find it ridiculous if someone said that proved something bad about the ACLU; the same is true here. Hammer her, but the ADF has no real connection to this."

Original source: http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/2471427-95/biron-manchester-according-court 'listed her employer in court documents as Donais Law Offices in Manchester.' 'Biron recently served on the board of directors at a Manchester Christian school,'

Does including this add legitimate factual information to this organization’s profile. Insisting on including this at all on this organizations page is like blaming the DC Center for the LGBT Community when one of its many volunteers shot up the Family Research Council building back in July. If you think Lisa Biron is that important then perhaps a a Lisa Biron page should be created.

Lisa Biron is in private practice and has never been employed by Alliance Defending Freedom. http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/20/u-s-family-values-lawyer-accused-of-taking-young-teen-to-canada-for-sex/

Orangemike - Per your change referencing "distancing itself" ADF did not distance themselves - The press writer added in that phrase. The actual statement from ADF (in the story linked above) said that this attorney never worked there. There was no reason to “distance themselves” because the distance is a fact. It appears that the false impression of a closer linkage has been stressed by blog writers. The burden of proof is on those making the case for a closer relationship to demonstrate that closer relationship, not on those stating a fact that the relationship is not as close as others want to make it. This loosely “associated” person’s legal trouble has no place on an objective page describing the history and work of this large and fairly consequential organization.

Are there plans on including this on the ACLU page. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090701673.html - An ACLU Chief Gets 7 Years for Child Porn. Are there plans to post about a criminal conviction of an actual ACLU Chief versus posting irrelevant information about an individual that has never been employed by organization featured on this page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Think claimed (talk • contribs) 00:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

A stronger argument to leave the Lisa Biron incident off, at least for now, is Wikipedia:RECENTISM. Information regarding the relationship is still coming out, preventing the writing of an encyclopedic entry with historical perspective. Was it just the one ADF case Lisa Biron was involvd with? Who identified Lisa Biron for legal representation, ADF or the involved church? Indeed, after some historical perspective and some more facts, it might be possible to write, "A 'guilt by association' smear was attempted by the media against ADF in November, 2012..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmalak (talk • contribs) 01:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Right up until that last sentence, you were making a lot of sense. --Orange Mike | Talk 08:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Besides the primary source court record of that land-use case that lists Lisa Biron and ADF as separate entities, here are two sources from the press that support the idea that Lisa Biron was associated with Liberty Assembly of God, and ADF also just happened to be helping in the same case:
  1. [[1]] "Lisa Biron, one of the church's lawyers"
  2. [[2]] "According to court documents, she represented the Liberty Assembly of God church in Concord earlier this year in a tax dispute with the city, working alongside the Alliance Defending Freedom" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmalak (talk • contribs) 15:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
But the press coverage makes it clear that the church was referred to Biron by the ADF, implying some degree of association and endorsement. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Ref and quote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmalak (talk • contribs) 16:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/20/u-s-family-values-lawyer-accused-of-taking-young-teen-to-canada-for-sex/ "Pastor Jim Guzofski of Destiny Christian Church in Concord. When his church was embroiled in a tax dispute, he called the Alliance Defending Freedom, a coalition of Christian lawyers, and was put in touch with Ms. Biron, he said." This was not something the press made up, this is something Jim Guzofski told a major Canadian press outlet. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The ADF works just like the ACLU does in this regard, contracting with a local “cooperating attorney” to handle such cases.
MichaelMalak - you added the section back in. Again...I'm having a hard time seeing the value it contributes to the page. I could understand if she was a an actual employees, on staff and a direct representative of ADF but as the original press source and many other press sources indicate they happened to be working on that one case. (She worked for an independent law firm representing herself. That lawfirm has since "distanced themselves" from here by terminating her employment. ADF did no such termination because she was never an 'employee nor agent' of ADF. This would fit better on a Lisa Biron page or the page of the lawfirm she worked for.
A professional referral is a strong enough relationship for, e.g., a civil lawsuit. It speaks to the lack of vetting of the "thousands of attorneys" across the country on the ADF referral list. By specifying on Wikipedia the relationship between Lisa Biron and ADF as precisely as possible, it serves two purposes: 1) Those looking to verify whether the initial left-wing media reports (e.g. DailyMail, DailyKos) were true can get an in-depth answer here, and 2) It will remind nationwide organizations the responsibility they have to vett associates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmalak (talk • contribs) 19:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Proof of lack of vetting? That would also go for the law firm that employed her. Most organizations have extensive vetting criteria...however that would mean both ADF and the lawfirm she worked for found nothing. So again the burden of proof is on proving they don't vet vs saying posting this will teach organizations a lesson. As with many stories like this the person had nothing before in their history. I agree with your recommendation of Recentism especially since this is a current and active criminal case. We must let the courts do there job and prove or disprove the charges. Justice will be served. But until then it is best to see with the chips fall and what additional details come out. I still feel the link to this page is week. She had direct associations with the law firm she work for or the school she was on their board, etc - Yet this topic is being posted on the page she had week affiliations with and the criminal charges are not associated with at all. Now if the abuse was related to cases or clients that would be another thing - but the original press release clearly stated that was not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Think claimed (talk • contribs) 23:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

As stated above...using the same logic...are there plans on including this on the ACLU page. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090701673.html - An ACLU Chief Gets 7 Years for Child Porn. Are there plans to post about a criminal conviction of an actual ACLU Chief versus posting non-relevant information about an individual that has never been employed by organization featured on this page. (This is my main argument as for why this section should not be on this organizations page.) And Wikipedia:RECENTISM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Think claimed (talk • contribs) 18:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Orangemike: The last sentence was in reference to the previous statement: "The false impression of a closer linkage has been manufactured by blogs" It was not pointed at you personally - sorry if there was confusion. Thank you for the dialogue ...it truly makes wikipedia great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.239.13 (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Lisa Byron take 2

I removed it from section "Organization" per WP:UNDUE. This section is for describing the organization, not organization's wives, pets, lawyers, or summer homes, period. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

And I've restored it until we can decide where it should go, per WP:BRD. Your only objection seems to be where it should be placed in the article, so where do you suggest? Dougweller (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I see. sorry. You are right. Make a separate section, if you think it is important piece. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


Re: " allegedly brought" (in the article). Since she got herself a sentence, can we get rid of "allegedy" and restrict to facts found in court? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: "organization was embroiled in a controversy " If it is so, the article must focus on the controversy, rather than on Lisa. Lisa Biron has her own article. This section should focus on the impact of the controversy on the organization. (If there was little impact, the section is out, per WP:NOTNEWS.) Staszek Lem (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at

WP:NPOVN#SPLC comments removed at Alliance Defending Freedom - should have added this weeks ago. Doug Weller (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Funding

"The ADF, which according to filings had an income of almost $40m last year, is funded by benefactors including Erik Prince, founder of the Blackwater private security giant, the Covenant Foundation, which is financed by a leading member of the Texas Christian right, James Leininger, and the Bolthouse Foundation, a charity that rejects evolution"

from this Guardian article, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/02/abortion-debate-dorries-campaign

I thought it might be good to add some information on this but I'm new to all this Wikipedia stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.41.164 (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2012‎

Much more on ADF finances and its founding here: http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/05/01/3429448/alliance-defending-freedom/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.206.118 (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Changing Mission

The ADF's old FAQ used to say they were only doing legal aid:

"This means that, while we defend legislative initiatives pertaining to our mission in court, and join forces with allies in many legal endeavors, Alliance Defending Freedom refrains from participating in or promoting any type of legislation or political parties, including handing out voter guides or reviews of judges. Alliance Defending Freedom also does not lobby government officials."

Their FAQ now says thy advise legislators:

"This means that, while we may provide legal advice to legislators and allies or defend legislative initiatives pertaining to our mission in court, and join forces with allies in many legal endeavors, Alliance Defending Freedom refrains from participating in or promoting any type of legislation or political parties, including handing out voter guides or reviews of judges. Alliance Defending Freedom also does not lobby government officials."

What this seems to mean in practice is shopping model bills to oppose transgender student protections (http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/?CID=82478) and set up state "religious freedom restoration" laws (http://national.deseretnews.com/article/3269/here8217s-why-your-state-may-be-expanding-religious-freedom-protections-this-year.html).

Does someone want to take a crack at putting some appropriate wording together about this?

It's probably also highly relevant to add the extensive work ADF has done with the Coalition of Christian Colleges and Universities parallel to the Becket Fund re. the HHS contraceptive mandate, and other things since ADF has a senior attorney on the CCCU board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.206.118 (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Alliance Defending Freedom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

List of cases

This article has a section called "Notable cases". Out of the dozens (hundreds?) ADF has been involved in, these have been selected. But on what basis have they been selected? The heading sounds like it's based on the WP definition of notability, but many of them do not have their own article, and thus are presumed to be non-notable. I tried removing the non-notable ones, but User:Michaelmalak reverted my change. Thoughts? StAnselm (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to the talk page. List inclusion criteria are generally less stringent than article criteria WP:LISTCRITERIA, but still WP:SECONDARY sources are required. WP:SECONDARY is not always sufficient, for lists should not simply accumulate trivia. But included in your initial culling were landmark cases such as Elane Photography v. Willock. I'd be willing to consider shortening the list, but based on WP:REL. Perhaps to avoid confusion the list should be re-titled as "Relevant cases" rather than "Notable cases"? Michaelmalak (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Elane Photography v. Willock is bluelinked, but it doesn't have an article, so who's to say that it's a "landmark" case? I'm not saying it isn't, but there should be an article on it. You mention WP:LISTCRITERIA, but surely the one we have to use here is Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. That was the reason for my pruning. StAnselm (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Examples of cooperation

User:DrFleischman, WP:PRIMARY sources are allowed in Wikipedia as long as they are not used to establish notability and as long as they are not used to support WP:ORIGINAL. In the case of G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board, notability is established by the existence of that WP:ANCHOR and the numerous secondary sources cited therein. No independent research is required within the amicus briefs; their mere existence and titles ("filed on behalf of petitioner") is all that is needed to establish that ADF was on the same side as Women's Liberation Front.

Also, regarding "although", the example of SPLC is an example of a liberal organization being on the opposing side of an issue that ADF, a conservative organization, is on, and the examples of WoLF and ACLU are contrasting examples where liberal or left-leaning organizations are on the same side of an issue as ADF.

My intention after resolution on this talk page is to revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alliance_Defending_Freedom&type=revision&diff=762285157&oldid=762284618 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alliance_Defending_Freedom&type=revision&diff=762284618&oldid=762284189

Michaelmalak (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  • "Although": "Although" only makes sense if the lead is viewed through a liberal-conservative prism, but that's not what the content is about. One side of the "although" was an accusation that ADF is anti-gay. The other was about whether ADF found common ground with other groups, such as on matters of religious books in prison. The two are not opposing in any sense when you consider ADF's mission. "Although" implies a false sense of opposition. It's the equivalent of saying that the Catholic Church opposes abortion "although" it also opposes the death penalty. No. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Gloucester case: I don't understand your reference to WP:ANCHOR, but noteworthiness is usually established by finding reliable, independent secondary sources covering the topic. As these are primary sources, yes they can be used, but they don't establish that the content they support merits inclusion, and certainly not in the lead section, which is supposed to be a summary of the most important aspects of the subject. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it should be included. You're not suggesting that we include a listing of every single case in which ADF has filed an amicus brief, are you? In the first paragraph??? Finally, this is misuse of primary sources because the sources don't explicitly say that ADF found common ground with WLF. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • ACLU: The content saying that ADF found common ground with the ACLU was misleading because the cited source also said that ADF promoted a publication called “The A.C.L.U. vs. America." and accuses the ACLU of “attacking religious expression” and “protecting child pornographers and pedophiles.” We'd need to include this balancing content. I was thinking of putting all of this content into a new "Relations with the ACLU" section, but it seemed like undue weight. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The "although" is not critical. The mere juxtaposition in your original edit is sufficient.
  • Again, Gloucester has its own section on another page (which I linked from this article), with its own secondary sources. Because of that linking, it's not necessary to clutter this page with repeats of those secondary sources, but I will if that would establish notability here.
  • It may be appropriate to add a couple of words indicating that the ACLU does not typically agree with ADF.
My original goal was to make clear that ADF doesn't exist solely to be "virulently anti-gay" as implied by that inclusion in the lead. Then, when the complaint was that I provided only one example for common ground, I added a second example. No, it is not necessary to produce an exhaustive list of common ground cases in the opening paragraph to demonstrate that there is more than one case of common ground.
An alternative solution to all this is to move the "virulently anti-gay" criticism out of the lead and into the body of the article. But if it is in the lead, I contend it needs to be balanced out, and presently there is a cn that needs to be resolved.
Michaelmalak (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand your neutrality concern about the SPLC's comment. I'm not aware of anyone disputing their assessment, and the preceding sentence makes clear that ADF's mission is more than just anti-gay. Maybe we should add a sentence summarizing the positions ADF has taken in the various cases listed in the "Notable cases" section? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Problem is the lead. Prior to my edits, there was one secondary source criticism and no secondary source support. And the secondary source criticism was harsh and limited in scope, implying (since it was in first paragraph of the lead) that that was all ADF does. If the use of the three primary sources to support the second example of common ground is not sufficient (and I'm not yet convinced that they are not), then the "virulently anti-gay" quote needs to be moved somewhere else. Perhaps the sentence "ADF opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions, as well as adoption by same-sex couples based on their belief that children are best raised by a married mother and father" can be moved out of the second paragraph into a new third paragraph, with that new paragraph ending with the "virulently anti-gay" quote. Michaelmalak (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
On the contrary, the lead as it stood (and currently stands) has one long, pro-ADF quote (from ADF itself) and one short, anti-ADF quote (from the SPLC). So from that perspective it's arguably more pro-ADF than anti. But, our neutrality policy actually doesn't require strict equality in that sense. Instead, our job is to represent views in rough proportion to their prevalence. ADF has been criticized more than it has been praised, then our article should reflect that. Plus, being called "virulently anti-gay" isn't necessarily a criticism, if you're of a particular persuasion. It's really descriptive more than anything else. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Alliance Defending Freedom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Bias

As it exists this article should be flagged as biased, as it portrays the ADF in nothing but a positive light. Given that the group opposes the separation of church and state and has promoted anti-gay legislation around the world, a section on criticism is needed for balance. Dismalscholar (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

New SPLC statement

Released on the 13th: "The following statement is from SPLC President Richard Cohen. "The Alliance Defending Freedom spreads demonizing lies about the LGBT community in this country and seeks to criminalize it abroad. If the ADF had its way, gay people would be back in the closet for fear of going to jail. It was inappropriate for Attorney General Sessions to lend his credibility to the group by appearing before it, and it was ironic that he would suggest that the rights of ADF sympathizers are under attack when the ADF is doing everything in its power to deny the equal protection of the laws to the LGBT community."[3] Doug Weller talk 11:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Sessions address

July 2017, Jeff Sessions addressed the group and refused to release details of his talk. One would think that the hosting of such a prominent government person would, or should be, a part of the article. Would an editor make this addition?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jeff-sessions-addresses-anti-lgbt-hate-group-doj/story?id=48593488

--Wikipietime (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Personally this doesn't strike me as sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion unless/until it picks up more media coverage specifically about ADF. More relevant to Jeff Sessions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
This is neither here nor there, but here's another oddity about that source: It apparently mistakenly says that the SPLC designated ADF as a hate group, but the SPLC article it cites says that ADF is an "extremist group," not a hate group. The distinction is critical and is why we don't include the words "hate group" in our article. I'm surprised that an ABC journalist wouldn't care about the distinction. What's worse, the ABC article actually puts quotation marks around "anti-LGBT hate group" even though the SPLC never used those words to describe ADF. Bad reporting. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Nope, as Dr. Flesichman now agrees, the SPLC calls it a hate group, or rather an "anti-LGBT hate group", the quotes are correct.[4] This has received more media coverage since the 13th. Doug Weller talk 16:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Designation as a hate group

I've replaced the section. The problem was that the url for the designation hadn't been added. I've done that. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

No, ADF has not been designated as a hate group. The link is still broken, but check the SPLC source again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The link works fine for me. I thought I'd changed it to this one. And a search on the website shows several. I'm on my iPad and going out shortly, User:Dr. Fleischman could you please fix this? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 04:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
User:DrFleischman Doug Weller talk 04:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Doug Weller, it still fails verification. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Link is fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcostley (talk • contribs) 04:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
And the fixed link clearly indicates the ADF as a hate group. Newimpartial (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Wrong. Read the source. At best ADF is designated as an "extremist" group. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The source reads literally as follows "The following is a list of activities and events of anti-LGBT organizations and individuals. Organizations listed as anti-LGBT hate groups are designated with an asterisk.
Alliance Defending Freedom*"
Care to re-think? Newimpartial (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any of that language, or the asterisk. We must be looking at different pages. Can you provide a link please? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I am following this one [5] that Doug Weller provided. Newimpartial (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
That's satisfactory to me, thanks. It's odd that the SPLC's profile on the group doesn't call them a hate group. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I don't understand why you evidently haven't done a search yourself. Doug Weller talk 05:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: And I think that the link to the list of hate groups[6] added by User:Bcostley is better than the one you added, why did you change it? Doug Weller talk 09:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Because the one Bcostley added didn't describe ADF as a hate group, whereas the one I added did. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, I should have noticed it was a list of extremist groups, not hate groups. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
They appear on the hate group map (https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map), though linking to that is problematic as you have to know to zoom in on Arizona to find them to verify.Bcostley (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Murdock

Q: Should the reference to the Murdock trust have been streamlined as it was?

My stance: An edit to "streamline Murdock trust donations" was made in the ADF article. It seems to me that the name of the trust is the most important piece of information (they gave the money, not Murdock himself). If any streamlining was necessary (and I don't think it was) I would think you'd take out who founded the trust. This would place the sentence more in line with the previous part of the section. Response from the editor who made the change when asked on talk page:

Thanks for writing. A trust is just a legal technicality. Murdock could have called his trust the Wild and Crazy Trust and it wouldn't have made a difference from an encyclopedic standpoint. The noteworthiness of this information is that it was Murdock's trust. If you wish to continue this conversation I suggest we do so at Talk:Alliance Defending Freedom so that others get a chance to participate. --Dr. Fleischman

Further input from me. Mr. Murdock is dead. He has no current control over the trust nor are there any Murdocks involved (at least by last name) in the trust at this time. Bcostley (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I see Mr. Murdock is long gone and had no role in funding ADF. I changed the sentence accordingly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The Federalist

If we are going to include this we need a reason. I guess the best reason is in the SPLC's response[7] which says, among other things:

"Events began Tuesday, when BuzzFeed reporter Dominic Holden broke the news that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was scheduled to deliver remarks hours later at a closed-to-press event hosted by the anti-LGBT hate group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

After refusing comment for two days, the ADF went on the offensive, backed by their allies in the right-wing media. Rather than address why the organization sought to conceal the AG’s speech, ADF attacked the mainstream press for writing about its work vilifying LGBT rights in the U.S. and abroad and for referencing the Southern Poverty Law Center’s work.

The Department of Justice similarly refused comment for two days, and then gave the Attorney General’s remarks exclusively to a rabidly partisan website, The Federalist, rather than posting to the DOJ's website or providing to the press at large. The remarks have not yet been posted on the DOJ’s website, though Sessions appeared in his official role.

The Federalist is well known for its anti-LGBT and specifically anti-trans writings.

It shouldn’t be surprising where Sessions’ comments eventually appeared. The Federalist is well known for its anti-LGBT and specifically anti-trans writings." - it discusses this in a bit of detail. I see none of this is mentioned in our article on the website.

Anyway, we need a reason to include their comment. Of course they hate the SPLC, so do a lot of people. Why include this website? Doug Weller talk 10:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The Federalist is certainly partisan, but of course so is the SPLC. As far as neutrality goes, if we include an SPLC listing, we should include objections/pushback. This is relatively rare - SPLC lists hundreds of organisations and usually it's only the organisation itself that objects (though some wear it as a badge of pride). So in those instances - like ADF or FRC - where third parties criticise the listing/description, we should include it. StAnselm (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Surely not without the context however, and probably the SPLC's response. Doug Weller talk 10:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I would want to be careful about responses to responses - there seems to be the possibility of infinite regress. I wouldn't want to make this page about the SPLC or the Federalist - it is about the ADF. StAnselm (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
So we end up with just one anti-gay group defending another with no context? Doug Weller talk 11:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, otherwise we just have the SPLC merely defending itself. I guess I tend to see SPLC and The Federalist as equal and opposite. The article already has much more on what the SPLC says than on the response - I think we currently have the balance just about right; what you're suggesting would make imbalanced in favour of SPLC. StAnselm (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
If you see a civil rights organization as "equal and opposite" to a site that has rabidly supported white supremacism and bigotry, I think there's a perspective issue. Morty C-137 (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the inclusion of The Federalist's comments is wholly appropriate. They are a noteworthy voice and they were responding directly to the SPLC's designation of ADF. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
It's still WP:UNDUE as sourced. You really do need to find secondary reliable sources, perhaps you can. NPOV isn't about balance, read WP:UNDUE. I've also added the Sessions stuff, using secondary sources to quote LGBT rights groups. And I disagree that the Federalist is equal and opposite. The FBI still works with the SPLC, but not with The Federalist. Reliable sources don't quote it nearly as much as they do the SPLC, etc. Doug Weller talk 10:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
It's undue to include the designation without any of the criticism/pushback it has received. As I said above, that doesn't normally happen with SPLC listings. It wasn't just The Federalist: Fox and the National Review also objected. StAnselm (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
That's downright silly. Opinion pages on right-wing hate sites defend fellow hate site; next up in obvious news is obvious, teenagers masturbate a lot, and water is wet. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. Do you believe there is such a thing as a right-wing non-hate site? Or does right-wing necessarily imply hate? StAnselm (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
That's a spurious and uncivil question. Morty C-137 (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, I'll rephrase it. You are making recommendations for this article based on the idea that Fox News, National Review, and The Federalist are "right-wing hate sites". On what basis do you make that assertion? Can you justify your recommendations based on Wikipedia policy? StAnselm (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I know this isn't addressed to me but I'll answer it. Yes, Wall St. Journal, Weekly Standard and good chunk of National Review (they're sort of uneven) are right wing but not "hate sites" and even RS. The Federalist is not in that category. It's fringe, straight up. Fox News is debatable. A year and a half ago I would've included them in the "not hate site, RS" category but as they've seen their traffic stolen by more extremist venues like Breitbart and what have you, they moved farther and farther into the wacky-stuff territory and at this point pretty much lost all claims to reliability (Seth Rich stuff, etc).Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  1. The Fox link is an opinion piece. Not relevant to this page - even before one checks the byline and realizes it's paid content from someone who usually writes clickbait for "Newsbusters", which is a fake-news attack site run by the "Media Research Center".
  2. National Review is not a WP:RS for good reason and again, your link is an opinion piece (by a particularly odious writer at that), even before one reads it and realizes it's the worst kind of gaslighting nonsense.
As such, both of your offerings fail at WP:RS and at Wikipedia:Notability. Morty C-137 (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, of course they're opinion pieces. That's the whole point. Morty C-137, it sounds like you just don't like David A. French/NR/right-wing types/whatever. StAnselm (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
They still fail WP:RS and WP:NOTABILITY. Invalid for use here. Next? Morty C-137 (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Wait, are you saying Fox News fails WP:NOTABILITY? Woah! StAnselm (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Paid-content editorials from the "Media Research Center" published on the "opinion" section fail both WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RS by definition. Morty C-137 (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
What makes you say it's a "paid-content editorial"? StAnselm (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
The fact that it, like every other piece of content ever posted to Fox News by that particular "author" employed by the "Media Research Center" propaganda group, is a paid-content editorial. Morty C-137 (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but do you have any evidence of that? StAnselm (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
1 - Item is located in "Opinion" section http://www.foxnews.com/opinion..., 2 - Corinne Weaver is an intern for Media Research Center Culture at end of column. If you check her "byline" on the site, every single other entry is paid content from MRC. But even if that were not the case, it's WP:USERGENERATED content that doesn't even follow the usual basically-nonexistent "controls" of Fox. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not evidence. Not of it being a paid-content editorial. You say "every single other entry is paid content from MRC", but where does it say that? StAnselm (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Please re-read wikipedia policies. Thanks. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with WP policies. We're talking about the Fox News article. How do you know it's paid content? StAnselm (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
You seem to be caught in a loop, this has already been explained. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Not it hasn't. You haven't demonstrated why the Weaver article is paid content. StAnselm (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Disagree Dr. TheFederalist is non-RS and pretty much FRINGE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
This. The Federalist has a reputation of being slightly less truthful than the National Enquirer - setting aside the numerous other issues, such as money-laundering advocacy pieces for which payment isn't disclosed and their founder's history of plagiarism. Their second founder, Sean Davis, is the author of numerous "smear" stories (pun unintended), including attacking the students who reported a fecal swastika graffiti at Mizzou even after police confirmed the event was real. It's the epitome of conservative fake news. Morty C-137 (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
So Domanech founded this website a few months after the advocacy pieces. I think that's relevant to this article as well, although probably not his earlier plagiarism. Doug Weller talk 17:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hate group section is undue

First off, I should make myself clear that I have no problem simply mentioning the fact that the SPLC labeled ADF a "hate group." However, devoting an entire section under a level 2 header to this instance violates WP:UNDUE. It is giving this incident far more weight than it deserves. The SPLC is not respected by at least one half of the U.S. political spectrum, and in the long run, it does not seem that this designation is very notable in defining ADF. I recommend merging this section into an existing one, such as the "History" section (this incident is part of ADF's history, after all). --1990'sguy (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Or "Positions", which mentions SPLC anyway. StAnselm (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe a little undue, but it's definitely unsightly. The section is too section to merit its own heading. I would move it into into "Positions." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiments expressed by all of you. If the heading is kept, an alternative option would be to rename the heading as "Criticism". I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 15:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the hate group section being moved to a "Criticism" section. It is also necessary to provide a counter argument or that some groups refute the hate group label (while providing citations). I would also recommend adding a brief comment that the SLPC has come under increasing criticism for relaxing their standards of what is considered a hate group to include groups that have not history of physical violence against others or illegal activity (see wiki's own SLPC article section "controversies over hate group and extremist listings" section for citations). The comments about Jeff Sessions are out of place in this article. His speech has now been fully published [1], and though he did speak to the ADF, his speech does not define ADF policy and was not noteworthy enough to include in an article about the ADF.Juparo01 (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jupar01: Did someone suggest that you come here and post? Because it's very odd that you are suggesting that the hate group section be moved to a criticism section as it's been in a criticism section for 3 weeks. Doug Weller talk 09:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/13/heres-the-speech-jeff-sessions-delivered-to-christian-first-amendment-lawyers/

Mass Reversion of Cases

@Doug Weller: is it your position that this case fails your "criteria" of "mainstream media sources showing ADF played a substantial role"??? http://wxxinews.org/post/supreme-court-rules-prayers-greece-can-continue – Lionel(talk) 14:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

They played a major role in that case and it's covered it mainstream sources.[8] Well, I thought they played a major role. Maybe I'm wrong. Why isn't it mentioned at Town of Greece v. Galloway? Here's the transcript of who did what.[9] This NYT article definitely says they did and is a much better source.[10] Doug Weller talk 14:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok so Greece meets your criteria. What is your objection to Line 35 ? – Lionel(talk) 14:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

SCOTUS Appearances in Lead?

According to the Notable Cases section the ADF is noted as having won 5 cases in the past 3 years. I've updated this with a WashPo piece which notes 9 cases (all won) in less than a decade, though the phrasing could probably use work. (If anyone has figures for all their cases argued\won that'd be even better). Since SCOTUS considers roughly 80 cases a year 9 cases (all won) seems a fairly good record and something that merits mention in the lead as a counterpoint to the hategroup label. Thoughts? 人族 (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The entire article merits more mention than the SPLC's libel. In fact the libel should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:D80:1B00:95EB:62BC:FAE7:9486 (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Read WP:NLT. This isn't libel just because it's unflattering.
As for "counterpoints", that approach indicates false balance. The article should reflect information in proportion to reliable sources, not according to an editor's personal assessment of how "good" their record is. If reliable, independent sources present it as a counterpoint, so should Wikipedia. If they don't specifically present it as a counterpoint, it would be both non-neutral, and original research for Wikipedia to do so. Grayfell (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
The SPLC's label is libel, even if it hasn't been deemed so by a court of law in this instance, but libel is all the SPLC has done for more than a decade c.f. their court record for the last decade. User:Some Long IP address 13:16, 25 July 2018 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:D80:1B00:95EB:62BC:FAE7:9486 (talk)
Read WP:TPG and WP:SIGNATURE. Don't refactor comments merely to interrupt. Find reliable sources or stop wasting other people's time. Grayfell (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alliance_Defending_Freedom/Archive_2&oldid=1136510958"