Jump to content

Talk:Doug Wardlow

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Doug Wardlow. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 05:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly belongs in the lede

[edit]

You can't be a political candidate for office who has made a career out of defending outright homophobia and transphobia and not have your work for an anti-gay hate group discussed in the lede of your Wikipedia biography. It may be inconvenient for Wardlow, but he made that choice. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC analysis does not belong in the lede

[edit]

SPLC characterization of Wardlow does indeed belong in an encyclopedic article, however, their further analysis should not extend out of an opinion piece, otherwise every written article would be worthy of Wikipedia entry. SPLC analysis does not belong in the summary section of any wikipedia page, it belongs in the ===views=== section to maintain neutrality of the article.

Koncurrentkat (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see articles such as Jared Taylor, where the SPLC’s views of people are included in the lede. There is no general rule such as you believe exists - we rely upon reliable sources, and right now most of the reliable sources commenting on Wardlow do so in the context of his work for an anti-gay hate group. He is not otherwise very notable - he had a brief, apparently-undistinguished legislative career, and is now running for office. You appear to be arguing that the work Wardlow is most notable for in his career cannot be discussed here because it may paint him in a bad light. That is not Wikipedia’s problem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Are you saying a member of a state legislature or a candidate for Attorney General does not qualify under Wiki's notability requirements? Your comment on his "apparently-undistinguished legislative career" somewhat reveals bias, as does your one-sided contribution history. You have repeatedly implied or outright told me what my underlying reasoning is. Mainly you have implied that my reasoning for my edits is political. Feel free to examine my positive contributions I have made to his opponent Lori Swanson and many other democratic politicians. My reasoning is certainly biased towards maintaining neutrality-however I doubt you will imply that one lol.

Koncurrentkat (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article violates WP:NPOVNeutrality

[edit]

It is becoming more clear this article will need a NPOV tag. You must keep to wiki policies on neutrality?

Depending heavily on a single source which also happens to be a self-published website by a group of civil rights attorneys may not be a reliable source for this purpose. It is actually a primary source. The sources that are needed here should be history books or newspapers.

The point is Yes one opinion of Wardlow is he is member of an ant-gay hate group, but the article keeps stressing this in an attempt to portray THIS is over again, and THIS is why the article does not abide by wiki NPOV policy. The article is supposed to be kept neutral for such an encyclopedia source as Wikipedia. Mention sure, even hi-light what the SPLC has stated, but not make it the repetitive theme of the entire article, when many Americans (let alone readers) simply do not agree with that SPLC's point of view. This is not a propaganda piece, its an encyclopedic article.

Koncurrentkat (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


If there are other opinions of Wardlow from reliable sources, they should be included. The problem with your position is that anti-gay/trans legal work appears to be the only notable thing Wardlow has ever done in his life. So of course reliable source discussion of him will focus there. That he is running for office in a blue state on his record of homophobic legal work is his problem, not ours. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Like Koncurrentkat said, SPLC's view of ADF certainly reflects the view of many Americans, but not all. See https://www.wsj.com/articles/fake-news-from-the-splc-1507847385, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/28/morris-dees-splc-trump-southern-poverty-law-center-215312, and https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/10/maajid-nawaz-splc-anti-muslim-extremist/505685/. 63.241.40.127 (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)63.241.40.127, 23 October 2018.[reply]

Neither of those articles discuss Wardlow, and hence are irrelevant to this discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that the above comments are not really relevant to the subject of article which Wardlow. SPLC is a liberal, civil rights advocacy group, NOT the hyperbolic title of “fake news.” I dislike the phrase “SPLC has designated it as a hate group” would prefer something closer to: ADF has received criticism from SPLC, a liberal civil rights advocacy group, as being a hate group.
However, back in February I mentioned that SPLC is a primary source (self-published by a group of civil rights attorneys.) SPLC's criticism of subject's employer as a "hate group," does not really have a widespread consensus and likely does not belong in their employee’s encyclopedic entry (It certainly in ADF’s encyclopedic entry.) In the inverse, a SPLC attorney should not have ADF’s characterization of SPLC in their encyclopedic entry. (This is similar to why we don’t list the criticisms or achievements of every politician’s political affiliation or athlete's team, that’s why we have the "blue hyper-link.") (I.e. Why ADF’s SCOTUS achievements don't belong in a individual’s entry, unless the individual is responsible for the achievement.) Again, article is about the individual not the organization.
I recall NorthBySouthBaranof's suggestion that we should include SPLC’s characterizations, along with other contrary characterizations. This may be proper in SPLC’s lede or ADF’s lede, but not in Wardlow’s. (We would otherwise have to cite every source that disputes every source such as Washington Examiner or Jeff Sessions every time we mention SPLC’s labeling an individual's organization just because they dispute SPLC's designation of ADF as a hate group.) This would lead to the individual's article getting off topic.
If SPLC hate group designations had more of a widespread consensus, we would include them in every individual's encyclopedic entry. There is a distinct split whether SPLC’s characterizations are overbroad or unwarranted, so we need to be careful, where they can be cited in an individual's neutral, encyclopedic article.
However, there is a widespread consensus that ADF is a conservative Christian legal advocacy group (maybe even a consensus that its “Far-right”), just like there is a widespread consensus that Southern Poverty Law Center is a liberal, civil rights advocacy group. We can say those. Koncurrentkat (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NorthBySouthBaranof Do you have a response to this matter? Koncurrentkat (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight towards his social conservatism

[edit]

The article probably gives undue weight to his social conservatism, at the expense of everything else. The content on his social conservatism in the article is decent; the problem is little else is being covered. This is a very active politician, so we need to get this right. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

/* Alliance Defending Freedom */ I'm totally fine to say the SPLC describes him as, "anti-gay" however, getting into borderline bias detail of "threatening to sue" and "citing discredited researchers" giving to much weight to this narrative? I feel like, maybe in ADF's wiki page that's proper, but I can hardly see why it belongs in its employee's encyclopedic article? Koncurrentkat (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He undoubtedly cited discredited researchers, as discussed in the cited reliable sources. Mainstream medicine is unanimous in declaring transgender people to be a normal, healthy variation of human sexuality and diversity. Claims to the contrary are fringe theories which have been widely rejected by reliable medical sources. One may certainly be opposed to transgender people on religious grounds, but attempting to claim medical or scientific backing for those claims is entering a different realm, and that realm has been effectively discredited. Wardlow chose to enter the realm of science by citing junk science, and he cannot escape the consequences. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The SPLC article said, "Prior to his testimony, he sent a letter to the board in which he used the discredited research of Mark Regnerus and Paul McHugh (the other article was a blog post lol.) You want Wardlow's article to say "Citing discredited researchers", this is a mischaracterization of the article because the article was not saying that. It's fine to have →Mark Regnerus and Paul R. McHugh's respective encyclopedic articles's ledes saying they are discredited, however, this entry is about Doug Wardlow not Mark Regnerus and Paul R. McHugh. Just like I said earlier about ADF's achievements and criticisms, those belong on ADF's page not Wardlow's. Adrian Peterson's entry does not mention the MN Vikings 4 SuperBowl losses just because he played for that team. Likewise, AP's abuse allegations don't belong on the Vikings' entry. Koncurrentkat (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that something is a "blog post" doesn't mean it's not a reliable source. You should probably read WP:RS. Blogs, when published by reliable sources, are reliable sources just as anything else. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough as to the blog post. Do you have a response to my concern that you are mischaracterizing the SPLC article? Koncurrentkat (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sun Crow Do you have anything to say on this matter? Koncurrentkat (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Koncurrentkat, the disputed phrase regarding "discredited sources" is blatantly POV and should not be included. However, I could live with a sentence along the lines of "In an article for the Sunnytown Times, Jane Doe opined that Wardlow used discredited sources." SunCrow (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing "blatantly POV" about including the mainstream POV. Wardlow's POV on the matter of transgender people is decidedly fringe - his belief that they are dangerous or abnormal is rejected by mainstream medical science. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even going to respond to that. What I will say is that the entire problem can be solved by removing the following three sentences, which are not reliably sourced:
In 2017, Wardlow testified in an Anoka-Hennepin school board meeting against allowing transgender students to access facilities in accordance with their stated gender identities.(https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/07/24/alliance-defending-freedom-through-years; https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/04/04/how-hate-group-alliance-defending-freedom-infiltrating-public-schools/215909) Wardlow has argued that transgender students using bathrooms reflecting their stated gender threatens the safety and privacy of other students, and that requiring students to refer to transgender people in accordance with their stated gender identities violates students' free speech rights under the First Amendment.(http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/10345)
Does that work for everyone? SunCrow (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place for original research

[edit]

NorthBySouthBaranof:

"He undoubtedly cited discredited researchers, as discussed in the cited reliable sources. Mainstream medicine is unanimous in declaring transgender people to be a normal, healthy variation of human sexuality and diversity. Claims to the contrary are fringe theories which have been widely rejected by reliable medical sources. One may certainly be opposed to transgender people on religious grounds, but attempting to claim medical or scientific backing for those claims is entering a different realm, and that realm has been effectively discredited. Wardlow chose to enter the realm of science by citing junk science, and he cannot escape the consequences." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This may be true, but doing your separate research to say Mark Regnerus and Paul R. McHugh are discredited researchers is not the conversation we should be having. You have done separate research about these two researchers and now you are arguing that it should be written that they are discredited as researchers based on other research that you have done independently of any article that even mentions Wardlow. Not only is this article getting off-topic, you are putting together your own original thesis that Mark Regnerus and Paul R. McHugh are discredited researchers when the SPLC article doesn't even say that? The conversation should focus neutrality, prose, credible sources, proper citation etc. As I stated back in February, your editing seems to favor liberals and disfavor conservatives, I hope your editing is not politically motivated. Koncurrentkat (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Koncurrentkat. SunCrow (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on ADF section

[edit]

Does the ADF section meet Wikipedia's standards for (1) factual accuracy and (2) neutrality?

63.241.40.127 (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get into an edit war, as my revisions have been undone several times already, so I'm requesting third-party input. While it's certainly appropriate (even important) for the ADF section to note Doug Wardlow's opposition to transgender-inclusive policies, I'm concerned that the ADF section might mischaracterize the facts stated in the cited sources in a few minor ways:
(1) The ADF section states that "Doug Wardlow's work with Alliance Defending Freedom has included suing and threatening to sue school districts for allowing transgender students to use restrooms in accordance with their gender identity." (Emphasis added.) ADF itself has certainly sued school districts before. At best, Doug Wardlow's past statements might be construed as implying the threat of legal action only insofar as Wardlow has stated that school districts that adopt certain transgender-inclusive policies may incur the risk of legal liability (see https://cplaction.com/wp-content/uploads/ADF-Ltr-Anoka-Hennepin-School-Board.pdf and http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/10345). But the cited sources only state that Doug Wardlow testified in opposition to the proposed adoption of "a transgender-inclusive policy at an Anoka-Hennepin School Board meeting."
(2) The ADF section also states that Doug Wardlow "cit[ed] discredited researchers to argue that allowing transgender people to use restroom facilities in accordance with their identity would pose a danger to other students and violates privacy rights." Setting aside the question of whether these researchers have or have not been "discredited," Wardlow did not cite the Regnerus and McHugh studies for the proposition that transgender-inclusive bathroom policies would pose a danger to other students; he cited these studies for a completely different proposition (see page 8 and 9 of https://cplaction.com/wp-content/uploads/ADF-Ltr-Anoka-Hennepin-School-Board.pdf).
(3) Finally, the ADF section states that "Wardlow has argued that transgender students using bathrooms reflecting their gender threatens the 'safety and privacy' of other students, and that requiring students to refer to transgender people using appropriate pronouns violates their free speech rights under the First Amendment." The actual quote from Wardlow is that "[s]chool districts have the duty and discretion to create policies that safeguard the privacy and safety of all students as well as the rights of parents," which is slightly different. Read in context, however, maybe the original language is close enough to be kept?
I've tried to read the cited sources to verify the asserted facts, but I admit that there may be some (uncited) sources out there that I haven't found or read, so I'll leave the ultimate resolution of this dispute to other editors. Thanks!
63.241.40.127 (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, 63.241.40.127. I have made some edits to this section to try to bring it back to clarity and NPOV. Unfortunately, those who have other goals are (predictably) attempting to thwart those efforts. SunCrow (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's please avoid speculation about the motivations of other editors / implications of an agenda. Such comments are not just counter-intuitive to the consensus-building process, they are strictly forbidden per WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:CIV. Please keep your comments focused on the edits, not your opinions about the shortcomings or suspected motivations of other editors. If you wish to note that an edit has been reverted, you can do that without launching broadsides at the "opposition". Snow let's rap 06:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the additional details, 63.241. It's rare that we see an IP attempt to break gridlock by reaching out through an appropriate feedback process, and rarer still that one makes their argument neutrally. FYI, though, it is often better to propose more specific inquiries for the RfC than to ask such a broad question. To wit, I'll respond directly the three more nuanced issues you've raised in your follow-up post:
  • As to 1): To the extent that Wardlow is an attorney who was acting on behalf of the ADF, I don't don't know that it's particularly problematic to say that he sued the entities in question; as an idiomatic matter, both within legal culture and in general parlance, this verb is often used in this unqualified manner, ascribing agency to the attorney when describing the filing of a suit on behalf of a client. That said, there's plenty of other ways this could be phrased to make his relationship to the activity more explicit and I don't see any reason not to use more nuanced language. If we were to say something along the lines of "Wardlow brought suit on behalf of ADF against [defendants] with regard to [claims].", would that satisfy your concerns?
  • As to 2): If there is some question as to the nature of the proposition, it may be useful to quote him directly, with full attribution. That said, it might still make sense to also continue to provide descriptions of his conduct/stances/activities which do not jive with our interpretation of events, provided those descriptions come from reliable sources. Remember, the standard is WP:verifiability, not WP:TRUTH; where reliable sources describe the statements of a party in terms we find are inaccurate, we still must avoid any inclination to suppress those views (no matter how misrepresenatative we feel they may be) if they have sufficient WP:WEIGHT. To do otherwise is a kind of WP:original research and is non-WP:NEUTRAL. However, if it was one of our own editors using his words as a primary source, and mischaracterizing them in Wikipedia's own voice, that is another matter, and can be corrected. In either event, quoting Wardlow directly with attribution will probably help clarify the matter and allow the reader to use their own judgement as to what he meant, provided the proper amount of context is also supplied.
  • As to 3): I don't think the form of the statement in the article prose is really incongruous with the statement in the source in this instance. They both describe the same underlying social/legal theory; Wardlow simply foregrounds his argument in terms of the conduct of the institutions in question, but the argument he is making is clearly that for those institutions to act otherwise is to create a threat (or at least a possibility of a threat) to safety and privacy--so I would say this is an accurate description of the arguments he has advanced in his professional capacity. Once again here, I don't see harm in rephrasing a little to address any concerns, but of the three matters you raise, I would say this is the one of least concern and I wouldn't see any harm or inappropriateness in leaving that particular sentence as is.
I hope that's of some use. My appreciation to you again, even as a community member previously uninvolved with this dispute, for recognizing the wisdom in RfCing this as opposed edit-warring or a fruitless back-and-forth. Snow let's rap 06:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-LGBT bullying accusations

[edit]

Should the article cover accusations[1] that Wardlow bullied others for being gay? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once it hits the mainstream press, I think we have too. I can't read the article from Pioneer Press b/c I've hit my monthly hits. Has any other mainstream media pick it up yet? Koncurrentkat (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but it should be limited to one or two sentences under "personal life" and should include Wardlow's denial of the accusation. SunCrow (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't put it up yet. Only one outlet has covered it thus far. Koncurrentkat (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BRD

[edit]

I disagree with the WP:BOLD changes made here, particularly the weakening and watering-down of the well-sourced material related to Wardlow's fringe beliefs about transgender people. I have reverted to a prior stable version and per WP:BRD, I request that they not be reinstated until consensus is reached. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For one, "stated" is unnecessary - a transgender person doesn't have a "stated" gender, they simply have their gender. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of people have been editing this page without confrontation, with the exception of you. I think there already is a consensus. Adposteriori (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NorthBySouthBaranof, I would have a great deal more interest in attempting to reach consensus with you if you had not reverted a total of eight edits I made in one fell swoop. Several of those edits had nothing to do with the LGBT issues you mentioned. Some were minor edits. If you had concentrated your edits on the LGBT issues instead of obliterating every edit I made, that would have been a different story.
In any case, I stand by my edits. As per comments I made in recent days on this talk page, it is my position that the article had POV problems before I made those edits. SunCrow (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doug_Wardlow&oldid=1255785477"